28 August 2019

An Extraordinary Meeting of Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 28 August 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.         Receipt of Apologies

2.         Declaration of Interest

3.         Address by invited speakers

4.         Reports

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

5.      Closed Session Reports

 

 28 August 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP058/19... Section 4.56 Modification Application - 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Holroyd................................................................................................................................. 5

LPP059/19... Development Application - 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield........................... 81

LPP060/19... Development Application - 123 Magowar Road, Girraween.................... 147

LPP061/19... Development Application for 44 (Lot 123) Winnima Circuit, Pemulwuy & Part Lot 124, Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy.................................................................... 477

LPP062/19... Development Application for 38 - 42 (Lot 101) Winnima Circuit and Part Lot 124, Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy.............................................................................. 589

LPP063/19... Development Application for 46 (Lot 122) Winnima Circuit and Part Lot 124 Butu Wargun Drive, Pemwulwuy........................................................................... 717

28 August 2019

 

Item No: EELPP058/19

Section 4.56 Modification Application - 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Holroyd

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    2016/496/7  

 

 

Council is in receipt of a Section 4.56 Modification Application 2016/496/7 from Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including reconfiguration of car parking arrangement, balcony reconfiguration on the southern elevation of Building 3, rearrangement of apartments on the northern elevation of Building 4 to introduce 8 dual key apartments and relocation of substation kiosk at 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Holroyd (formerly known as 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands). The Architectural Plans accompanying the application are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The application was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 8 May 2019 to 29 May 2019 in accordance with the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). In response, no submissions were received.

The part of the site which Buildings 3 and 4 are sited is zoned R4 High Density Residential, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP). A Residential Flat Building is permissible with development consent in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

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

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 (Remediation of Land), SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), Draft SEPP (Environment), and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

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

The Development Application was referred for comments externally to Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer and Tree Management Officer, to which the application is supported.

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

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as it is a 4.56 modification application involving a variation to a development standard.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Approve the Section 4.56 Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 20-22, 24, 24R and 27 Dressler Court, Holroyd (formerly known as 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands), and is legally described as Lot 3, DP 1248018, Lot 0, DP 99424, Lot 6, DP 1248018, and Lot 0, DP 99503. The land is an irregular shaped lot and has a frontage of 110.82 metres to the southern Neil Street boundary; a 100.65 metre depth along the western side boundary; a 180.5 metre width along the northern rear boundary; and a 131.15 metre depth along the eastern boundary shared with the railway corridor. The total site area is 15,763sqm. The site is illustrated in Figure 2 below with the portion of the site of the approved residential flat Buildings 3 and 4 being the eastern half of the site, known as Lot 3, DP 1248018 or more commonly 20-22 Dressler Court, Holroyd, with the site are being 6,765m², and marked with a star.

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site contains constructed residential flat buildings 1 and 2 on the western half of the site, and partially constructed extension to Dressler Court. The land is split by the A’Becketts Creek watercourse which traverses the site in a north to south direction and forms a natural feature and constraint for the site.

The topography of the site is fairly consistent with a slight fall from south to north. The land is affected by Local Overland Stormwater Overflow.

The part of the land on which Buildings 3 and 4 are sited is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to the HLEP, as shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 - Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Neil Street, Merrylands, and is located within the Neil Street Precinct. The subject site is adjacent to a railway corridor that spans the eastern boundary of the site and approximately 350 metres north-east from Merrylands train station. The site is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 – Aerial View (Source: Nearmap, 2019)

The locality is characterised by existing low rise former industrial premises to the west along Neil Street; mixed use and residential flat building developments approved, under construction, and recently completed to the west and north; commercial and retail development to the south-west and residential to the east and south.

The subject site currently benefits from vehicular access directly from Neil Street. Vehicular access to the development is dependent on a proposed extension of Dressler Court at the north of the site, which will connect to a new road running through the site along the western side of the A’Becketts Creek watercourse.

The site is located adjacent to a heritage item to the north being the former brickworks site known as Item I53 - Goodlet & Smith (brick-making plant and chimney, Hoffman kiln & chimney). The subject site is known as the Millmaster Feeds site and is identified as a potential Archaeological site. Figure 5 below illustrates the location of the heritage items, listed above:

Figure 5 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

Description of The Proposed Development

Development Application 2016/496/1 was approved via Land and Environment Court Appeal No. 2017/00132561 for construction of 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots.

On 11 September 2017, Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/2 was approved which sought minor alterations to the approved residential flat building development, predominately relating to the western elevation of Building 3.

On 14 August 2018, Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/5 was approved, which sought amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots.

On 4 October 2018, Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/6 was approved, which sought the removal of the subdivision component of the development.

On 13 March 2019, Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/3 was approved, which sought internal and external alterations to Building 4.

On 13 March 2019, Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/4 was approved, which sought internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 & 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk.

The changes sought via the subject Section 4.56 Application are internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including reconfiguration of car parking arrangement, balcony reconfiguration on the southern elevation of Building 3, rearrangement of apartments on the northern elevation of Building 4 to introduce 8 dual key apartments and relocation of substation kiosk.

Specific details of the key proposed changes, as outlined within the Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 3 April 2019, and Addendum SEE prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 23 July 2019 are as follows:

Level	Unit	Modifications
Basement 3	N/A	Footprint of the basement amended, with a recessed / reduction in perimeter wall.
	N/A	Modification to the layout and arrangement of car parking.
	N/A	Relocation of supply air fan room at south-western corner of basement.
	N/A	Modification to the number of car parking spaces.
Basement 2	N/A	Footprint of the basement amended, with recessed / reduction in perimeter wall.
	N/A	Modification to the layout and arrangement of car parking.
	N/A	Relocation of supply air fan room at south-western corner of basement.
	N/A	Modification to the number of car parking spaces.
Basement 1	N/A	Footprint of the basement amended, with recessed / reduction in perimeter wall.
	N/A	Modification to the layout and arrangement of car parking.
	N/A	Reconfiguration of plant / equipment and garbage rooms at south-western corner.
	N/A	Modification to the number of car parking spaces.
Building 3 – Ground	3.0.01	Relocation of the electrical substation kiosk to the south-western corner adjoining Unit 3.0.01, and reconfiguration of Unit 3.0.01
	N/A	Relocation of meter cupboards.
	N/A	Removal of Trees 31 & 34 adjacent to the southern boundary.
	3.0.05	Modified, with reduction in balcony size to 15m².
Building 3 – Levels 1 to 8	3.L.01	Balcony reduced and ‘pop out’ moved to allow installation of the substation.
Building 4 – Ground	N/A	Relocation of meter cupboards.
	N/A	Removal of one visitor parking space.
	4.0.08	Modified, increasing the floor area into a previously approved void.
	4.0.10	Change to a dual key unit with a 2 bedroom and studio arrangement with associated new balcony at the northern elevation.
Building 4 – Levels 1-5	4.L.08	Modified, increasing the floor area into a previously approved void.
	4.L.12	Change to dual key units with a 2 bedroom and studio arrangement with associated new balcony at the northern elevation.
Building 4 – Level 6	4.6.03	Modified, increasing the floor area into a previously approved void.
	4.6.07	Change to a dual key unit with a 2 bedroom and studio arrangement with associated new balcony at the northern elevation.
Building 4 – Level 7	4.6.04	Modified, increasing the floor area into a previously approved void.
	4.7.07	Change to a dual key unit with a 2 bedroom and studio arrangement with associated new balcony at the northern elevation.

Note:          The proposal converts 16 x 1 bedroom units to 8 dual key apartments comprising 8 x studio units and 8 x 2 bedroom units. Furthermore, the number of parking spaces is proposed to change from 449 spaces to 438 spaces.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd dated 3 April 2019 and was received by Council on 4 April 2018 in support of the application.

The Statement of Environmental Effects was subsequently modified on 23 July 2019, following Council’s review of the submitted plans.

 

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 comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, subject to conditions.

Tree Management Officer

The modification application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

Planning Comments

Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEPP 65 and the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG) apply to the assessment of the subject application as it includes residential flat buildings that are 3 storeys or more in height and contain more than 4 dwellings.

The Development Application has been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a Registered Architect. The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of SEPP 65 and the ADG, with the exception of building separation, which is discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

 

Building Separation

·        The ADG requires a minimum separation distance for buildings to side and rear boundaries of 9 metres, for levels 5 to 8, as measured to habitable rooms and balconies. In this regard, elements of the approved development do not adhere to the required building separation as measured to the northern property boundary, with a separation of 6.075m. The proposed modification application seeks to propose an additional balcony associated with Unit 4.L.12 (Levels 4 and 5), Unit 4.6.07 (Level 6), and Unit 4.7.07 (Level 7), with a setback of 8.2 metres as measured to the northern property boundary.

The proposed variation achieves the aims and objectives of the ADG, and is considered supportable on its merits, noting:

·        The balconies in question have been offset from openings of the adjoining residential development. In the case of the development at 42-50 Brickworks Drive, Holroyd, the area which maintains an interface with the balconies in question, is maintained to a blank wall associated with the stairwell and lift core. Furthermore, the Applicant has proposed a visual privacy screen to the extent of the encroachment. Subsequently, privacy of the subject development and the development at 42-50 Brickworks Drive, Holroyd, is maintained.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the modification application. The proposed modifications do not affect the previous assessment regarding upgrading existing utility services including water, gas or telecommunications.

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

The subject development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line and the original proposed development also included a substation, which is proposed to be relocated. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, subject to conditions which are included as an endorsed document within the Draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP, as the subject site is located adjacent to a railway corridor. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 85 of the ISEPP.

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

The application is subject to clause 86 of the ISEPP as the proposed redevelopment of the site involves excavation to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing), on land within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 86 of the ISEPP.

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

The application is subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is in or adjacent to a rail corridor or is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 87 of the ISEPP.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

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

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

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

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The original DA proposed over 300 dwellings and over 400 parking spaces and accordingly was referred to the RMS for comment in accordance with Clause 104 of the ISEPP. No changes are proposed to the development which would trigger a re-assessment against Clause 104 of the ISEPP.

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

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged and endorsed as a part of Development Application 2016/496/1. An amended BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the subject application, which confirms the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

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

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

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

(f)      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP)

The part of the land on which Buildings 3 and 4 are sited is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to the HLEP. The subject development continues to be characterised as 2 x residential flat buildings.

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 definition of that term in the dictionary.

The development complies with the development standards contained within the HLEP, with the exception of the Floor Space Ratio development standard. A comprehensive assessment against the HLEP is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of the HLEP as approved, with a continued non-compliance with the FSR development standard. The subject modification application proposes an increase in the GFA by 37.6sqm which increases the FSR variation from 3.71:1 (approved under Section 4.56 Application 2016/496/4) to 3.72:1.

A Clause 4.6 request is not required as the application is made under Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, however, Council has considered the proposed variation based on the various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179. The above case laws set out a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request, which is discussed in detail below.

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

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

The modified development is considered to be consistent with the R4 High Density Residential objectives, as it provides for the housing needs of the community and a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

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

The modified development is considered to be consistent with the Floor Space Ratio objectives as outlined within Clause 4.4 of the HLEP, as it facilities the development of a variety of housing types, ensures that development is compatible with the existing and desired future building form and character of the locality, and provide a high level of amenity for residential areas and ensures adequate provision for vehicle and pedestrian access, private open space and landscaping.

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

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

·        FSR and GFA averaging has previously been applied across the entire site for the overall 4 buildings that form the original development, and a condition was imposed on the original consent granted, requiring a positive covenant to be imposed on the lot containing Building 1 to preclude any future applications adding GFA to that building. Of note, when assessed against the average across the site, the proposed amendments remain compliant, with an overall maximum permitted average equivalent to 45,177m², and a proposed average of 42,479.6.4m² proposed.

·        The additional GFA does no result in a perceptible increase in building bulk, height or scale, noting it is contained internal to the built form and at the northern corner of Building 4.

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

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

The 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 the Floor Space Ratio development standard, and development within the R4 High Density Residential zone. In this regard, the exception is well founded and can be supported.

Conclusion

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest, as it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the view of Council Officers that considering the application on its merit, the variation to the maximum Floor Space Ratio development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

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

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

(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.

As noted within the assessment above under the heading ‘Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’, the proposed development raises no issues, as no impact on the catchment is envisaged.

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

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP)

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

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

There is no planning agreement or draft planning agreement associated with the subject modification application.

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

The proposed development raises no concerns as to the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A 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. The proposal seeks modification to Buildings 3 and 4 of the approved residential flat building development. Modifications are minor in nature and will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding development. Accordingly, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

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

Advertised (newspaper)               Mail                Sign              Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 8 May 2019 to 29 May 2019. In response, no submissions were received.

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

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

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contributions

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions. In accordance with the currently indexed rates, the contribution applicable for the proposed changes is $81,480. The draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 2 includes a recommendation to reflect the above contributions.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

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

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the HLEP and are consistent with the zone. The development however proposes a variation to the building separation requirements under the ADG, and further variation to the Floor Space Ratio development standard under the HLEP. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Report Recommendation: That Section 4.56 Application 2016/496/7 seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including reconfiguration of car parking arrangement, balcony reconfiguration on the southern elevation of Building 3, rearrangement of apartments on the northern elevation of Building 4 to introduce 8 dual key apartments and relocation of substation kiosk on land at 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Holroyd, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

1.      Attachment 1 -  Architectural Plans ⇩

2.      Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

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

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

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

 

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 -  Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 August 2019

 

Item No: LPP059/19

Development Application - 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2019/136/1  

 

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application from Rentobin Pty Ltd seeking use of Unit 1 for the purpose of a waste transfer station at 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield. The Development Application Architectural Plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The Development Application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days from 12 June 2019 to 26 June 2019 in accordance with the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). In response, 2 submissions were received, inclusive of 1 petition with 34 signatures.

The site is zoned IN2 Light Industrial, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP). Waste or resource transfer station is permissible with development consent in the IN2 Light Industrial.

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP), Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), Draft SEPP (Environment), and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

The Development Application was referred for comments externally to Roads and Maritime Services, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Environmental Health Officer, and Resource Recovery Officer, to which the application is supported.

 

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

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

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Approve the Development Application, subject to the Draft Notice of Determination provided at Attachment 2 to this report.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield, and is legally described as Lot 1, DP 373219. The site is irregular, having a frontage of 109.880 metres to Betts Road, depth of 94.666 metres along the northern boundary and 95.936 metres along the southern boundary, and rear boundary of 137.484 metres. The northern (side) boundary of the site adjoins the Lower Prospect Canal Reserve, and Unit 1 is located within the south-eastern portion of the site. The total site area is 12,140msqm, and is illustrated in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site is divided into 4 units, which are as follows:

·        Unit 1 - Single storey industrial unit and open yard area, the subject of this application, which is currently used as a waste or resource transfer station. The subject application seeks to formalise the existing use.

·        Unit 3 - Single storey industrial unit and open yard area, used as a metal scrapyard.

·        Unit 4 - Single storey industrial unit and open yard area, used as a tyre recycling facility.

·        Unit 6 - (Previously Units 2 and 5) Divided into 2 areas on site, and used for brick sorting and cleaning as follows:

Area 1 - Single storey industrial unit and open yard area; and

Area 2 - Open yard area.

The surrounding locality is characterised as follows:

·        North - Lower Prospect Canal Reserve, with low density residential beyond.

·        East - Cumberland Highway, with Lower Prospect Canal Reserve and low density residential beyond.

·        South - 95 Betts Road, Smithfield – Warehouse used as a mechanical workshop, with industrial development beyond.

·        West - 113 Woodpark Road, Smithfield – 4 x factory units, with industrial development beyond.

Figure 3 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site, an understanding of the unit subdivision as depicted above, and the general surroundings.

Figure 3 – Aerial Photo (Annotated) (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The site is zoned IN2 Light Industrial, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), as shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland Council, 2019)

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, is not located within a heritage conservation area, however is located in proximity to the Boothtown Aquaduct” (previously Greystanes Aquaduct).

The proposed development is not considered to impact upon the heritage item, due to its separation, and the development being limited to use.

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposal is for use of Unit 1 for the purpose of a waste transfer station.

Specific details of the proposed development, as outlined within the Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated April 2019, are as follows:

The applicant seeks development consent to undertake the following:

·        Formalise the use of Unit 1 as a waste or resource transfer station including the importation of general waste from construction / demolition sites to the subject site in metal skip bins, the sorting of building materials within the main shed building and the loading of trucks once materials are sorted for disposal / sale off site.

The type of construction material brought to the site includes:

·        Plastics, paper and cardboard.

·        Ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

·        Carpet and underlay.

·        Timber.

·        Concrete, bricks and tiles.

Skip bins brought to the site will be tipped onto the floor inside the shed building and the labourers will sort the materials for loading directly into allocated bins. Non-recyclable materials will be loading into larger skip bins by machine and transported to licensed facilities. A watering sprinkler system will be installed to assist with dust suppression. No liquids will be brought to the site. No food products will be brought to the site.

The applicant proposes to house 4 trucks on-site and up to 150 waste skip bins, which are mainly left off site for use by clients. A skip bin is usually hired and off-site for 7-14 days. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:

-        Monday to Friday:      7:00am to 6pm

-        Saturday:  7:00am to 12pm

-        No work proposed on Sundays.

Also housed on-site will be a bob-cat and forklift used for sorting and distribution of building waste.

The number of staff involved in the business are as follows:

·        Four truck drivers usually on the road most of the day.

·        Two yard workers.

·        One machine operator.

·        One office clerk.

·        One office manager.

The submitted development plans detail that the unit 1 is appropriately fenced and secured.

Provision is made in the open yard for the parking of up to 5 cars and trucks not in use. Also space is allocated for the storage of empty skip bins. The open yard will be suitably hard surfaced as identified on the development plans. No building works are proposed on-site to facilitate the use.

Unit 1 benefits from a 2.7m high concrete wall across the frontage of site suitably screening the open yard from view of Betts Road.

External visitor parking is available outside of Unit 1 along the southern side boundary.

The applicant also proposes to install bollards beside the driveway to discourage the parking of vehicles within the front setback and enable a re-instatement of landscaped area.

Fire safety measures already existing and will be upgraded to standards if necessary.

Note: Development application 2015/446/1 related to Unit 1 / 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield, was lodged on 28 September 2015 for change of use of an existing industrial unit (Unit 1) for the purposes of a waste transfer facility. The application was approved on 30 March 2019 with deferred commencement conditions imposed related to traffic and parking matters, which were required to be satisfied within a 24 month period.

As the deferred commencement matters were not satisfied within the 24 month period, the application lapsed. Subsequently, the subject application was lodged with Council.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated April 2019, which was received by Council on 16 April 2019 in support of the application.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who has advised that the stormwater management and traffic arrangements are supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Environmental Health Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, noting the proposed use, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Resource Recovery Officer

The Development Application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, noting the proposed waste management arrangements, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable.

External Referrals

Roads and Maritime Services

The Development Application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services for comments, noting the site has a frontage to a classified road, being Cumberland Highway, who have advised that the proposed development is supported, subject to conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Planning Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the Development Application.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site has a frontage to a classified road, being Cumberland Highway. The application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services, who have advised that the proposed development is supported, subject to conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft Notice of Determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Clause 121 – Development Permitted with Consent

The application is subject to clause 121 of the ISEPP as the proposed development is for the purposes of a waste or resource transfer station, to which the clause relates. In accordance with Clause 121(2)(b)(iii), development for the purposes of a waste or resource transfer station may be carried out by any person with consent on land zoned IN2 Light Industrial, to which the site is zoned, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).

Notwithstanding, waste transfer stations are permissible within the IN2 Light Industrial zone pursuant to the HLEP, and as such, no inconsistency exists between the ISEPP and the HLEP.

(b)     Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP)

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 - Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP). An assessment of the proposal has revealed:

·        The subject site is not affected by acid sulphate soils;

·        The proposed development does not disturb the bank or foreshore along the Georges Rives tributaries;

·        The proposal will not increase flooding or stormwater runoff;

·        Discharging of industrial waste is not proposed;

·        The proposal will not cause land degradation by way of erosion, sedimentation, pollution, salinity or acidity; and

·        The proposal will not cause adverse impacts to the sensitive natural environments within the catchment area.

(c)     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP)

The provision of the HLEP is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the statutory requirements of the HLEP.

Permissibility

·        The site is zoned IN2 Light Industrial, pursuant to the HLEP. The proposed development is permissible with consent.

Waste or resource transfer station means a building or place used for the collection and transfer of waste material or resources, including the receipt, sorting, compacting, temporary storage and distribution of waste or resources and the loading or unloading of waste or resources onto or from road or rail transport.

No Development Standards related to Height of Building and Floor Space Ratio are applicable to the subject site. A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the HLEP is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

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

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

(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.

As noted within the assessment above under the heading ‘Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 - Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP)’, the proposed development raises no issues.

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

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP)

The HDCP applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed and found to comply with the provisions of the HDCP. A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the HDCP is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

The provisions of any Planning Agreement that has been entered into under Section 7.4, or any Draft Planning Agreement that a Developer has Offered to Enter into under Section 7.4 (EP & A Act s4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

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

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

Waste transfer stations fall within the definition of waste management facilities or works, pursuant to Schedule 3 Designated Development of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, 2000 (EP & A Regs). The proposed development has been assessed and found not to be ‘Designated Development’ pursuant to the provisions of the EP & A Regs. A comprehensive assessment against Clause 32 – Waste Management Facilities or Works is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

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))

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail             Sign                  Not Required

 

In accordance with Council’s notification requirements contained within the HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days from 12 June 2019 to 26 June 2019. In response, 2 submissions were received, inclusive of 1 petition with 34 signatures.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act)

 

Waste transfer stations fall within the definition of waste storage and resource recovery, pursuant to Schedule 1 Scheduled Activities of the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). The proposed development has been assessed and found not to be ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to the provisions of the POEO Act. A comprehensive assessment against Clause 34 – Resource Recovery, Clause 41 - Waste Processing (non-thermal treatment), and Clause 42 – Waste Storage is contained in Attachment 6 to this report.

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94 Contributions)

The subject development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

The proposed development has been assessed against the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the EP & A Act, 1979, and is considered to be satisfactory. Any likely impacts of the development have been satisfactorily addressed and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls of the HLEP and HDCP, and is permissible in the zone with Development Consent.

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: That Development Application 2019/136/1 seeking use of Unit 1 for the purpose of a waste transfer station at 79-91 Betts Road, Smithfield, be Approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

1.      Architectural Plans ⇩

2.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

3.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment ⇩

4.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment ⇩

5.      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations Assessment 2000 (Designated Development) ⇩

6.      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Assessment 1979 (Integrated Development) ⇩

7.      Submissions x 2 ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

 

Attachment 2

Draft Notice of Determination

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 28 August 2019

Attachment 4

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

Attachment 5

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations Assessment 2000 (Designated Development)

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Assessment 1979 (Integrated Development)

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Submissions x 2

 28 August 2019

 

28 August 2019

 

Item No: LPP060/19

Development Application - 123 Magowar Road, Girraween

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2019/14/1  

 

 

On 21 January 2019, development application (DA2019/14) for alterations and additions to existing industrial building for use as a waste transfer station to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and installation of a portable weighbridge, was lodged with Council.

The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 20 February 2019 to 6 March 2019. In response, the application received 14 submissions.

The application was deferred on 22 May 2019 setting out Council’s concerns that inadequate information was provided to determine that the proposal is not identified as integrated and/or designated development, acoustic impacts resulting from the operations of the facility, traffic and parking impacts and the reduction in landscaping proposed within the front setback area.

 

Amended plans and supporting reports addressing matters raised by Council were received on 14 June 2019. Based on the additional information submitted, Council is satisfied that the proposal is neither identified as integrated or designated development. The amended proposal was re-notified for 14 days from 26 June 2019 to 10 July 2019. In response, 3 submissions and 1 petition (with 9 signatures) were received.

The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

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

 

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

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

Introduction

The subject site is known as 123 Magowar Road, Girraween; and is legally described as Lot 2 in DP545501. The site has an area of 2,251m2 and frontage of 25.145m to Magowar Road. The property is currently occupied by an industrial building, hardstand areas and landscaping within the front setback area.

Magowar Road is characterised by a mix of land use zones. The subject site and neighbouring allotments directly to the east and west, and opposite the site on the southern side of Magowar Road are zoned IN2 – Light Industrial. Properties further east of the site commencing from 86 and 113 Magowar Road, and directly to the rear of the site are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. Properties further west of the site, located on the southern side of Magowar Road are zoned IN1 – General Industrial. 

 

The immediate industrial zoned area comprises of industrial warehouse and uses. R2 zoned land within the vicinity of the site is characterised by low to medium density residential housing. Directly adjoining the site to the rear is Girraween High School.

Figure 1 - Aerial view of the locality with subject site shown highlighted in red. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

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

 

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site. Right: 119 Magowar Road. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Figure 4 – View of existing industrial building and internal driveway of subject site. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

 

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2019/14 seeks consent for:

·        alterations and additions to existing industrial building;

·        new hardstand area to accommodate a 2 car parking spaces (including 1 accessible parking space) within the front setback area;

·        removal of one tree within the front setback area; and

·        use of premises for the purposes of a waste transfer station.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

Waste handled/Operations

o   The premises will receive, handle, and sort construction and demolition waste collected primarily from internal shop fit-outs and commercial construction projects.

o   A section of the site will also be used to store empty skip bins for the demolition activities that are undertaken by RPG off-site.

o   The maximum quantity of waste that would be received will be up to 6,000 tonnes per year.

o   The site will not receive waste from the public or trade customers.

o   All site operations and storage of materials would be confined within the existing building.

o   Contaminated waste would not be accepted.

Operations and Equipment

o   Hand tools, forklifts, bobcat, 2.7 tonne mini excavator.

o   The site will also be used for the storage of empty trucks, trailers, skin bins, small plant equipment used off-site in the demolition business.

o   Minor maintenance and service of machinery may be undertaken on site.

o   A portable weighbridge will be installed upon the existing driveway between the building and eastern boundary.

Hours of Operation (as amended)

o   Monday to Friday: 7am to 6pm

o   Saturday: 8am-6pm

o   No works on public holidays or Sundays

Staffing

Total of 5 staff required to operate the proposed facility:

o   2 office staff – 7am-5.30pm; Monday to Friday

o   3 yard staff – at one time (shift work staff)

-     7am to 6pm; Monday to Friday

-     7am to 6pm; Saturday

There is no business identification signage associated with the subject application.

Application History

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Claron Consulting Pty Ltd dated 7 January 2019 was submitted with the application.

A revised Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Claron Consulting Pty Ltd dated 13 June 2019 was submitted to accompany the revised proposal.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to stormwater management and on-site detention provision, subject to conditions.

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to the removal of the existing tree within the front setback area, and changes sought to the front landscaped area, subject to conditions.

Traffic Engineer

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

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for review and comment. Council’s Environmental Health Officer reviewed the Applicant’s Acoustic Report and Addendum Acoustic Report, and also the Critique of the Applicant’s Acoustic Report submitted within an objection to the proposal received, and has advised that the development is considered supportable in regards to acoustic assessment and measures, and site contamination, subject to conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable, subject to the imposition of conditions outlining that the proposed development is not permitted to receive/process/handle any putrescible, liquid, hazardous or restricted solid waste.

External Referrals

Cumberland Police Local Area Command

The development application was referred to Cumberland Police Local Area Command for comment as the proposal initially proposed 24 hour operation, in order to facilitate the incorporation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the proposal. The proposal is considered supportable, subject to conditions.

;Planning Assessment

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Division 23 – Clause 121 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 relates to waste or resource management facilities. The proposed development is for the purposes of a waste transfer station, which is a type of waste or resource management facility. In accordance with Clause 121(2)(b)(iii), development for the purposes of a waste or resource transfer station may be carried out by any person with consent on land zoned IN2 – Light Industrial.

Notwithstanding, waste transfer stations are a permissible land use within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013, and as such, there is no inconsistency between SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 and HLEP 2013.

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

(c)     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

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

The subject site is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial pursuant to HLEP 2013.

The proposal is defined as a ‘waste transfer station’ under the provisions of HLEP 2013.

Waste or resource transfer station means a building or place used for the collection and transfer of waste material or resources, including the receipt, sorting, compacting, temporary storage and distribution of waste or resources and the loading or unloading of waste or resources onto or from road or rail transport.

A ‘waste transfer station’ is not a development specified in item 2 or 4 of the IN2 Land Use Table. In this regard, a waste transfer station is permitted with consent in the IN2 – Light Industrial zone which applies to the land.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

The draft SEPP will combine seven existing SEPPs into one accessible instrument. The new SEPP will repeal and replace:

·        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.

Comment: The draft SEPP has been considered for the proposed development and is only affected by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, which has already been assessed as above.

Development Control Plans

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

HDCP 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, and industrial controls under Part D.

The assessment provided in Attachment 2 indicates that a minor non-compliance with regard to the provision of landscaped area, which is discussed in the following section:

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at Attachment 2. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

The provisions of the Regulations

A ‘waste transfer station’ falls within the parent term of a ‘waste management facility or works’, pursuant to Schedule 3 Designated Development of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Regs). The proposed development has been assessed and found not to be ‘Designated Development’ pursuant to the provisions of the EP&A Regs. A comprehensive assessment against Clause 32 – Waste Management Facilities is contained in Attachment 3.

The likely impacts of the development

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

The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail              Sign                   Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 20 February 2019 to 6 March 2019. In response, the application received 14 submissions.

Amended plans and supporting reports addressing matters raised by Council were received on 14 June 2019. The amended proposal was re-notified for 14 days from 26 June 2019 to 10 July 2019. In response, 3 submissions and 1 petition (with 9 signatures) was received.

The issues raised in the public submissions and concerns raised in the petition are summarised and commented on as follows:

Section 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The proposed waste transfer station carries out the following two activities being resource recovery and waste storage, which are listed within Schedule 1 of the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997 (PEO).

The proposed development has been assessed and found not to be ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to the provisions of the PEO Act. A comprehensive assessment against Clause 34 – Resource Recovery and Clause 42 – Waste Storage is contained at Attachment 4.

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure. The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013.

The public interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: That Development Application 2019/14/1 for which seeks consent for alterations and additions to existing industrial building for use as a waste transfer station to operate 7am-6pm Monday to Friday and 7am-Noon Saturday, and installation of a portable weighbridge; be approved subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 5.

 

1.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

2.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3.      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations Assessment 2000 (Designated Development) ⇩

4.      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Integrated Development) ⇩

5.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

6.      Architectural Plans ⇩

7.      Environmental Management Plan ⇩

8.      Traffic Impact Assessment ⇩

9.      Noise Impact Assessment ⇩

10.    Submissions & Petition ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

Attachment 2

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations Assessment 2000 (Designated Development)

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Integrated Development)

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Draft Notice of Determination

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Environmental Management Plan

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

Attachment 8

Traffic Impact Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

Attachment 9

Noise Impact Assessment

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28 August 2019

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 10

Submissions & Petition

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 August 2019

 

Item No: LPP061/19

Development Application for 44 (Lot 123) Winnima Circuit, Pemulwuy & Part Lot 124, Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2018/380/1  

 

 

1.      On 16 October 2018, development application (DA2018/380) for the construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 19 dwellings over basement car parking containing 24 car spaces and 1 car wash bay was lodged with Council.

2.      The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. In response, the application received 2 submissions.

3.      The application as lodged sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought. (Refer to Attachment 5). This was considered unacceptable by Council and the application was deferred accordingly on 2 occasions. Amended plans and information were subsequently provided to Council on 28 June 2019 and 30 July 2019 respectively. The design refinements resulted in the reduction of the overall gross floor area of the development. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification.

 

Note: The applicant has provided revised conceptual floor plans showing deletion of 5 units resulting in a compliant FSR (Refer to Attachment 6). Council considers amended plans to be generally satisfactory subject to imposing specific conditions within Schedule A of the consent seeking a fully compliant FSR.

4.      The application as amended proposes construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings over basement car parking containing 19 car spaces and 1 car wash bay.

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

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

 

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

8.      The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination notice at Attachment 4.

 

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is located in the suburb of Pemulwuy, which is situated approximately 30kms to the west of the Sydney CBD. Pemulwuy is located within the Cumberland LGA (formerly Holroyd) and is bordered by Blacktown LGA to the north and Fairfield LGA to the south.

Pemulwuy forms part of the Greystanes Estate Residential Lands Precinct Plan which was developed in 2002 under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 59 Central Western Sydney Economic and Employment Area (SEPP 59). The estate was known as the former Prospect Quarry, owned and operated by Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd. The estate has been remediated and is now home to residential, commercial and industrial development.

The site itself is located in an area identified as the ‘Northern Residential Lands’. Both the Northern and Southern Residential Lands contain a range of residential development, such as detached and attached dwellings, multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and multi-level seniors housing, as well as commercial development.

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 as shown below.

The subject site is legally described as Lot 123, DP 1250017 Winnima Circuit & part Lot 124, DP 1250017 Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy. The site is an irregular shaped vacant parcel of land with a frontage of 41.84m to Winnima Circuit and a secondary street frontage of 30.85m to Kuma Place. The site has a total site area of 1578.4m2. The site contains part of a watermains easement on the southern portion of the site.

The site is bounded by a vacant land to the west with a current DA (DA 2018/378) for a 4 storey residential flat building and a vacant land parcel with a recently approved DA consent (DC 2016/381) for 7 x part 3, 4 & 5 storey residential flat buildings to the south. Recently constructed low density contemporary dwellings are bounded to the north and east of the subject site.  Butu Wargun Drive separates the site from Prospect Hill Conservation Area, which is an item of State Heritage Significance to the west.

Prospect Hill is the estate’s primary topographical and historical feature. Listed on the State Heritage Register, Prospect Hill runs north-south through the middle of the estate. Prospect Hill is an elevated ridgeline that was used by Aboriginals as a vantage point and for navigation. Prospect Hill also became a landmark reference point for European settlement.

Figure 1– Pemulwuy Residential Estate (Source: Part P, Holroyd DCP 2013)

Figure 2:  Aerial view of the subject site

(Source: Nearmap, 20 July 2019)

Figure 3: Zoning map with subject site shown as blue highlighted. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/380 ( as amended) seeks consent for construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings over basement car parking containing 19 car spaces and 1 car wash bay.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        5 x 2-bedroom units (36%)

·        9 x 3-bedroom units (64%)

 

 

Figure 4, 5 & 6: Photomontage of the proposed development

History

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 8 October 2018 was submitted with the application.

The original application as lodged was accompanied by a written request to vary the floor space ratio (FSR) standard, prepared by Think Planners, dated 8 October 2018, in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013. Refer to further discussion below.

Background

The original application sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought.  The fundamental argument around this variation request was a historical loss of gross floor area resulting from previous zoning changes as explained below:

In 2010 a subdivision was approved (DA2010/382/1) to create forty four (44) allotments including 39 residential lots (suitable for low density housing), 4 super lots (including the subject site for high density housing) and 1 public reserve/open space lot. This entire estate was zoned R4 High Density Residential under Holroyd LEP 2013 allowing a FSR of 0.85:1 and a height of 12.5m. This was a planning anomaly as the R4 zone prohibits low density housing rendering the 39 residential lots unsuitable for the intended purpose. 

As a result, a Planning Proposal request (PPR) was lodged on 19 September 2016 seeking to rezone Lots 102- 120 & 124-143 (marked as red dashed line in the following image) from High Density Residential (R4) to Medium Density Residential (R3) in order to facilitate dwelling houses. The PPR was reported to CIHAP and the matter was resolved per the IHAP recommendation for rezoning allowing a FSR of 0.7:1 and a height of 10m. This resulted in a potential reduction of gross floor area.

Figure 8: Part of Parent Allotment that was rezoned to R3

Blue highlighted areas are zoned R4

The proposal as lodged sought to transfer some of this lost gross floor area from the parent lot to the subject site. . The applicant justified in the accompanying Clause 4.6 written request that ‘This ‘lost’ GFA is partly proposed to be added back to the current proposal. This therefore partially captures the lost density across the parent land parcel’.

However, the applicant’s written justification was not considered to be well founded as there is no apparent planning gain or public benefit. Also during the PPR process the marked area was considered suitable for the lower FSR and there was no consideration of any additional FSR given to the adjoining super lots (including the subject site) for future development. 

Having regard to the above, the application was deferred and amended plans were submitted to address the FSR issue.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

 

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

Traffic Engineer

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

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Unit

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to imposition conditions of consent.

External Referrals

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

As the site is in the close vicinity of Prospect Hill, the application was forwarded to the Heritage Office for comments who has advised that the development is supportable subject to conditions.

Transgrid

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

 

Endeavour Energy

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

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

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

 

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

The site and neighbouring land parcels have recently been cleared of all vegetation to facilitate future residential development. It is also highlighted that no significant vegetation is to be impacted as part of the proposal.

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

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

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

An amended BASIX Certificate 829785M_04 dated 14 August 2019 with regard to the revised units’ numbers and dwelling mix has been submitted. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is considered satisfactory.  Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Robert Del Pizzo was submitted with the application. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 1 which demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning standards that are applicable to the site.

(f)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised no objections, subject to conditions should consent be granted.

(g)     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.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

(h)     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.

(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.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 2 which demonstrates the proposal’s compliance (as amended) with the relevant planning standards that are applicable to the site.

The provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii))

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

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (Environmental Planning & Assessment Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii))

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 4. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

The provisions of the Regulations

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail              Sign                 Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. As a result of the notification, two submissions were received. Amended plans submitted did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

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

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

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

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Pemulwuy contribution area, the required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $139,342.

The Public Interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application 2018/380/1 for which seeks consent for the construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 14 dwellings over basement car parking containing 19 car spaces and 1 car wash bay, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 4. 2.      That the applicant and those persons who lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Apartment Design Guideline Compliance Table ⇩

2.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Original Architectural Plans ⇩

6.      Amended Conceptual Architectural Plans ⇩

7.      2 x Submissions ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Apartment Design Guideline Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

Attachment 3

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Original Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Amended Conceptual Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

Attachment 7

2 x Submissions

 28 August 2019

 

28 August 2019

 

Item No: LPP062/19

Development Application for 38 - 42 (Lot 101) Winnima Circuit and Part Lot 124, Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2018/378/1  

 

 

1.      On 16 October 2018, development application (DA2018/378) for the construction of 1x five storey and 2x four storey residential flat buildings comprising a total of 55 dwellings over basement car parking containing 70 car spaces and 2 car wash bays was lodged with Council.

2.      The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. In response, the application received no submissions.

 

3.      The application as lodged sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought (Refer to Attachment 5). This was considered unacceptable by Council and the application was deferred accordingly on 2 occasions. Amended plans and information were subsequently provided to Council on 28 June 2019 and 30 July 2019 respectively. The design refinements resulted in the reduction of the overall gross floor area of the development. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification.

 

Note: The applicant has provided revised conceptual floor plans showing deletion of 8 units resulting in a compliant FSR (Refer to Attachment 6).  Council considers amended plans to be generally satisfactory subject to imposing specific conditions within Schedule A of the consent seeking a fully compliant FSR.

4.      The application as amended proposes construction of 3 x four storey residential flat buildings comprising a total of 47 dwellings over basement car parking containing 57 car spaces and 2 car wash bays.

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

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

 

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

8.      The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination notice at Attachment 4.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is located in the suburb of Pemulwuy, which is situated approximately 30kms to the west of the Sydney CBD. Pemulwuy is located within the Cumberland LGA (formerly Holroyd) and is bordered by Blacktown LGA to the north and Fairfield LGA to the south.

Pemulwuy forms part of the Greystanes Estate Residential Lands Precinct Plan which was developed in 2002 under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 59 Central Western Sydney Economic and Employment Area (SEPP 59). The estate was known as the former Prospect Quarry, owned and operated by Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd. The estate has been remediated and is now home to residential, commercial and industrial development.

The site itself is located in an area identified as the ‘Northern Residential Lands’. Both the Northern and Southern Residential Lands contain a range of residential development, such as detached and attached dwellings, multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and multi-level seniors housing, as well as commercial development.

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 as shown below.

The subject site is legally described as Lot 101, DP 1223098 Winnima Circuit & part Lot 124, DP 1250017 Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy. The site is generally a regular shaped vacant parcel of land with a frontage of 145.925m to Winnima Circuit and has a total site area of 4,887.2m2. The site has a fall of approximately 5 meters from north western corner to south eastern corner and contains part of a watermains easement on the southern portion of the site.

The site is bounded by a vacant land to the east with a current DA (DA 2018/380) for a 4 storey residential flat building and a vacant land parcel with a recently approved DA consent (DC 2016/381) for 7 x part 3, 4 & 5 storey residential flat buildings to the south.  Recently constructed low density contemporary dwellings are bounded to the north and east of the subject site. The site is in close proximity to Prospect Hill Conservation Area, which is an item of State Heritage Significance to the north.

Prospect Hill is the estate’s primary topographical and historical feature. Listed on the State Heritage Register, Prospect Hill runs north-south through the middle of the estate. Prospect Hill is an elevated ridgeline that was used by Aboriginals as a vantage point and for navigation. Prospect Hill also became a landmark reference point for European settlement.

Figure 1– Pemulwuy Residential Estate (Source: Part P, Holroyd DCP 2013)

Figure 2:  Aerial view of the subject site

(Source: Nearmap, 20 July 2019)

Figure 3: Zoning map with the subject site. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Figures 4, 5 and 6 – Subject site and the surroundings

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/378 (as amended) seeks consent for the construction of 3 x four storey residential flat buildings comprising a total of 47 dwellings over basement car parking containing 57 car spaces and 2 car wash bays.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:

Level	Details
Lower Basement	-   Residential car spaces, including  accessible parking spaces,  (as amended to satisfy Schedule A condition) 1 car wash bay waste storage, plant room, lift and fire stairs
Upper Basement (sub terranian level)	-  Residential car spaces, including visitors and  accessible parking spaces) (as amended to satisfy Schedule A condition) -  1 car wash bay -  34 bicycle spaces -  2 motor cycle parking spaces -  Bin holding area, lift core and stair well

	Block A	Block B	Block C
Ground level	3 Units	3 Units	1 Unit
First Floor	6 Units	6 Units, 2 COS areas	5 Units
Second Floor	6 Units	6 Units	5 Units
Third Floor	3 Units Communal Open Space (COS)	3 Units Communal Open Space (COS)	-
TOTAL	18 Units	18 Units	11 Units
GRAND TOTAL	47 Units

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        6 x 1-bedroom units (13%)

·        38 x 2-bedroom units (81%)

·        3 x 3-bedroom units (6%)

 

 

Figure 6 & 7: Photomontage of the proposed development

History

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 8 October 2018 was submitted with the application.

The original application as lodged was accompanied by a written request to vary the floor space ratio (FSR) standard, prepared by Think Planners, dated 8 October 2018, in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013. Refer to further discussion below.

Background

The original application sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought.  The fundamental argument around this variation request was a historical loss of gross floor area resulting from previous zoning changes as explained below:

In 2010 a subdivision was approved (DA2010/382/1) to create forty four (44) allotments including 39 residential lots (suitable for low density housing), 4 super lots (including the subject site for high density housing) and 1 public reserve/open space lot. This entire estate was zoned R4 High Density Residential under Holroyd LEP 2013 allowing a FSR of 0.85:1 and a height of 12.5m. This was a planning anomaly as the R4 zone prohibits low density housing rendering the 39 residential lots unsuitable for the intended purpose. 

As a result, a Planning Proposal request (PPR) was lodged on 19 September 2016 seeking to rezone Lots 102- 120 & 124-143 (marked as red dashed line in the following image) from High Density Residential (R4) to Medium Density Residential (R3) in order to facilitate dwelling houses. The PPR was reported to CIHAP and the matter was resolved per the IHAP recommendation for rezoning allowing a FSR of 0.7:1 and a height of 10m. This resulted in a potential reduction of gross floor area.

Figure 8: Part of Parent Allotment that was rezoned to R3

Blue highlighted areas are zoned R4

The proposal as lodged sought to transfer some of this lost gross floor area from the parent lot to the subject site. . The applicant justified in the accompanying Clause 4.6 written request that ‘This ‘lost’ GFA is partly proposed to be added back to the current proposal. This therefore partially captures the lost density across the parent land parcel’.

However, the applicant’s written justification was not considered to be well founded as there is no apparent planning gain or public benefit. Also during the PPR process the marked area was considered suitable for the lower FSR and there was no consideration of any additional FSR given to the adjoining super lots (including the subject site) for future development. 

Having regard to the above, the application was deferred and amended plans were submitted to address the FSR issue.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

Traffic Engineer

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

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Unit

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to imposition conditions of consent.

Heritage Advisor

The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment who has provided the following advice:

“The proposal should include landscaped roofs in continuity with the development at Lots 12 and 13 Butu Wargun Drive to extend the visual interface between the Prospect Hill Conservation Area and residential precincts between the ridge and Greystanes Road.

This would provide a more sympathetic transition with the 2-storey residential development to the east of the proposed development and mitigate the impact of the developed roofscape when viewed from the west from the ridge of the escarpment and Lots 12 and 13 Butu Wargun Drive”.

 

The application incorporates roof terraces and planter boxes and in this regard, it is considered supportable. Refer to further discussion below (under NSW Office of Environment & Heritage).

External Referrals

Transgrid

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

Endeavour Energy

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

NSW Police

The development application was referred to Cumberland Police Area Command for comment in order to facilitate the incorporation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the proposal. The proposal is considered supportable, subject to imposition of conditions should consent be granted.

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

Whilst the site is immediately adjacent to Prospect Hill, the lot is outside the boundaries of the state-listed item, and in this regard, approval under the Heritage Act is not required. Notwithstanding, given its proximity, the application was forwarded to the Heritage Office for comments.

In response to the original design, the Heritage Office made the following recommendations:

“The subject site (Lot 101) is located immediately to the east of the approved development on Lots 12 and 13 and is proposed to be lower in height than the development in Lots 12 & 13.Therefore, even though the proposed development on the subject land would add to the bulk and scale of the development in the immediate vicinity of the State heritage listed Prospect Hill, any additional impact is inconsequential following the approval of development in Lots12 and 13 that would already have an unacceptable adverse heritage impact on the aesthetic values of the State listed item.

The proposed landscaped buffer on the northern boundary of the site is insufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts of intrusion of the Residential Flat Buildings into the visual setting of Prospect Hill and should be increased”.

With regard to the above comments provided by the Heritage Office, the following points are made:

·        The proposed development complies with the maximum RL height controls (applicable to the subject site) as provided in the DCP, which were developed in consultation with the Heritage Office. The building has been stepped down to follow the site’s topography that allows retention of the views between the low – lying residential area and the ridge line of Prospect Hill.

·        The building height and mass has been modulated across the site to respond to the RL view line controls which is clearly a site specific design response and a better planning outcome on the site.

·        The building provides a numerically compliant building separation along the northern boundary (in excess to the required minimum under the ADG) and the soft landscaping provided along the shared boundary provides an appropriate buffer and level of outdoor residential amenity.

·        The development incorporates landscaped roofs/terraces which enables the development to blend in to the landscape and provides a visual continuity with the approved developments at lots 12 and 13 Butu Wargun Drive (DA 2016/381). The proposed skillion roofs break up the horizontal roof line of all the three blocks (which propose an overall height of under RL 94 in accordance with Part P of the DCP) to mitigate the adverse heritage impacts on the ridgeline.

·        With regard to soft landscaping, it is noted that the development is provided with 1766.2m2 (36%) of soft surface landscaping, which is 300sqm in excess of the required minimum landscaped area as prescribed in the DCP.

With regard to the above, strict adherence with the recommendations made by the Heritage Office is considered to be unreasonable noting that the overall design ensures view corridors and vistas are maintained, appropriate landscaping is provided to soften the visual bulk of the proposal when viewed from the public domain and within the development, and articulation of buildings to break up external facades. In addition, it is considered that that the amended design will not add any additional negative impacts on the setting and heritage significance of the Prospect Hill Conservation Area.

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

The site and neighbouring land parcels have recently been cleared of all vegetation to facilitate future residential development. It is also highlighted that no significant vegetation is to be impacted as part of the proposal.

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

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

 

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

An amended BASIX Certificate 822750M_05 dated 15 August 2019 with regard to the revised units’ numbers and dwelling mix has been submitted. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is considered satisfactory.  Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Robert Del Pizzo was submitted with the application. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 1 .

The following table sets out the ADG non-compliances:

 

(f)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised no objections, subject to conditions should consent be granted.

(g)     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.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

(h)     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.

(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.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 2 which demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning standards that are applicable to the site.

The provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii))

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

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (Environmental Planning & Assessment Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii))

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 4. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

The provisions of the Regulations

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

 

The likely impacts of the development

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

The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)                 Mail             Sign           Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. As a result of the notification, no submission was received.

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

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

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Pemulwuy Contribution area, the required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $467,791.

The Public Interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: That Development Application 2018/378/1 for the construction of 3 x four storey residential flat buildings comprising a total of 47 dwellings over basement car parking containing 57 car spaces and 2 car wash bays, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 4.

 

1.      Apartment Design Guidelines Compliance Table ⇩

2.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Original Architectural Plans ⇩

6.      Amended Conceptual Architectural Plans ⇩  

 

Attachment 1

Apartment Design Guidelines Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

Attachment 3

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Original Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Amended Conceptual Architectural Plans

 28 August 2019

28 August 2019

 

 

Item No: EELPP063/19

Development Application for 46 (Lot 122) Winnima Circuit and Part Lot 124 Butu Wargun Drive, Pemwulwuy

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2018/379/1  

 

 

1.      On 16 October 2018, development application (DA2018/379) for the construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 30 dwellings with basement and at-grade car parking was lodged with Council.

 

2.      The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 21 days from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. In response, the application received 1 submission.

ii)              

3.      The application as lodged sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought. (Refer to Attachment 5). This was considered unacceptable by Council and the application was deferred accordingly on 2 occasions. Amended plans and information were subsequently provided to Council on 28 June 2019 and 30 July 2019 respectively. The design refinements resulted in the reduction of the overall gross floor area of the development. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification.

iii)            

iv)           Note: The applicant has provided revised conceptual floor plans showing deletion of 5 units resulting in a compliant FSR (Refer to Attachment 6). Council considers amended plans to be generally satisfactory subject to imposing specific conditions within Schedule A of the consent seeking a fully compliant FSR.

v)              

4.      The application as amended proposes construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 25 dwellings over basement car parking containing 33 car spaces and 1 car wash bay.

vi)            

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

vii)          

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

viii)   

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

 

8.      The application is recommended for Deferred Commencement Approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination notice at Attachment 4.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The site is located in the suburb of Pemulwuy, which is situated approximately 30kms to the west of the Sydney CBD. Pemulwuy is located within the Cumberland LGA (formerly Holroyd) and is bordered by Blacktown LGA to the north and Fairfield LGA to the south.

Pemulwuy forms part of the Greystanes Estate Residential Lands Precinct Plan which was developed in 2002 under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 59 Central Western Sydney Economic and Employment Area (SEPP 59). The estate was known as the former Prospect Quarry, owned and operated by Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd. The estate has been remediated and is now home to residential, commercial and industrial development.

The site itself is located in an area identified as the ‘Northern Residential Lands’. Both the Northern and Southern Residential Lands contain a range of residential development, such as detached and attached dwellings, multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and multi-level seniors housing, as well as commercial development.

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 as shown below.

The subject site is legally described as Lot 122, DP 1223098 Winnima Circuit & part Lot 124, DP 1250017 Butu Wargun Drive, Pemulwuy. The site is bounded by Butu Wargun Drive to the south, vacant land to the west with a current DA (DA 2018/380) for a 4 storey residential flat building and recently constructed low density contemporary dwellings to the north and east.  Butu Wargun Drive separates the site from Prospect Hill Conservation Area, which is an item of State Heritage Significance to the west.

Prospect Hill is the estate’s primary topographical and historical feature. Listed on the State Heritage Register, Prospect Hill runs north-south through the middle of the estate. Prospect Hill is an elevated ridgeline that was used by Aboriginals as a vantage point and for navigation. Prospect Hill also became a landmark reference point for European settlement.

Figure 1– Pemulwuy Residential Estate (Source: Part P, Holroyd DCP 2013)

The site is a corner block and an irregular shaped vacant parcel of land with a frontage of 60.205m to Winnima Circuit and a secondary street frontage of 34.19m (including splay corner). The site has a total site area of 2,699.2m2.

Figure 2:  Aerial view of 46 Winnima Circuit, Pemulwuy (Aerial)

(Source: Nearmap, 2019)

Figure 3: Zoning map with subject site shown as blue highlighted. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Description of The Proposed Development

DA 2018/379 (as amended) seeks consent for construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 25 dwellings over basement car parking containing 33 car spaces and 1 car wash bay.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:

The dwelling mix of the proposal is as follows:

·        14 x 2-bedroom units (56%)

·        11 x 3-bedroom units (44%)

x)              

xi)          

xii)        

xiii)       Figure 4,5 & 6: Photomontage of the proposed development

History

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 8 October 2018 was submitted with the application. The applicant has also submitted a written request to vary the development standard for building height, prepared by Think Planners dated 5 August 2019. 

The original application as lodged was accompanied by a written request to vary the floor space ratio (FSR) standard, prepared by Think Planners, dated 8 October 2018, in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013. Refer to further discussion below.

Background

The original application sought a variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard and as such a Clause 4.6 Written Variation Request was submitted for the departure sought.  The fundamental argument around this variation request was a historical loss of gross floor area resulting from previous zoning changes as explained below:

In 2010 a subdivision was approved (DA2010/382/1) to create forty four (44) allotments including 39 residential lots (suitable for low density housing), 4 super lots (including the subject site for high density housing) and 1 public reserve/open space lot. This entire estate was zoned R4 High Density Residential under Holroyd LEP 2013 allowing a FSR of 0.85:1 and a height of 12.5m. This was a planning anomaly as the R4 zone prohibits low density housing rendering the 39 residential lots unsuitable for the intended purpose. 

 

As a result, a Planning Proposal request (PPR) was lodged on 19 September 2016 seeking to rezone Lots 102- 120 & 124-143 (marked as red dashed line in the following image) from High Density Residential (R4) to Medium Density Residential (R3) in order to facilitate dwelling houses. The PPR was reported to CIHAP and the matter was resolved per the IHAP recommendation for rezoning allowing a FSR of 0.7:1 and a height of 10m. This resulted in a potential reduction of gross floor area.

Figure 8: Part of Parent Allotment that was rezoned to R3

Blue highlighted areas are zoned R4

The proposal as lodged sought to transfer some of this lost gross floor area from the parent lot to the subject site. The applicant justified in the accompanying Clause 4.6 written request that ‘This ‘lost’ GFA is partly proposed to be added back to the current proposal. This therefore partially captures the lost density across the parent land parcel’.

However, the applicant’s written justification was not considered to be well founded as there is no apparent planning gain or public benefit. Also during the PPR process the marked area was considered suitable for the lower FSR and there was no consideration of any additional FSR given to the adjoining super lots (including the subject site) for future development. 

Having regard to the above, the application was deferred and amended plans were submitted to address the FSR issue.

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

 

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

Traffic Engineer

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

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions.

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to provision of bin tug, bin storage room, and waste collection and management plan, subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Unit

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to imposition of conditions of consent.

External Referrals

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

As the site is in the close vicinity of Prospect Hill, the application was forwarded to the Heritage Office for comments who has advised that the development is supportable subject to conditions.

Transgrid

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

 

Endeavour Energy

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

NSW Police

The development application was referred to Cumberland Police Area Command for comment in order to facilitate the incorporation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into the proposal. The proposal is considered supportable, subject to imposition of conditions should consent be granted.

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

The site and neighbouring land parcels have recently been cleared of all vegetation to facilitate future residential development. As such, the SEPP does not apply.

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

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

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

An amended BASIX Certificate 829785M_04 dated 14 August 2019 with regard to the revised units’ numbers and dwelling mix has been submitted. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is considered satisfactory.  Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Robert Del Pizzo was submitted with the application. A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls is provided at Attachment 1 which demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning standards that are applicable to the site.

(f)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

 

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment, who raised no objections, subject to conditions should consent be granted.

(g)     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.

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

(i)      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.

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

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

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings that stipulates that the height of building is not to exceed 12.5m on the subject site.

The proposed building has an overall height of 14m (RL 78.75.) to the top of the lift core. The proposal breaches the overall height by 1.5m representing a maximum variation of 12%.

Figure 9 – Elevation Plan showing extent of height variation sought

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

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

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard for building height. Based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179 and recent case law in RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

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

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

Applicant’s justification:

The proposal ensures that the high density character envisioned for the land parcel is achieved. In addition, the proposal will complement and enhance the local streetscape by virtue of the careful siting of the development and the landscape embellishment works within the front setback areas and to Prospect Hill.

Planner’s Comment:

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the R4 zone objectives as it provides a variety of housing types, satisfying the needs of the community within a high density residential environment. 

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

Applicant’s justification:

·        All built form heights are complying with the RL DCP heights that ensures that view to/from the Ridgeline Park and Prospect Hill is protected.

·        Buildings have been stepped to address the site’s steep cross-fall that will contribute towards minimising building height, bulk and scale when viewed from the street level.

·        The size of the site permits sufficient separation of building on site and also from neighbouring land parcels and also the additional height will have negligible impacts in terms of privacy and overshadowing to adjoining properties. It is noted that the shadow cast falls on the road network and a small part of the future park- noting that the impact is minor and there is no impact from 12 noon onwards to the park.

·        The building height departure is to a portion of the building that is recessed such that  it is not easily ‘read’ in terms of visual impacts to surrounding development;

·        The proposed development will permit the site to develop to its full zoning potential whilst complementing the future vision envisioned for the site by providing a residential flat building that provides good address to the street frontage as well as maximising amenity for residents.

·        The proposed development complies with key planning controls applying to the proposal including FSR, landscape, deep soil zones and communal open space.

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 increased height does not result in an additional level for residential use, as it comprises portion of the lift overrun.

The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. Further, being in proximity to Prospect Hill, a heritage item of State Significance on the NSW State Heritage Register, the proposal ensures the views to/from the heritage item are protected.  The building has been stepped down to follow the site’s topography that allows retention of the views between the low – lying residential area and the ridge line of Prospect Hill.

 

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 and does not unduly compromise other relevant controls, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of height requirements and development within the R4 zone.

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

Applicant’s justification:

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

-        The proposal to adopt an appropriate Urban Form, and Quality Common Open Space:

xvi)        The proposal provides for a variety of building heights and building modulations to achieve a series of buildings in a landscaped setting that exceeds the required levels of landscaped area, deep soil, and common open space.

-        Retain the Heritage View Corridors: When having regard to the DCP height controls applying to the proposal- being the RL controls- that have been implemented specifically for the site in order to maintain view-lines to and from Prospect Hill.

xvii)       

-        Response to Topography: It is also noted that the stepped building form is a direct design response to the excessive cross-fall experienced by the site, noting that the DCP acknowledges that on steep sites, the storey control can be exceeded, and it is suitable to have consideration to the overall relative heights on the site. Providing additional height in the central portion, and lower heights at the edges, is a more responsive design outcome that mitigates views to Prospect Hill and impacts surrounding properties.

xviii)     

-        Articulate / Undulated Roof Form: The roof form has been revised to incorporate an articulated/undulated roof form to emulate the topography of Prospect Hill. The roof form will provide visual interest to the proposal whilst having negligible impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy.

xix)    

-        Full Compliance with the DCP Controls: The departure enables full compliance with all DCP controls, including the maximum permitted RL heights contained in the DCP.

Planner’s comment:

Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The height breach is limited to an overall building height of RL 78.75 for the lift overrun.  The additional height of the lift core will not be visible from the adjacent streets and properties. The proposed variation to the development standard is necessary for the structure containing the lift core and in order to achieve required FFLs, and is consistent with the scale of the development within the R4 zone located in the immediate vicinity of the site. The departure sought is considered to be modest and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties and on Prospect Hill (heritage item).

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.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 2.

The provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii))

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

The provisions of any Development Control Plans (Environmental Planning & Assessment Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii))

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013

 

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is provided at Attachment 4. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4

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

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

The regulations do not proscribe any relevant matters for consideration.

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail             Sign                Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from 21 November 2018 to 12 December 2018. As a result of the notification, 1 submission was received. Amended plans submitted did not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

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

Section 7.11 of The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

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

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Pemulwuy contribution area, the required Section 7.11 contribution payable for the proposal is $248,825.

The Public Interest

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

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application 2018/379/1 which seeks consent for the construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising 25 dwellings over basement car parking containing 33 car spaces and 1 car wash bay, be Approved via Deferred Commencement, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 4. 2.      That the applicant and those persons who lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Apartment Design Guidelines Compliance Table ⇩

2.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

3.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table ⇩

4.      Draft Notice of Determination ⇩

5.      Original Architectural Plans ⇩

6.      Amended Conceptual Architectural Plans ⇩

7.      Accompanying Clause 4.6 Variation Request to Building Height ⇩

8.      Submission ⇩