13 November 2019

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am at the Merrylands Administration Building, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands on Wednesday, 13 November 2019.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 

 13 November 2019

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP071/19... Section 8.3 Review of Application - 2/2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd................... 5

LPP072/19... Development Application-17 Nottinghill Road, Lidcombe NSW 2141... 189

LPP073/19... Modification Application - 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes...................... 387

LPP074/19... Development Application - 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe.................... 637

LPP075/19... Development Application - 6/1-3 Ferngrove Place, Chester Hill............. 911

LPP076/19... Modification Application - 27B & 29 Garfield Street, Wentworthville.... 1051

 

 

13 November 2019

 

Item No: LPP071/19

Section 8.3 Review of Application - 2/2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2018/185  

 

 

1.      The subject review application was lodged on 4 July 2019 and notified to properties within a 100 m radius from 24 July to 7 August 2019. The application was renotified from 14 August to 28 August 2019 due to an error in the original notification. A total of 26 public submissions were received as a result of the notification, including two submissions in support of the proposal.

2.      Pursuant to clause 8.3(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the application must be referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination.

3.      The application is also considered to be contentious in accordance with the Ministerial direction issued 27 January 2018, given the number of public submissions received.

4.      The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013).

5.      The application involves the following numerical non-compliances which are not considered supportable in this instance:

 

6.      No additional information was submitted, and no amendments were made to the proposal in response to the reasons for refusal of the original application. The applicant is seeking review of the decision made by the Panel 22 May 2019, based on the information that was provided to Council 1 February 2019.

7.      It is recommended that the Panel confirm the determination from 22 May 2019 to refuse the application.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as unit 2, 2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd. The legal description of the site is lot 2 in strata plan 75506. The site is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial under the provisions of the HLEP 2013. 2-6 Peel Street is a factory complex with 6 units, constructed pursuant to DA 2003/1166. Unit 2 that is the subject of this application is located at the south eastern corner of the allotment and has frontage to both Walpole Street and Peel Street.

The sites to the east, west and north of the subject site are also zoned IN2 – Light Industrial. The sites to the south are zoned R4 – High Density Residential and have vehicular and pedestrian access via Refractory Court. Holroyd Sportsground is located at the opposite end of Peel Street. 

Subject site hatched red – 2-6 Peel Street, Holroyd

View of subject site from corner of Peel Street and Walpole Street.

Northern elevation of subject building from Peel Street

Description of the Proposed Development

DA 2018/185 sought consent for use of the existing factory unit as a place of public worship (mosque). No building works, internal or external, were proposed as part of the application.

The proposal is for the place of public worship to operate 7 days a week with up to six services a day: with the first service commencing 45 minutes prior to sunrise and the last service commencing 90 minutes after sunset.

Site History

Council’s Compliance Officers attended the subject site on 12 May 2017 in response to a complaint that was lodged regarding unauthorised use and works at the subject site. At the time of the inspection it was observed that building works that would have required development consent had been carried out within the building without the necessary consent having been obtained.

On 15 May 2017 Council issued a notice of intention to give orders to demolish the unauthorised works and reinstate the premises to its prior condition; and to cease the use of the premises as a place of public worship.

 

 

The applicant attempted to lodge an application (DA 2017/211) to regularise the unauthorised use of the premises on 25 May 2017. That application was rejected due to inadequate detail submitted with the application and lack of consent from the owner’s corporation.

The issues raised in the rejection letter were addressed by the applicant, and DA 2017/270 was lodged with Council on 28 June 2017.

DA 2017/270 was assessed by Council and it was found that the application could not be supported due to the lack of on-site parking, and the inadequacies of the acoustic report and plan of management submitted with the DA. The applicant was advised of Council’s non-support for the application and withdrew the DA on 13 December 2017.

The history of the site and the subject application is summarised in the following table.

Date	Action
28 June 2017	DA 2017/270 lodged with Council
26 July to 16 August 2017	DA 2017/270 publicly notified. A total of 21 submissions were received.
28 November 2017	Correspondence sent to the applicant for DA 2017/270 advising that the application would not be supported by Council
13 December 2017	DA 2017/270 withdrawn by the applicant
1 June 2018	DA 2018/185 lodged with Council
27 June to 18 July 2018	DA 2018/185 publicly notified. A total of 15 submissions were received.
19 October 2018	Correspondence sent to the applicant advising that staff would not support the proposal and inviting withdrawal of the application
4 March 2019	Additional information was submitted to address the issues raised in Council’s correspondence dated 19 October 2018
2 May 2019	Correspondence sent to the applicant advising that assessment of DA 2018/185 had been finalised, and that the application would not be supported.
22 May 2019	DA 2018/185 refused by CLPP
4 July 2019	Section 8.3 review application lodged with Council
5 August 2019	Correspondence sent to the applicant seeking information/amendments to address the reasons for refusal.
13 November 2019	Section 8.3 review application reported to CLPP for determination.

As physical works have already been carried out without the necessary consent, a deferred commencement condition requiring the lodgement of an application for a building information certificate would be imposed if consent were to be granted.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

This review is based on the correspondence from MB Town Planning dated 1 February 2019. No additional information was submitted with the review application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health, Engineering, Building Services, and Development Compliance and Waste units for comment. All departments re-stated their concerns regarding the original application. See previous CLPP report at attachment 4 for further details.

External Referrals

NSW Police – Cumberland Police Area Command

The application was referred to NSW Police – Cumberland Police Area Command for comment. The LAC also re-stated the concerns raised in response to the original application.

Planning Assessment

Section 8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

The requirements of clause 8.3 are considered in the following table.

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

The following Environmental Planning Instruments apply to the proposed development:

(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 for the proposed development is considered in the following table.

(b)     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘place of public worship’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013. A place of public worship is permitted with consent in the IN2 – Light Industrial zone which applies to the land. The proposal complies with the relevant development standards. A comprehensive HLEP compliance table is provided at attachment 1.

The proposal is considered to be not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

The objectives of the IN2 – Light Industrial zone are as follows:

·        To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

·        To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

·        To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

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

·        To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

The first three objectives are not relevant to the subject application as the proposed use is not for industrial or warehouse purposes.

With regard to the fourth objective, the approval of the subject application would allow for a use that could satisfy the day to day needs of workers in the local area.

With regard to the fifth objective, the proposal does not preclude ongoing use of surrounding sites, or the future use of the subject land, for industrial purposes.

Further evidence would be required to demonstrate that the use could operate without adversely impacting on the existing operation of surrounding land uses. However, Council is satisfied that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the IN2 zone.

(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).

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

There are no draft EPIs relevant to the proposed development.

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

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 contains general controls which relate to all developments under Part A, controls relating to industrial premises under Part D, and controls for Places of Public Worship under Part G. Many of the controls within Part G are not relevant to the proposal as there are no changes to the physical structure of the building. However, section 1 - Locational Requirements, and section 7 – Parking and Traffic, are relevant to the assessment. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the following objectives of Part G:

Section 1 – Locational requirements:

O1. To guide the appropriate location of places of public worship to ensure that amenity for surrounding residents and businesses is maintained.

O3. To ensure sites and streets are capable of containing the required parking and stormwater management facilities on site.

O4. To minimise the locating of conflicting land uses within the vicinity of places of public worship.

Section 7 – Parking and traffic:

O1. To ensure the provision of adequate car parking spaces for places of public worship.

O2. To ensure the safety of both pedestrians and other vehicle users in the surrounding locality.

O4. To ensure that the impact of parking and vehicular movement for a place of public worship is assessed and does not affect the amenity of the surrounding locality.

As detailed elsewhere in the report, the proposal involves a significant non-compliance with the applicable parking requirements, and this has adverse impacts on safety and amenity in the locality. The parking of attendee’s vehicles in surrounding streets is affecting truck movements associated with existing light industrial operations in the locality. This issue was raised in a number of submissions received during the public notification of the application.

Inconsistency with the DCP objectives was not included as a reason for refusal in the original determination. It is recommended that an additional reason be included to address this issue.

A comprehensive assessment against the relevant HDCP controls is provided at attachment 2. The DCP non-compliances are discussed below.

Car Parking

Section 3, Part A of HDCP 2013 requires a minimum of 1 car space per 8.5 m2 of GFA for all places of public worship. In this case, the facility has a GFA of 506.8 m2, and therefore requires a minimum of 60 car spaces to satisfy the control.

The subject unit has access to 6 existing car spaces, and no new spaces are proposed under this application. The parking shortfall is therefore, 54 spaces.

The applicant seeks to justify the non-compliance on the following grounds:

·        The operators proposed to cap attendee numbers at 80 persons

As detailed below, Council is not satisfied that there are adequate measures either currently in operation, or proposed under this application to cap the number of attendees at 80 persons.

·        Observations of the demand for parking spaces as a result of the unauthorised use indicate that the place of public worship generates demand for 0.66 spaces per attendee.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report identified that the use of the premises as a place of public worship is generating demand for 0.37 to 0.66 spaces per attendee. If a rate of 0.66 spaces per attendee is applied to the proposed number of 80 attendees, the facility would require 53 car spaces to satisfy demand. This is not significantly lower than 60 spaces required when applying the DCP rate and as detailed elsewhere, only 6 spaces are proposed/existing. Given that Council is not satisfied that the numbers can reasonably be capped at 80, the 0.66 spaces per attendee rate would indicate that parking demand as a result of the proposal is in the order of 180 to 210 spaces. 

The applicant’s correspondence dated 1 February 2019 suggests that the 0.66 spaces rate could be mitigated by the implementation of measures seeking to encourage attendees to use alternate means of travel. However, insufficient details regarding specific management measures and methods of implementation have been provided for assessment.

It is also not considered practical that attendees would opt for public or active transport modes if they are not already living or working in the immediate vicinity of the site as most of the services provided at the facility have a maximum duration of 25 minutes. It is also unlikely that people would choose active or public transport options for the early morning or late evening services.

·        There is sufficient off-site parking in the vicinity of the subject site to accommodate the proposal.

The applicant identified in the correspondence dated 1 February 2019 that there are 316 on street parking spaces in the vicinity of the subject site, as well as 105 spaces in the Holroyd Gardens car park. That is, there are a total of 421 publicly accessible car spaces in the vicinity of the site. The Traffic and Parking Assessment submitted with the application indicates that the spaces closest to the subject site on Peel Street, Fox Street and Walpole Street were in highest demand at the time of the survey.

There is no footpath on either side of Peel, Robert or Fox Streets, and this raises concerns about pedestrian safety and accessibility if on street parking in these locations is to be utilised.

Spaces on Walpole Street or within the Holroyd Gardens are accessible from the subject site via footpaths. However, the DCP controls specifically require parking spaces to be provided on site. In this case, the vast majority of the spaces required to support the development are located on street or on Council land (Holroyd Gardens).

·        The Auburn DCP has a less onerous parking rate for places of public worship.

The Auburn DCP has a rate of 1 car space per 20 m2 of GFA. This would equate to 25.34 (26) spaces for the subject proposal. The applicant acknowledges that the Auburn DCP does not apply to the subject land but suggests that this control should be considered as the Holroyd and Auburn DCPs apply to the same LGA.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment submitted with the original application states that ‘mosques typically generate a higher parking demand than the DCP typically allows for ‘religious land uses’ due to the higher population density in the prayer area’. This would suggest that applying the less onerous Auburn DCP control is not appropriate in the circumstances. Notwithstanding, the proposal would still have a significant non-compliance of at least 20 car spaces if the Auburn rate were applied.

For the reasons detailed above, Council is not satisfied that the number of existing on-site parking spaces is sufficient to meet the demand generated by the proposal. Approval of an application with such a significant parking non-compliance with the relevant parking rate would set an undesirable precedent for other development in the locality. This was included as a reason for refusal in determination of the original application.

Plan of Management

The applicant submitted a number of separate documents dealing with operational management aspects of the proposal. The original application included an operational plan of management prepared by MB Town Planning, and a separate plan of management prepared by TTPP dealing with traffic and parking aspects of the development.

The amended application included a revised operational plan of management, and additional correspondence from MB Town Planning including updated survey of on street parking spaces.

A key element of the applicant’s argument to support the on-site parking non-compliance is a suggested cap in the number of attendees. In the correspondence dated 1 February 2019, the applicant indicated that the number of attendees would be capped at 80. This would be achieved by ‘advising some of the current attendees to attend services that are available at another place of worship at Merrylands, and by refusing to admit additional attendees when the numbers have reached a specified limit.’

It is not clear at what point the attendees would be advised to attend other services. If this were to occur at the time of the religious service, it would have limited benefit in terms of managing demand for on-street parking and restricting vehicular traffic in the area, as attendees would need to arrive at the site, and park their vehicles before being advised that they need to make alternative arrangements to fulfil their religious duties. If some other method of communication with attendees is proposed, further details of the timing, content and method of this communication would be required in order to make a full and proper assessment. On the basis of the available information, Council is not satisfied that adequate measures are either in place or proposed to achieve a cap in the number of attendees. Accordingly, it is assumed that the demand for parking in the locality as a result of the proposal would not be significantly less that that required under the DCP.

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 application.

 

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

Pursuant to clause 93 of the Regulation, a consent authority must take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate for the proposed use.

Any existing deficiencies with the building could be rectified as part of the assessment and determination of a building information certificate application. Council’s Building Services Unit has not identified any specific non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the NCC.

The likely environmental, social or economic impacts in the locality (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(b))

Insufficient information was submitted with the application to satisfy Council that the proposed development will have acceptable environmental impacts in the locality. Accordingly, this is included as a reason for refusal.

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

The site is located within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone, where places of public worship are permitted with development consent. However, owing to the significant deficiency of on-site car parking, and the impacts on traffic movement within the light industrial area, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed use. This is included as a reason for refusal.

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

The application was notified in accordance with Part E – Public Participation of HDCP 2013 from 24 July to 7 August 2019. The application was renotified from 14 August to 28 August 2019 due to an error in the original notification. Twenty six (26) submissions were received as a result of the notification. The issues raised in the submissions are discussed in the following table:

Submissions objecting to the proposal

Submissions in support of the proposal

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

The public interest is served by permitting the development 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 development as proposed would be contrary to the public interest.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

The application and notification process did not result in any disclosure of political donations or gifts.

The application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

The applicant has not altered their proposal in any way, or provided any additional information, to address the reasons for refusal of the original application. The Panel can be satisfied that the decision made on 22 May 2019 was appropriate, given the non-compliance with the on-site parking requirements, and uncertainty around measures proposed to manage traffic and parking impacts, or to limit the number of attendees.

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 the Panel confirm the decision from 22 May 2019 to refuse DA 2018/185. i)                2.       That those persons who made a submission be advised of the determination.

 

1.      HLEP 2013 Compliance Table  

2.      HDCP 2013 Compliance Table  

3.      Draft Notice of Determination  

4.      CLPP Report dated 22 May 2019  

5.      Refusal Notice for DA 2018/185  

6.      Applicant's correspondence dated 1 February 2019  

7.      Redacted Public Submissions   

 

Attachment 1

HLEP 2013 Compliance Table

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

HDCP 2013 Compliance Table

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 November 2019

 

 

Attachment 4

CLPP Report dated 22 May 2019

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Refusal Notice for DA 2018/185

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Applicant's correspondence dated 1 February 2019

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Redacted Public Submissions

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 November 2019

 

Item No: LPP072/19

Development Application-17 Nottinghill Road, Lidcombe NSW 2141

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA-153/2019  

 

 

1.      Development Application No.DA-153/2019 was received on 27 May 2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 48 place childcare facility with basement level parking to operate 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Friday

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 11 June 2019 and 25 June 2019, between 10 July 2019 and 24 July 2019, and between 8 October 2019 and 22 October 2019. In response, six submissions were received.

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

4.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious due to the number of submissions received.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site forms 17 Nottinghill Road, LIDCOMBE NSW 2141 and is known as Lot 2 DP 962677. The site has an area of 832.89m2 and a frontage to Nottinghill Road of 16.76m. The site has a fall of approximately 1.3m from rear to front.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey stone cottage dwelling and an ancillary structure to the rear.

The subject site is located within an established low-density residential area comprising of older style single storey residential dwellings and cottages and also larger two storey dwellings, as illustrated by an aerial map extract below

Locality Map

Aerial View

Street View

Description of the Proposed Development

Council is in receipt of a development application lodged on 27 May 2019 seeking approval for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 48 place childcare facility with basement level parking to operate 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday. The detailed breakdown of the proposal is as below:

Demolition:

·        Single storey dwelling

Construction:

·        Basement:

o 12 car spaces (one of which is accessible);

o Lift and stairs;

o Waste storage area;

o Laundry.

·        Ground floor:

o Two play rooms with 24 children each;

o Children’s toilet and nappy change area;

o Reception;

o Directors office;

o Lift and stairs;

o Kitchen;

o Laundry chute;

o Staff toilet.

·        First floor:

o Staff room;

o Storage area.

History

The applicant sought pre-DA advice from Council on 30 January 2019 (PL-4/2019).

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 16 May 2019 and was received by Council on 27 May 2019 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

Environment and Health

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

Landscape Architect/Officer

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

Waste Management

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

Child Care Services Coordinator

The development application was referred to Council’s Child Care Services Coordinator for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to amendments which have formed part of the conditions of consent.

External Referrals

Heritage

The site is not heritage listed nor is it in a heritage conservation area, however concerns were raised by residents that the dwelling to be demolished had heritage significance. Council engaged an independent heritage consultant to conduct an investigation into the history of the dwelling, determine whether if the dwelling had heritage significance and whether the dwelling should be considered for local heritage listing.

The report from the consultant concludes as follows:

An appropriate condition is included in the draft conditions to ensure the applicant provides an historical record of the existing building on the site for archival purposes.

The full report is attached as Attachment 6. 

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012

 

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of Part 3 are addressed below:

 

 

The Child Care Planning Guidelines also list matters for consideration when assessing development application. This development application is considered to satisfactorily address these matters listed. A full assessment table is attached in Appendix B.

 

Local Environmental Plans

 

Auburn Local Environmental Plan, 2010

 

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

 

(a)     Permissibility:-

 

The proposed development is defined as a “centre-based child care facility” and is permissible in the R2 – Low Density Residential Zone with consent.

 

A centre-based child care facility means:

(a)  a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides any one or more of the following:

(i)  long day care,

(ii)  occasional child care,

(iii)  out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

(iv)  preschool care, or

(b)  an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)),

 

Note. An approved family day care venue is a place, other than a residence, where an approved family day care service (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)) is provided.

 

but does not include:

 

(c) a building or place used for home-based child care or school-based child care, or

(d) an office of a family day care service (within the meanings of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)), or

(e) a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f) a child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium) to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(g) a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or providing private tutoring, or

(h)  a child-minding service that is provided by or in a health services facility, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating in the facility.

 

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn Local Environmental Plan, 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

 

Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

 

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

 

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

 

The draft SEPP relates to the protection and management of our natural environment with the aim of simplifying the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

 

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·        Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·        Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

 

The draft policy will repeal the above existing SEPPs and certain provisions will be transferred directly to the new SEPP, amended and transferred, or repealed due to overlaps with other areas of the NSW planning system.

 

Changes are also proposed to the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan. Some provisions of the existing policies will be transferred to new Section 117 Local Planning Directions where appropriate.

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Council’s Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advertised (newspaper)             Mail              Sign                Not Required

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 11 June 2019 and 25 June 2019 and again between 10 July 2019 and 24 July 2019 and again between 8 October 2019 and 22 October 2019. The notification generated six submissions in respect of the proposal with nil disclosing a political donation or gift. All submissions received were received during the first notification period. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

 

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans.

 

The calculation is based on the use being employment generating development:

 

The fee payable is $12,683.08. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

 

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Auburn LEP 2010 and Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered to be 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: 1.      That Development Application No. DA-153/2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 48 place childcare facility with basement level parking to operate 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Friday on land at 17 Nottinghill Road, LIDCOMBE NSW 2141 be approved subject to attached conditions. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Stormwater Engineering Plans  

4.      Plan of Management  

5.      Submissions  

6.      Heritage Assessment  

7.      Childcare Planning Guidelines Assessment  

8.      ADCP Assessment   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 13 November 2019

Attachment 3

Stormwater Engineering Plans

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Plan of Management

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Submissions

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Heritage Assessment

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Childcare Planning Guidelines Assessment

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

ADCP Assessment

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 November 2019

 

Item No: LPP073/19

Modification Application - 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA 2018/284/2  

 

 

Background / History

On 16 April 2019, the original development application (DA2018/284/1) for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 26 place two storey, child care centre over basement parking accommodating 9 parking spaces; was granted a deferred commencement approval by Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

The Panel noted the extensive amount of impervious area proposed and having regard to the reduction in the approved number of children to 26 places, considered it appropriate to reduce the number of basement car spaces to allow a corresponding increase in the amount of area for deep soil planting on site. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the following deferred commencement conditions be imposed to:

1.      Car space numbered 10 (visitor) on drawing number 05 (floor plans) is to be deleted and that portion of the basement is to be cut back accordingly. The corresponding ground area is to be provided for deep soil planting and be suitably landscaped, including one mature canopy tree capable of achieving a height of 6 metres.

2.      The width of car space 4 (staff) on drawing number 05 (floor plans) is to be increased to 2.7 metres.

On 12 June 2019, a Schedule A letter was issued confirming that above deferred commencement conditions have been complied with to Council’s satisfaction.

The date from which DA2018/284/1 consent operates is 12 June 2019. 

On 2 August 2019, Section 4.55(1A) modification application (DA2018/284/2) seeking removal of the external storage shed and dense planting, reinstatement of visitor parking space numbered 10 in the basement, and amendments to the outdoor play space to increase capacity of approved child care centre from 26 to 30 places; was lodged with Council.

In accordance with Part E – Public Participation of Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the application was notified to adjoining and opposite owners, and residents who submitted an objection to original DA, by way of letters, for 14 days from 2 September 2019 to 16 September 2019. In response, the application received 5 submissions.

The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline (the Guideline) 2017, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

The proposal seeks the following notable non-compliance which is considered supportable as discussed in summary below and detailed elsewhere in the report:

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as the modification seeks to alter an aspect of the approved development specifically required by the Panel, being the reinstatement of the visitor parking space within the basement and amendments to the outdoor play space.

The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 2.

Introduction

The subject site is known as 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes, and is legally described as Lot 29 in DP 239685. The site is located on the western side of Hyacinth Street. The site is a rectangular block with a frontage of 20.4m, depth of 27.4m and a total site area of 560.2m². Existing improvements on the site include a single-storey dwelling with attached carport on the southern side. Adjoining developments consist of one to two storey detached dwelling houses with landscaped front setbacks. Widemere Public School directly adjoins the subject site and shares its rear boundary. Nemesia Street Park is located 100m walking distance north-east from the subject site. The subject site and all of adjoining properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

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 – 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

 

Description of the Proposed Development

DA2018/284/2 seeks removal of the external storage shed and dense planting, reinstatement of visitor parking space numbered 10 in the basement, and amendments to the outdoor play space to increase capacity of approved child care centre from 26 to 30 places.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:

The modified child care centre seeks to increase children placement from 26 to 30 children, as follows:

·        10 children – 2-3 years

·        20 children – 3-5 years

The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and will employ 4 staff.

Application History

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The applicant provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated July 2019 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has raised no objections to the modifications sought. No amendments to conditions or additional conditions are recommended to be imposed.

Traffic Engineer

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to the manoeuvring and on-site parking provision in the modified basement layout. No amendments to conditions or additional conditions are recommended to be imposed.

Tree Management Officer

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the Backhousia citriodora (Lemon Myrtle) proposed at the north-west corner of the site will be able to achieve a mature canopy height of 6m given its proposed location and soil volume, should the tree be maintained appropriately in 5-6 years following planting. In this regard, the proposed tree planting is able to satisfy deferred commencement condition No. 1 with the reinstatement of the visitor car parking space at the north-west corner of the basement. Conditions are recommended to be imposed requiring all trees installed within close proximity to the rear boundary fence line that are 45L and greater in container size, be appropriately maintained by a qualified horticulturalist for a minimum period of 12 months from the date of the issue of the final Occupation Certificate, or until the respective trees reach a height of 6m and greater, measured from the base of the tree.

 

Children’s Services

The development application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services section for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to compliance with the provisions of Education and Care Services National Regulations and Law, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

N/A

Planning Assessment

Section 4.55(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact

A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority 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)

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

The relevant provisions of the SEPP have been considered in the assessment of the Application.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix A, which indicates that there is a non-compliance with the SEPP 2017 with regard to number of children proposed and outdoor unencumbered space as follows:

Control	Required	Provided
(d)     Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m² x 30 = 210m²	The application indicates that an unencumbered area of 210m² is provided. However, this has not taken consideration of OSD pits, open swale channel, retaining walls and dense planting. The assessment officer’s calculation of the unencumbered outdoor space equates to 192m². This will accommodate only 27.4 children. This report recommends an increase of 1 child placement, taking the total number of children cared for at the centre from 26 to 27. The consent is recommended to be amended to reflect this change.

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

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

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

Tree removal was assessed as part of the original application. No additional tree removal is sought as part of this modification application. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposed modification and raised no objections, subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

(f)      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘centre based child care facility’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Centre based child care facilities are a permissible land use with consent under the R2 – Low Density Residential zoning applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

The proposed modifications do not result in any new non-compliances with the LEP. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix B which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013.

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

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.

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

(g)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 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.

The proposed modifications do not result in any new non-compliances with the relevant DCP controls and are supported. Parts A, B & I apply to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report at Appendix C which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site.

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 are no draft planning agreements or planning agreements associated with the subject Application.

The provisions of the Regulations

The proposed development raises no concerns as to the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000.

The likely impacts of the development

The likely impacts of the modifications have been considered in the assessment of the application and 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

The site is considered suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed development has been assessed in regard to its environmental consequences and having regard to this assessment, 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

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail               Sign             Not Required

In accordance with Part E – Public Participation of Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the application was notified to adjoining and opposite owners, and residents who submitted an objection to original DA, by way of letters, for 14 days from 2 September 2019 to 16 September 2019. In response, the application received 5 submissions.

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

Section 7.11 Contribution Towards Provision or Improvement of Amenities or Services

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

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval to allow an additional child, increasing the number of approved children from 26 to 27 (to comply with the outdoor unencumbered space) and the draft conditions.

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Section 4.55(1A) modification application (DA2018/284/2) seeking removal of the external storage shed and dense planting, reinstatement of visitor parking space numbered 10 in the basement, and amendments to the outdoor play space to increase the capacity of approved child care centre from 26 to 27 places, on land at 15 Hyacinth Street, Greystanes, be approved, subject to the attached conditions, provided at Attachment 2. 2.      That the applicant and those persons who lodged a submission in respect of the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments & Child Care Facilities) 2017  

2.      Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013  

3.      Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013  

4.      Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017  

5.      Draft Notice of Determination - Section 4.55 (1A)  

6.      Architectural Plans  

7.      Landscape Plan  

8.      Acoustic Impact Assessment  

9.      Noise Management Plan  

10.    Parking & Traffic Impact Assessment  

11.    Submissions  

12.    Minutes of CLPP Meeting held on 16 April 2019  

13.    Original Consent (DA 2018/284/1)  

14.    Schedule A Letter for DA 2018/284/1 to become operative  

15.    Approved Architectural & Landscape Plans (DA 2018/284/1)   

 

Attachment 1

Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments & Child Care Facilities) 2017

 13 November 2019

 

 

Attachment 2

Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

 13 November 2019

 

Attachment 3

Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Draft Notice of Determination - Section 4.55 (1A)

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Architectural Plans

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Landscape Plan

 13 November 2019

Attachment 8

Acoustic Impact Assessment

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 9

Noise Management Plan

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 10

Parking & Traffic Impact Assessment

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 13 November 2019

 13 November 2019

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 11

Submissions

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 12

Minutes of CLPP Meeting held on 16 April 2019

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 13

Original Consent (DA 2018/284/1)

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 14

Schedule A Letter for DA 2018/284/1 to become operative

 13 November 2019

Attachment 15

Approved Architectural & Landscape Plans (DA 2018/284/1)

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

13 November 2019

 

Item No: LPP074/19

Development Application - 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA-224/2019  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. 224/2019 was received on 19 July 2019 for alterations and additions to an approved 10 storey residential flat building.  The alterations seek to increase the total unit numbers from 117 to 120 including an additional 3x2 bedroom units on the roof level, resulting in an 11 storey building.  Amendments to the facade and unit mix are proposed as well as the installation of a substation, fire hydrant and pump room.  An additional level of basement parking is proposed which will result in 5 levels of basement, with provision for 206 car parking spaces.

2.      In total, the proposed amended development will provide 120 residential units comprising 2 x studios, 71 x 1 bedroom, 46 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom units.  5 levels of basement will provide parking for 206 vehicles, residential storage and various plant and pump rooms.

3.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 6 August 2019 and 20 August 2019 and re-notified for a period of 14 days between 24 September 2019 and 8 October 2019.  No submissions were received.

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

 

5.      With the exception of the visual privacy to the new top floor, the above variations are consistent with those granted under DA-220/2017 for the approved development.

6.      The application is recommended for the granting of conditional consent, subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule.

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, DP 397, No. 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe.  The subject site is located on the southwest corner of Raphael Street and Davey Street.

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

The site is situated within a mixed use zone within the Lidcombe town centre and is approximately 380m walking distance to Lidcombe railway station.

The site has a frontage to Raphael Street of 49.675m to the east and a frontage to Davey Street of 35.21m to the north.  The site is generally rectangular in shape and has a total area of 1,761m2.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

 

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

The land is currently occupied by 4 single dwellings, comprising single storey fibro or weatherboard cottages on Nos. 9, 11 and 15 Raphael Street and a 2 storey brick dwelling on No.13 Raphael Street

The site is adjoined by a 4 storey residential flat building to the west and a 10 storey residential flat building to the south.  A number of industrial premises exist on the eastern side of Raphael Street. 

Land to the north is currently used for storage; however is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and is earmarked for acquisition in the Auburn LEP 2010 for public park purposes.

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site showing existing development

 

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the alterations and additions to a residential flat building that was approved under DA-280/2017 at 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe.  Construction of that building had not commenced at the time this report was prepared.

Specifically, DA-280/2017 granted consent to the:

“Demolition of all existing structures and construction of 10 storey residential flat building consisting of 117 units with 4 levels of basement parking.”

The subject development application (DA-224/2019) proposes the following alterations and additions to the approved development:

(i)      altering the apartment mix to 2 x studio, 71 x 1 bedroom, 46 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom units;

(ii)     the addition of three 2 bedroom units on the rooftop level to provide a total of 120 residential units and a new floor of apartments;

(iii)    modification for stairs at the ground floor;

(iv)    provide a padmount substation and hydrant/booster;

(v)     provide a sprinkler pump room and additional residential storage at basement level 1;

(vi)    change the façade treatment by removing decorative blades; and

(vii)   provide an additional level of basement parking to provide for 206 vehicles.

·        Apartment mix and new units on the roof top level

The apartment mix under the original development and as proposed is as follows:

 

 

	DA-208/2017	DA-224/2019	Variation
Studio	2 (1.7%)	2 (1.6%)	-
1 bedroom	73 (62.4%)	71 (59.2%)	-2
2 bedroom	42 (35.9%)	46 (38.3%)	+4
3 bedroom	0 (0%)	1 (0.9%)	+1
TOTAL	117	120	+3

The amended apartment mix is a slight improvement over the original proposal in that it reduces the number of 1 bedroom apartments, provides a 3 bedroom apartment that was not featured in the original apartment mix, and a slight increase in the number and proportion of 2 bedroom apartments.

The additions include 3 x 2 bedroom apartments on the 11th storey, which replaces part of the rooftop structure used in conjunction with the rooftop common open space as shown below.  Two apartments on the 10th storey become maisonette apartments with their living rooms on the 11th storey.

Figure 4 – Comparison of elevations and level 10 (11th storey) plans showing new apartments on level 10

The additional apartments on the top level and extend the envelope of the approved rooftop structures (shown in yellow on the original approved plan) with a minor increase to the built form beyond the line of the rooftop structure extending to the east and west. 

As demonstrated in the shadow diagrams on drawing No. DA6002 Issue F, the increase in overshadowing beyond that the approved development is minor.

·        Ground floor alterations including substation, hydrant booster and fire stairs

Other alterations are made at the ground floor level to provide a substation and hydrant booster, as well as minor changes to the fire stairs leading from the basement carpark.

These changes result in the loss of some ground level landscaping as shown below in green.

Figure 5 – Comparison of ground floor plans showing loss of planting

·        Changes to the façade treatment

Amendments are sought to the façade treatment to remove decorative blades to give a cleaner appearance to the external façade.  The removal of the blades will also result in a building façade that is easier to maintain.

The changes to the façade treatment are considered to be positive.

A comparison of the perspectives of the building looking south west from the corner of Davey Street and Raphael Street is shown below at Figure 6.

It should be noted that the colour palette remains the same and any discrepancies in the colours shown in Figure 6 is merely the result of different printing and scanning.

Figure 6 – Comparison of schedule of external finishes

·        Additional level of basement car parking

An additional basement level of car parking is proposed to provide 49 parking spaces, services, storage and left access.  The additional basement levels result in a total of in 206 car parking spaces being provided. 

A parking assessment is provided within this report when dealing with matters under the ADG.

The location of access to the basements from Raphael Street has not changed from the approved scheme.

Other aspects of the development including waste management remain unchanged.

A total of 12 accessible apartments are provided, comprising 10% of the apartment yield.

The total residential GFA and FSR is as follows:

 

The FSR of the proposed scheme meets the maximum FSR of 5:1 under the Auburn LEP 2010.

History

DA-280/2017 was lodged with Council on 27 June 2017 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of 10 storey residential flat building consisting of 117 units with 4 levels of basement parking at 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe.

DA-280/2017 was granted consent on 7 March 2018.

To date, works have not commenced.

The subject DA-224/2019 was lodged on 19 July 2019.

The application was placed on notification between 6 August 2019 and 20 August 2019.

Amended plans were received on 4 September 2019.

The amended application was placed on notification between 24 September 2019 and 8 October 2019.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The application is supported by the following material:

Contact With Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

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

 

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the alterations and additions to the approved development are satisfactory and the existing approved waste storage and handling are capable of meeting the demand of the additional apartments.

External Referrals

Ausgrid

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

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development.

In considering DA-280/2017, Council received and considered a Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by STS Geotechnical Pty Ltd which concluded that the site is suitable for the development.  Conditions of consent were imposed on DA-280/2017 requiring disposal of excavated materials in accordance with NSW EPA Guidelines and that any unexpected finds during excavation be notified to Council and the PCA.

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the approved development.  Those alterations and additions do not require the submission of a further Preliminary Site Investigation.

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

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

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

The provision of parking, while compliant with the ADG, is also discussed below.

·        3E-1 – Deep Soil

The ADG requires 7% of a site area be provided as deep soil.  Based on a site are of 1,761m2, the development would need to provide 124m2 of deep soil.

The proposed development does not provide any deep soil areas due to the extent of the basement structure.

The development as approved under DA-280/2017 did not propose deep soil areas.  The subject development application does not change this aspect of the development. 

The proposed development provides common open space areas at both ground and rooftop levels which complies with the ADG provisions.

·        3F-1 – Visual Privacy

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

 

Where the subject DA proposes a change to the approved scheme, the setbacks to the western boundary are as follows:

 

Setbacks are in accordance with the previous approval under DA-280/2017 for all floors up to Level 9 (being the 10th floor).  The creation of apartments on Level 10 (the 11th floor) results in a minor non-compliance for the apartments on that floor of 200mm.

The adjoining 4 storey residential flat building has balconies setback 12m from the boundary, which results in a 21m separation.  This is considered satisfactory noting that the adjoining building is 4 storeys in height and there is no direct privacy impact from the balconies and living rooms providing on the top storey.  The balconies are bordered by planter boxes which will assist in providing privacy to the adjoining development. 

The reduced setback does not result in any increase in overshadowing of adjoining properties above that which has been approved.  No non-compliance with solar access provisions of the ADG or ADCP results from the increased floor space.

The reduced setback is supported on the grounds above.

·        3J-1 – Car parking

The land is within 800m of a railway station within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and as such car parking is based on the lesser of the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors as set out in either the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the ADCP.

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development requires the following parking:

74 x 1 bed @ 0.6 spaces= 44.4

46 x 2 bed @ 0.9 spaces = 41.4

1 x 3 bed @ 1.4 spaces= 1.4

Total Resident – 87.2 spaces

Visitor – 120 units @ 1space/5 units = 24

Total min. required – 112 spaces

For comparison, the ADCP requires:

74 x 1 bed @ 1 spaces= 74

46 x 2 bed @ 1 spaces = 46

1 x 3 bed @ 2 spaces= 2

Total Resident – 122 spaces

Visitor – 120 units @ 0.2 = 24

Total min. required – 146 spaces

206 spaces are proposed.

The proposal, therefore, exceeds the required minimum number of car parking spaces.  Deletion of the proposed basement 5 level would still provide 157 spaces which is compliant with both sets of controls.

The need for additional car parking is questioned, particularly given the proximity to Lidcombe railway station and bus interchange.

The loss of the additional basement level 5 would not result in a shortfall in car parking. 

The loss of the additional basement level 5 would result in 2 less storage cages which could be provided within another basement level without creating any non-compliance with parking.

·        4F-1 – Common circulation and spaces

The ADG provides that in buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40. 

The building provides 2 lifts.  Between the first floor and the ninth floor, each lift serves a separate wing of the building with the northern lift solely serving 63 apartments and the southern lift solely serving 45 apartments.  The ground floor and the top floor have access to both lifts.

Although this does not comply with the ADG, the development as approved under DA-280/2017 also provided 63 apartments being served by the northern lift and 45 apartments being served by the southern lift. 

The current application therefore does not change the number of apartments that are served by each of the lifts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold.

The proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

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

BASIX Certificate 832067M_02 dated issued on 17 July 2019 prepared by Building and Energy Consultants Australia has been submitted with the development application and is considered to be satisfactory.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn LEP 2010

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

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a “residential flat building” and is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zone with consent.

“Residential flat building” is defined by the Auburn LEP 2010 as:

“a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing”

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn LEP 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. 

A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix B

Figure 5 – Auburn 2010 Compliance Table

 

(a)     Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

The Clause 4.6 variation does not address the objectives of the zone.

This is a necessary precondition of a Clause 4.6 variation which must satisfy Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) which states:

(4)     Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)     the consent authority is satisfied that:

(ii)     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

In the absence of any commentary on how the development will remain consistent with the objectives of the zone, notwithstanding the breach of the height control, consent cannot be granted.

Conclusion:

The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6 subclause (3). 

Further, the Clause 4.6 request has demonstrated 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 author’s view that the justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the exception to the maximum building height development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

The draft SEPP relates to the protection and management of our natural environment with the aim of simplifying the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·        Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·        Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

The draft policy will repeal the above existing SEPPs and certain provisions will be transferred directly to the new SEPP, amended and transferred, or repealed due to overlaps with other areas of the NSW planning system.

The SEPPs relevant to the draft SEPP (Environment) have been addressed above insofar as they are relevant to the subject proposal.

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

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

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

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

The proposed development complies with the provisions of those parts of the Auburn DCP 2010 and is considered acceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)               Mail                  Sign              Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 6 August 2019 and 20 August 2019. The proposal was subsequently re-notified for a period of 14 days between 24 September 2019 and 8 October 2019. The notification periods did not generate any submissions.

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans for the additional apartments and change in the apartment mix, noting that contributions were levied on DA-280/2017 for the approved number and mix of apartments.

The calculation is based on:

As at 22 October 2019, the fee payable is $495,934.09. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Auburn LEP 2010 and Auburn DCP 2010.

The development is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions and subject to receipt of a revised Clause 4.6 variation which addresses Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the Auburn LEP 2010 with regard to the zone objectives and public interest.

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

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, the Panel may be satisfied that the alterations and additions to the previously approved development have been responsibly designed and provide for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents.  It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departures noted above, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

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

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 the Local Planning Panel approve the variation to the Development Standard relating to building height as contained within Clause 4.3 of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 as the applicant’s Clause 4.6 objection has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 (3) and the development will be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the Height Standard and the objectives of the B4 – Mixed Use; 2.      That Development Application No. DA-224/2019 for alterations and additions to approved 11 storey residential flat building (DA-280/2017) which will accommodate a total of 120 residential units (2 x studio apartments, 71 x 1 bedroom, 46 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom units) over a 5 level basement for 206 vehicles on land at 9-15 Raphael Street, Lidcombe be granted consent subject to attached conditions.

 

1.      Architectural Plan External  

2.      Architectural Plans Internal  

3.      Stormwater Engineering Plans  

4.      Appendix A  

5.      Appendix B  

6.      Appendix C  

7.      Clause 4.6 Request  

8.      Draft Notice of Determination  

9.      Notice of determination DA-280/2017  

10.    Stamped Plans - Part 1 - DA-280/2017  

11.    Stamped Plans - Part 2 - DA-280/2017   

 

Attachment 1

Architectural Plan External

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans Internal

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 13 November 2019

 

Attachment 3

Stormwater Engineering Plans

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Appendix A

 13 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Appendix B

 13 November 2019