Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

11 March 2020

Item No: LPP010/20

Development Application for 20 Dan Street, Merrylands

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: DA2019/432/1

Application lodged	12 November 2019
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Mr J Habkouk
Application No.	DA2019/432/1
Description of Land	20 Dan Street Merrylands NSW 2160 (Lot 15 DP 28571)
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey 53 place child care facility over basement level car parking
Site Area	977.40m²
Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential Zone
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	N/A
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: 0.5:1 Proposed: 0.43:1 Height of Building Permissible: 9m Proposed: 7.495m
Issues	1. Site suitability 2. Traffic, parking and safety impact 3. Acoustic impact 4. Outdoor unencumbered space size, layout and shade structure 5. Solar access to indoor play area 6. Public interest 7. Inadequate information

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA2019/432/1 was received on 12 November 2019 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey 53 place child care facility over basement level car parking.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 27 November 2019 and 11 December 2019. In response, 20 submissions were received (including a petition with 17 signatures).

3. The development application was privy to a pre-development application lodgement advice (PDA/843) issued by Council on 8 May 2019, which stated that the site is not suitable for a child care centre having regard to the location within the bulb of a cul-de-sac that will result in adverse traffic, parking and safety impacts. The subject application subsequently was lodged and Council through its assessment identified those issues relating to site suitability, adverse traffic, parking and safety impact, outdoor unencumbered space size, layout and shade structure, and solar access to indoor play area that have not been satisfactorily addressed. Revised documentation would have been requested to the applicant, if the proposal was to be supported.

4. The application seeks the following variations:

Control

Required

Provided

% Variation

Unencumbered outdoor play area (Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 – Clause 4.9)

Min 7m² per child:

30 x 7m² = 210m²

186.4m²

11.24% (23.6m²)

Size & Density (HDCP 2013 – Section 1, Part I)

Child care centres shall not be located on an allotment within an entire residential cul-de-sac.

Subject site is located on the bulb of the cul-de-sac within Dan Street.

5. The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel as it is subject of 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection.

6. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 4.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 20 Dan Street, Merrylands. The legal description of the site is Lot 15 in DP 28571. The subject site and all adjacent sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

The site is irregular in shape and located in a bulb of the cul-de-sac. It has an arc frontage of 10.975m to Dan Street, and a total area of 977.4m2. The site has a cross fall of approximately 2.64m from the western corner to the eastern corner of the site, and currently contains a single storey dwelling house with a detached garage.

The existing developments adjoining the site include single storey dwelling houses and an attached two storey dual occupancy to the north of the site, and single and two storey dwelling houses on Dan Street.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 53 place child care facility as follows:

· 0-2 years: 8 places;

· 2-3 years: 15 places; and

· 3-5 years: 30 places.

Basement level parking is provided for 18 car spaces.

The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday and will employ eight (8) staff.

No signage is proposed as part of the application.

History

Date	Action
10 April 2019	Pre-development application lodgement meeting was held (PDA/843)
12 November 2019	DA 2019/432 lodged with Council
20 November 2019	DA referred to internal sections of Council for comment
27 November 2019 to 11 December 2019	DA notified to owners and occupants of surrounding properties.
10 February 2020	Advised applicant that Council will not be supporting application and to withdraw
11 March 2020	The application reported to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 5 November 2019 and was received by Council on 12 November 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 can be supported, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Traffic Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who has advised the application is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

The proposed development will increase the number of peak period traffic moments on Dan Street significantly. The submitted traffic report identified the current peak hour turning moments at the intersection and future prediction. The intersection performance based on the report will be reduced from B to C.

The proposed development is not supported for the following reasons.

1. Childcare centres in a cul-de-sac are not supported under the Holroyd DCP 2013.

2. Dan Street is a narrow street (7.4m wide) and it is difficult for continuous two way movements between parked cars on the street.

3. The additional right turn moments from Burnett Street to Dan Street generated by the proposed development will delay the north bound traffic significantly on Burnett Street, as it is single lane in each direction with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) approximately 19,000.

4. There will be an increased delay for exiting Dan Street households to enter and exit Burnett Street, especially right movements, which will affect the amenity of the residents of Dan Street.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

Landscape Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

Children Services

The development application was referred to Council’s Children Services team for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

External Referral

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

Tran’s grid

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal can be supported, subject to conditions.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

It is noted that State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 commenced on 1 September 2017. The SEPP applies to any proposals for new schools or child care centres or proposed alterations and additions to existing centres. 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 Attachment 1, which indicates that there are non-compliances with the SEPP 2017 with regard to traffic, solar access, supervision, outdoor play area requirements, and safety and amenity impacts. Planning assessment of this application identifies concerns with the following design quality principles:

Part 2 – Design quality principles
*Principle 1 – Context*	The proposal does not respond appropriately to the context of the site, adjoining properties and the existing development in the vicinity. The site shares its boundaries with six (6) other residential properties and will have negative acoustic, traffic and safety impacts.
*Principle 3 – Adaptive learning spaces*	The facility does not provide shade structures within the outdoor play areas. Children will be unable to enjoy outdoor activities during all weather conditions, including rainy and warmer weather and this is not considered acceptable.
*Principle 4 - Sustainability*	The facility does not provide adequate access to daylight which will require artificial lighting. The proposed mechanical ventilation has not been detailed on the plans and that may also have acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties.
*Principle 6 – Amenity*	The design of the centre does not provide sufficient unencumbered outdoor play area as detailed below. The acoustic impacts of the proposed development have not been adequately addressed under the acoustic report as the location of the mechanical ventilation has not provided. The increased traffic within the street and local area will also have amenity impacts for all users of the facility, as well as occupants of neighbouring properties.
*Principle 7 – Safety*	The proposed facility allows poor supervision of children within the indoor play areas. The increased traffic within the street and the local area will add to the queuing of cars and will result in safety issues for pedestrians and motorists. The entrance into the building lacks a catchment area for children which will have adverse safety impacts.

In this regard, the above non-compliances are considered unacceptable and included as reasons for refusal in the draft Notice of Determination.

Part 3 – Matters for consideration
Control	Required	Provided
3.1 Site selection and location	For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone, consider traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity.	The subject site is located on a residential cul-de-sac which will result in additional traffic and safety impacts. The traffic report submitted with the application provides inaccurate information and does not demonstrate the suitability of the site for the proposed development. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
3.1 Site selection and location	When selecting a site, ensure that the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to the number of shared boundaries with residential properties.	The subject site shares its boundaries with six (6) other residential properties due to its irregular shape. Having regard to this, more properties will be affected by the proposal. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
3.3 Building, orientation, envelope and design	Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to optimise solar access to internal and external play areas.	Design of the centre restricts solar access to indoor play areas for 2-3 year olds. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.
4.7 Premises designed to facilitate supervision	A centre-based service must ensure that the rooms and facilities within the premises (including toilets, nappy change facilities, indoor and outdoor activity rooms and play spaces) are designed to facilitate supervision of children at all times, having regard to the need to maintain their rights and dignity.	Inadequate supervision of children is provided in the indoor play area for children aged 0-2. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

Part 4 – Applying the National Regulations to development proposals

4.9 Outdoor space requirements

Min. 7m² of unencumbered outdoor space per child.

30 x 7m² = 210m²

23 x 7m² = 161m²

Outdoor play area for children aged 3-5 has a total area of 186.4m², which does not comply with the minimum unencumbered outdoor space requirements. A maximum of 26 children can be accommodated.

In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

4.11 Shade

Outdoor play areas should:

· Have year-round solar access to at least 30 per cent of the ground area, with no more than 60 per cent of the outdoor space covered.

· provide shade in the form of trees or built shade structures giving protection from ultraviolet radiation to at least 30 per cent of the outdoor play area

· Have evenly distributed shade structures over different activity spaces.

The proposed outdoor play area does not include any shade structures.

In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.

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

N/A – No vegetation removal is proposed.

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

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

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?	Yes No
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation	Yes No
Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?	Yes No
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?	Yes No
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?	Yes No
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?	Yes No
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?	Yes No
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: Preliminary site investigation (PSI) and detailed site investigation (DSI) reports prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia were submitted with the application and the following recommendations have been made to be carried out during the Construction Certificate stage: · Hazardous Materials Survey (HMS) with sampling should be taken to ensure no ACM is present within the onsite structures. This survey is strongly recommended if demolition is required; · Any soils requiring excavation, on-site reuse and/or removal must be classified in accordance with “Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste” NSW EPA (2014); · The demolition of any structures and excavation activity on site be undertaken in accordance with relevant Australian Standards, Safe Work NSW codes of practice and any other applicable requirements; · Any areas of the site suspected of containing ACM including soil and/or fill material are to be handled in accordance with relevant Australian Standards, Safe Work NSW codes of practice and any other applicable requirements; and · A site specific ‘Unexpected Finds Protocol’ is to be made available for reference for all occupants and/or site workers in the event unanticipated contamination is discovered, including asbestos. Conditions would have been included in the draft determination to require compliance with the recommendations of the PSI, if consent were to be granted.

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The provision of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the R2 zone. The proposed development is defined as a ‘centre-based child care facility’ and is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone with consent.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 2.

Figure 4 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

2.3 Zone objectives and land use table

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential

The proposed development will have adverse traffic, safety and amenity impacts the neighbouring properties. The subject site is not considered suitable for the proposed use.

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 Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HLEP 2013.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 3.

The following table highlights non-compliances with the DCP, which relate primarily to the proposed childcare centre location on a bulb of the cul-de-sac, and the variations sought are considered unsatisfactory.

Figure 6 – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table

Clause	Control	Proposed	Complies
1 – Size and density	Child care centres shall not be located on an allotment within an entire residential cul-de-sac.	Subject site is located within an entire residential cul-de-sac and will results in adverse traffic, parking, and safety and amenity impacts. The application has not demonstrated site suitability as it has been accompanied with traffic and parking impact assessment report containing inaccurate information. Burnett Street is the only connecting road for vehicular access into Dan Street. The width of Dan Street and traffic volume of Burnett Street has not been correctly identified. The proposed additional vehicular trips into Dan Street are unable to be accommodated as the width of Dan Street is actually 7.4m, as opposed to 8m as stated in the applicant’s report. Traffic volume of Burnett Street is calculated to be 19,000 vehicles per day for both directions, as opposed to of 16,609 vehicles as stated in the applicant’s report. The impacts of additional 43 vehicles trip during peak AM and 38 vehicles trip during peak PM have not been satisfactorily projected. Given Dan Street currently accommodates on-street parking on both sides of the street, the additional vehicles associated with the childcare will result in queuing on both Burnett Street and Dan Street. As such, the proposed location of the child care centre is not supported.	No
5 – Outdoor spaces	Outdoor spaces are to be: a) Located away from the main entrance of the child care centre, car parking areas or vehicle circulation areas; b) Integrated with indoor space and provide direct and easy access between those two areas; c) Of a design and layout to enable clear lines of sight to all areas of the outdoor space to allow direct staff supervision from other areas of the child care centre; d) Located away from existing and potential noise and environmental health sources; e) If the child care centre is located in a predominantly residential area, outdoor spaces are to be located away from the living/bedroom windows of surrounding dwellings; f) Inaccessible from public areas outside of the child care centre, except in the case of an emergency evacuation or centre deliveries such as sand replacement; g) Located away from areas where objects can be projected down onto play areas; and h) Adequately fenced on all sides	c) The design of the centre allows for clear sightlines for staff to directly supervise children in the outdoor area, however, supervision is obscured in the indoor play room for children aged 0-2 In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.	No
5 – Outdoor spaces	Outdoor play spaces are to be adequately shaded in accordance with Shade for Child Care Services published by the NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department.	Shade structures are not provided to the outdoor play area. This issue was raised in the pre-lodgement meeting held on 10 April 2019. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable and included as a reason for refusal in the draft determination.	No

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development does not comply with Part I provisions of the HDCP 2013. Having regard to these departures, the proposed development is not supported.

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 fails to address the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Reg), including submission of plans and documentation demonstrating exact property boundaries on a survey plan.

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

The environmental and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment are addressed under the Holroyd Development Control Plan section of this report and are considered unsatisfactory. The proposed development will have adverse access and traffic impacts in the locality considering the nature of the proposal. The proposed development will have adverse safety and amenity impacts on the locality considering the nature of the existing and proposed land use.

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

The subject site is considered not suitable for the proposed development. As it is located on a residential cul-de-sac, the proposed development will result in adverse traffic, parking, safety and amenity impacts to the existing low density residential locality. Having regard to the impacts on the street and local area, the proposed development therefore is not supported.

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

Advertised (newspaper) Mail Sign Not Required

Figure 5 – Submissions summary table

Issue	Planner’s comment
1. Acoustic Impacts	The plans submitted as part of the application do not detail the location of the mechanical ventilation proposed. The acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics also does not consider the noise impacts from the air conditioning units on the adjoining properties and as a result is not supported by Council and is included as part of the reasons for refusal.
2. Traffic Impacts	The application has been referred to Council’s traffic department for review and is considered unsatisfactory. The proposal is considered to have significant traffic and safety impacts on the local area and is not supported by Council.
3. Car parking	The proposal complies with the numerical car parking requirements for child care centres under Section 3, Part A of the Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013. However, the aisle widths proposed between the car parking spaces do not comply. As such, the proposed basement parking does not comply with the relevant Australian Standards and is not supported by Council, therefore is included as part of the reasons for refusal.
4. Narrow street	The application has been referred to Council’s traffic department for review and is considered unsatisfactory. The width of the Dan Street has been considered as part of the assessment and is included in the reasons for refusal.
5. Over supply of child care centres	Child care centres are permissible with consent within the R2 Low Density Residential zone Under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013. The subject site is zoned R2 and the proposal for a 53 place child care centre is permissible with consent. The Child Care Planning Guideline does not have provisions to assess existing child care centres within the local area.
6. Turning circles	The application has been reviewed by Council and considered unsatisfactory in regards to the turn circles. As such, the application is not supported by Council.
7. Safety of children and motorists	The safety of the children and motorists has been taken into consideration as part of the assessment. As the subject site is located on a cul-de-sac and will generate additional traffic, the safety of the children and motorists is a significant concern and as such, the application is not supported by Council.
8. Waste collection	The waste arrangements have been reviewed by Council’s waste department and considered satisfactory.
9. Emergency evacuation plan	An evacuation plan has been submitted as part of the application and considered satisfactory.
10. Town house development	This matter does not relate to the proposed development being a child care centre.
11. Notification period	The application was notified to adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days 2020 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013. The application is being processed in the same manner as other applications, except that it will be determined by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) as there have been more than ten (10) unique submissions received during the notification period.
12. Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report	The traffic report has been reviewed by Council and considered unsatisfactory as it does not adequately demonstrate the site is suitable for the proposed development. Therefore, it is included as part of the reasons for refusal.
13. Commercial development in residential area	The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Child care centres are permissible with consent within the R2 zone under the HLEP 2013.
14. Site frontage	The subject site has a street frontage of 10.975m arc to Dan Street which is 16.85m at the building line. The site frontage does not accommodate safe access to and from the site for pedestrians and as a result is not supported and included as a reason for refusal.
15. Construction related impacts	Council imposes suitable conditions of consent requiring any development to be constructed to have minimal impacts on adjoining properties. In any case where construction is not in accordance with the conditions of consent or the approved plans, concerns shall be raised with Council’s Compliance Department for further investigation and action.
16. Pedestrian footpath	Council has noted the concerns regarding the lack of a pedestrian footpath along Dan Street and the safety impacts, as such is not supported and included as a reason for refusal.
17. Solar access	The solar panels on the roof of the southern adjoining property will continue to achieve a minimum of 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 12pm in mid-winter in accordance with Section 1.8, Part B of the HDCP 2013.
18. Over development of the site	The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Child care centres are permissible with consent within the R2 zone under the HLEP 2013. Additionally, a 9m height limit is prescribed for the subject site under the HLEP 2013. The maximum building height of the proposal is 7.495m which is compliant and considered as a two storey development with basement parking. The design of the proposal is considered to be similar to the existing developments within the streetscape as it appears as a dwelling house.
19. Air pollution	The vehicles associated with the proposed child care centre are not likely to generate significant air pollution in the local area, which are generally standard passenger cars. The frequency of vehicle movement would be intermittent throughout the day.
20. Child care centre located on a cul-de-sac	Council has assessed the proposed child care centre within the cul-de-sac on its merits. Having regard to the traffic and safety impacts, this variation is not acceptable and as a result, is not supported by Council.
21. Statement of Environmental Effects	The Statement of Environmental Effects as well as all other documents or plans submitted with the application can be viewed at Council offices.
22. Quality of life	This matter does not relate to the proposed development being a child care centre.
23. Inability of emergency vehicles to access the street	Council has noted the proposed development will result in increased traffic within the street; however, the proposal will not restrict emergency vehicles from accessing the street.
24. Property devaluation	Council has not received any documentation to review that there is likely to be a devaluation of the property value of the adjoining properties as a result of the proposed development. Moreover, there is no clear evidence to suggest that new development has negative impacts on property values of adjoining sites.
25. Damage to street	Council imposes standard conditions requiring the developer/applicant to pay Council damage bonds. This condition ensures any damages to the street during the construction of the development will result in the loss of the relevant bond. Council will then repair any damages to the street.
26. Privacy impacts	The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the privacy requirements under the HDCP 2013. Sufficient separation is proposed between the north-western adjoining property at No. 17 Stanley Street, Merrylands which is more than 20 metres and will not have any significant privacy impacts.
27. Acoustic fencing	The proposed acoustic fencing will be erected along all boundaries of the outdoor play area including the boundary between No. 17 Stanley Street, Merrylands.
28. Double glazed glass windows	The western façade windows for the proposed development will be provided with a minimum glazing of Rw 35 in accordance with the acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics. This will ensure the indoor play areas will have minimal acoustic impacts on the neighbouring properties

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development as proposed would not be consistent with the public interest.

The proposed development will result in unacceptable traffic, parking, and safety and amenity issues on the local area. Given the deficiencies detailed within this report, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the public interest.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, SEPP 55, SEPP 65, ISEPP 2007, SEPP Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017, SEPP BASIX 2004, Holroyd LEP 2013 and Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be unsatisfactory for approval, subject to reasons for refusal.

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable for the reasons outlined in this report. It is recommended that the development application be refused.

Report Recommendation:

1. That Development Application No. DA2019/432/1 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey 53 place child care facility over basement level car parking on land at 20 Dan Street MERRYLANDS NSW 2160 be refused for the reasons listed in the attached schedule.

2. Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

Attachments

1. Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 Compliance Table

2. Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

3. Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

4. Draft Notice of Determination

5. Pre-lodgement Meeting Notes - 20 Dan Street, Merrylands

6. Architectural Plans

7. Landscape Plan

8. Stormwater Plans

9. Acoustic Report

10. Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report

11. Submissions Received

12. Locality Map

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

11 March 2020

Item No: LPP011/20

Planning Proposal for Cardinal Girlroy Village - 45 Barcom Street , Merrylands West

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Environment and Precincts

File Number: SC705

lodged	11 September 2019
Proponent	Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd
Owner	Southern Cross Care (NSW and ACT)
Site address	Cardinal Gilroy Village, 45 Barcom Street, Merrylands West
Existing use	Cardinal Gilroy Village and John Woodward Residential Aged Care (236 independent living units and a 123 bed residential aged care facility).
Proposal	Amend zoning, height and floor space ratio controls in the Holroyd LEP 2013 and prepare a site-specific development control plan to facilitate redevelopment of the site, for a new seniors living development with 460 independent living units, a 153 bed residential aged care facility, community facilities, non-residential uses, open space and parking.
Existing planning controls	Land Use Zoning	R2 Low Density Residential
	Building Height	9m
	Floor Space Ratio	0.5:1
Requested planning controls	Land Use Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
	Building Height	20m
	Floor Space Ratio	0.85:1
Recommended planning controls	Land Use Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
	Building height	20m
	Floor Space Ratio	0.85:1
Heritage	Site is located adjacent to local heritage item Sherwood Scrubs, 102 Kenyons Road (HLEP 2013, Item I81)
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil
Previous considerations	Nil

Summary:

This report seeks to provide an overview of a Planning Proposal Request submitted to Council on 13 September 2019 for the Cardinal Gilroy Retirement Village, 45 Barcom Street, Merrylands West. The Planning Proposal seeks to facilitate redevelopment of the site for a new seniors living development with 460 independent living units, a 153 bed residential aged care facility, community facilities, non-residential uses, open space and parking. This is achieved by amending the Holroyd LEP 2013 to:

· Rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential

· Increase the Height of Building Control to 20 metres, and

· Increase the Floor Space Ratio Control to 0.85:1

The status of the Planning Proposal is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Planning Proposal Request Status

Report:

1. The Site and Context

The site is located at 45 Barcom Road, Merrylands West. The site is irregular in shape and comprises of three lots, lot 5 DP 701151, Lot 8 DP 732058 and Lot 11 DP 1075418, with a total area of 7.44ha. The site is currently occupied by Cardinal Gilroy Village, a seniors living development built in 1973, comprising 236 independent living units and a 123 bed residential aged care facility.

The site has an eastern boundary measuring approximately 456m with access from Barcom Street. A southern boundary measuring approximately 241m, and irregular western boundary and a northern boundary to Kenyons Road measuring approximately 211m. The site falls across the site from west to east.

Vehicular access is provided from Barcom Street. The site has a dedicated bus stop at the entrance to the village, off Barcom Street, that is serviced by bus route 802 (30min frequency from 6am to 9pm).

Figure 2 The Site

Local Context

The site is located approximately 700 metres from the Merrylands West Local Centre. The site is also located within walking distance of both the Canal and Sherwood T-way stops of the Parramatta to Liverpool Transitway.

Surrounding developments include 3-4 storey residential apartments, 1-2 storey dwelling houses, multi dwelling complexes and dual occupancies, local heritage item Sherwood Scrubs, Merrylands High School and Cerdon College.

Regional Context

The site is located in the suburb of Merrylands West 3.5km west of Parramatta CBD and 22km west of the Sydney CBD.

The site is within walking distance of the Canal and Sherwood T-way stops of the Parramatta to Liverpool Transit way. Merrylands Train Station is approximately 2.5 kilometres towards the east.

2. Planning Controls – (Holroyd Lep 2013)

The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential. A 9 metre Maximum Height of Building control and an Floor Space Ratio of 0.5:1 apply across the site.

Figure 4: Existing Land Zoning

Figure 5: Existing Height of Buildings

Figure 6: Existing Floor Space Ratio

3. The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013) to:

· Rezone the site from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential

· Amend the height of building (HOB) control for the site from 9m to 20m

· Amend the floor space ratio (FSR) control for the site from 0.5:1 to 0.85:1.

Figure 7 Proposed Land Zoning

Figure 8 Proposed Height of Buildings

Figure 9 Proposed Floor Space Ratio

The intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a senior’s living development including:

· 18 buildings, ranging from 2 to 6 storeys in height, comprising a total of 460 independent living units, and a 153 bed residential aged care facility

· 1,311sqm of community facilities (excluding a community centre building currently being assessed under DA2019/105)

· 1,480sqm of permissible non-residential uses in the R4 zone

· Basement level car parking to cater for 688 car parking spaces

· 46,803sqm (62.5% of the site area) of open space (including publicly accessible, communal and private open space), with significant areas of landscaping to support local flora and fauna on the site.

The proponent has prepared a site-specific development control plan which sets out a detailed planning and design framework to guide the redevelopment of the site, consistent with the masterplan.

Figure 10: Proposed Masterplan

Public Benefit Offer

The proponent has offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) under section 7.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The proponent indicated that the VPA may involve one or more of the following:

· A monetary contribution for the purpose of public infrastructure, amenities and services within the Merrylands West locality; and/or

· The provision of affordable housing for low or very low income housing; and/or

· A monetary contribution towards the implementation of the Duck River Masterplan; and/or

· Registration of an easement in favour of Council allowing public access to the publicly accessible open spaces at the heart of the site, adjacent to the existing bus stop fronting Barcom Street; and/or

· The provision and maintenance of landscaping and public furniture within the publicly accessible open space.

4. Strategic Merit Assessment

Economic and Social

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The existing buildings on the site are nearing the end of their economic life and do not provide the level of amenity or facilities expected in modern retirement villages

· There is strong demand for seniors housing and complementary services and facilities in the Cumberland area, with strong growth in the over 55’s demographic

· There is increasing demand for additional commercial/retail floor space in the local area to provide for the daily needs of local residents, improve the range of retail, medical and other facilities available to local residents, including residents of Cardinal Gilroy Village

Built Form and Urban Design

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The increase in the scale and density of development on the site is balanced through the design and siting of the proposed buildings and the provision of large setbacks to neighbouring properties, including the adjoining heritage item, Sherwood Scrubs

· The proposed site-specific development control plan provides certainty that the key elements of the Masterplan will be implemented even if the site is sold to another owner, which is considered unlikely

Heritage Impact on Sherwood Scrubs

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The redevelopment should not alter how the adjoining heritage item is appreciated or understood

· The proposed envelopes sit primarily below the existing tree line in views from the heritage item

· The proposed landscape setting on the subject site, specifically the boundary treatment and the Central Green Space, enhances the current setting of the item by visually extending views across the shared boundary

· The layout of the Masterplan provides opportunities for views from, and of, the heritage item that did not exist before, thereby widening the audience who have the opportunity to appreciate the significance of the place

Traffic and Parking

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The proposed Masterplan will only generate an estimated 81 net additional trips during any peak hour

· Given the satisfactory traffic conditions of the local intersections, the additional peak hour trips are not expected to generate significant impact to intersection performance, delays, or queues

Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as it is consistent with the following key Local Planning Priorities of Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement:

· Local Planning Priority 5 – Delivering hosing diversity to suit changing needs, as the proposal will supply increase housing options for an aging population

· Local Planning Priority 6 – Deliver affordable housing suitable for the needs of all people at various stages of their lives, as the future redevelopment will incorporate a number of accommodation options to enable people form a variety of backgrounds and socio-economic status to “age in place”

Greater Sydney Region Plan

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as it is consistent with the following objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan:

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply as the proposal will increase the supply of housing for aged care and people with a disability

· Objective 11 - Housing is more diverse and affordable as the proposal will deliver accessible housing to a broad spectrum of seniors housing to cater for an ageing population

Central City District Plan

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as it is consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the Central City District Plan:

· Planning Priority C4 – Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities, as the site is well connected to a number of strategic and local centres by public transport

· Planning Priority C5 – Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, service and public transport, as the proposal will contribute towards providing purpose built seniors housing to cater for an ageing population. The proposal will also increase the housing supply in the Cumberland area, assisting Council to meet its dwelling targets

· Planning Priority C20 – Adapting to the impacts urban and natural hazards and climate change, as the master plan assists to mitigate the urban heat island effect increasing tree canopy cover on the site

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be reported to Council seeking a resolution that the Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination. This recommendation is made as:

· The existing buildings on the site are nearing the end of their economic life and do not provide the level of amenity or facilities expected in modern retirement villages

· There is strong demand for seniors housing and complementary services and facilities in Cumberland area, with strong growth in the over 55s population expected in the coming decades

· Additional peak hour trips are not expected to generate significant impact to intersection performance, delays, or queues

· Is consistent with the strategic planning framework, including Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement, Greater Sydney Region Plan and Central City District Plan

Consultation:

The proponent’s Planning Proposal and supporting documents were exhibited for a period of 28 days, from 11 November 2019 and 11 December 2019 as required by Cumberland’s Planning Proposal Notification Policy. A total of seven submissions were received by nearby residents. Key issues are summarised below.

· Concerns that the proposal is out of character with the existing low density neighbourhood and that the rezoning will set an undesirable precedent

· Concerns that the future development will result in amenity impacts such as noise, privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring properties

· Concerns that the future development will result in further traffic congestion and lack of parking on surrounding streets, particularly Kenyons Road, during peak hour

· Concerns about loss of trees / request to retain the existing ‘green belt’

· Support for the proposal to allow the surrounding community to access and use some of the proposed facilities on site.

The majority of issues raised in the submissions can be addressed at the development application stage. No significant issues were raised that would require Council not to consider requesting a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal.

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

This report recommends that this matter be reported to Council for further consideration. Should Council resolves to forward this planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, there will be a number of policy implications associated with the subsequent stages of the planning proposal process. These will be outlined in subsequent Council reports.

Communication / Publications:

There are no communication/publication implications for Council associated with this report.

Report Recommendation:

That the Cumberland Local Planning Panel recommend that:

The Planning Proposal Request for Cardinal Gilroy Village, 45 Barcom Street, Merrylands West, be reported to Council, seeking a resolution to forward a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Attachments

1. Proponent's Planning Proposal

2. Masterplan and Urban Design Study

3. Site Specific Development Control Plan

4. Social Impact Assessment

5. Economic Impact Assessment

6. Heritage Impact Assessment

7. Visual Impact Assessment

8. Transport Impact Assessment

9. Summary of Submissions

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

11 March 2020

Item No: LPP012/20

Planning Proposal for 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Environment and Precincts

File Number: SC707

Lodged	13 September 2019
Proponent	Snowside Pty Ltd
Description of Land	Lots 10 and 11 DP 1007432, 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield
Site Area	Approximately 67,478m²
Site Description and Existing Use	The overall site is rectangular in shape and has a 165m frontage onto Woodpark Road to the north, and a 405m frontage onto Cumberland Highway (Betts Road) to the east. The overall site currently accommodates four large industrial buildings and associated structures.
	The proposal seeks to amend the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013) by: · Amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of the HLEP 2013 to include shop, office premises and business premises as additional permitted uses at 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield. · Amend the Height of Buildings Map (Sheet HOB_006) of HLEP 2013 to apply a maximum Height of Building control of 29 metres on the Stage 3 portion of the site. · Include a cap on the amount of floor space of the additional permitted uses. Shop and business premises will be capped at a total of 10,500m2 and office premises will be capped at a total of 7,000m2
Existing Planning Controls	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	20 metres
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	1.0:1
Requested Planning Controls	Zoning	No change
	Height of Building (HoB)	29 metres to southern portion of the site
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	No change
	Additional Permitted Uses	Shop and business and office premises to apply to all of the site.
Recommended Planning Controls	Zoning	No change
	Height of Building (HoB)	29 metres to southern portion of the site
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	No change
	Additional Permitted Uses	Shop and business and office premises to apply to the southern portion of the site.
Heritage		Nil.
Disclosure of political donations and gifts		Nil.
Previous considerations		Nil.

Summary:

This report seeks to provide an overview of a Planning Proposal Request submitted to Council on 13 September 2019 for 106 -128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield. The Proposal seeks to amend the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP 2013) to facilitate the redevelopment of the southern portion (Stage 3) of the site by:

· Amending Schedule 1 additional permitted uses of the HLEP 2013 to include shop, office premises and business premises as additional permitted uses at 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield.

· Amending the Height of Buildings map of HLEP 2013 to apply a maximum height of building control of 29 metres on the Stage 3 portion of the site.

· Including a cap on the amount of floor space related to the additional permitted uses. Shop and business premises will be capped at 10,500m2 and office premises will be capped at 7,000m2

The status of the Planning Proposal is outlined below.

Figure 1 Status of the Planning Proposal

Report:

1. The Site and Its Context

The subject site (the site) is located at 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield. The overall site is rectangular in shape, and has a total site area of 67,478m2. The site has a 165m frontage onto Woodpark Road and a 405m frontage onto Cumberland Highway (Betts Road). The dedicated Parramatta to Liverpool Bus Transitway also adjoins the southern boundary of the site. The entire site slopes downwards towards to the southern boundary.

Figure 2 The Site

The overall site currently accommodates four large industrial buildings and associated structures. Vehicular access is provided via a dedicated driveway off Woodpark Road. The land is subject to recent development consents for the northern part of the site for specialised retail premises, childcare centre, medical centre and fast food premises.

Figure 3 Portion of the Site Subject to Development Consents (Stages 1 and 2)

Stage 1 and 2 Redevelopment

Stage 1 facilitates the future development of the entire site through a development consent which includes indicative building envelopes and vehicle access arrangements for future development proposals to be assessed against. In addition, the future development of the site is subject to the following land uses and maximum allocated Gross Floor Areas (GFA):

Land Use Mix	Approved GFA
Bulky goods premises	39,600sqm
Warehouse	2,000sqm
Food and drink premises	1,851sqm
Child Care Centre	1,820sqm
Medical Centre	1,580sqm
Total Maximum GFA	46,851sqm

Table 3 – Approved Land Uses Mix Under Stage 1 Concept Approval

Stage 2 facilitates construction works on the northern part of the overall site, including:

· A two-storey building comprising various sized specialised retail premises, medical centre, and childcare centre

· A single storey building comprising one specialised retail premises and four food and drink premises

· Three separate single storey buildings for use as fast food outlets with 24-hour operation

· Associated works including signage, 594 car parking spaces, 113 bicycle parking spaces, tree removal, landscaping and stormwater works

Figure 4 Approved Stage 1 and 2 Design

Stage 3 Redevelopment

A future development application for the redevelopment of the southern portion of the site is proposed to include offices and traditional retail development.

Figure 5. Southern Portion of Site Subject to Stage 3 Redevelopment

The concept design comprises the following land uses:

· A ground floor mall with:

o One 3,641sqm ground floor supermarket, inclusive of a liquor store

o Ten ground floor retail tenancies/shops ranging in size from 160sqm to 1,564sqm

o One 418sqm fast food tenancy

· Eight specialised retail tenancies over basement 2, ground floor and level 1, ranging in size from 436sqm to 2,696sqm, with a total GFA of 8,964sqm

· Four commercial office tenancies over levels 2 and 3 ranging in size from 1,750sqm to 1,756sqm, with a total GFA of 6,994sqm

· 888 car parking spaces

· Business identification, building identification and way finding signage

Figure 7. Southern Portion of Site Subject to Stage 3 Redevelopment

Local Context

The overall site has a frontage onto Woodpark Road to the north and a frontage onto the Cumberland Highway to the east. The dedicated Liverpool to Parramatta Bus Transitway adjoins the southern boundary of the site.

A mix of light industrial uses are located to the north of the site and include vehicle repair/body repair workshops, freight transport facilities and a small number of independent retail premises. General industrial land uses are located to the south and west of the site.

To the east of the site is low-density residential development comprised of 1-2 storey dwellings, reflective of the current R2 zoning. The Cumberland Highway provides significant separation between the residential areas and the site.

Regional Context

The site is located in the suburb of Smithfield within the local government area of Cumberland City Council, approximately 5km south-west of the Parramatta Central Business District (CBD) and 25km west of the Sydney CBD.

The site is well served by road infrastructure with the site being located on the Cumberland Highway and 3km’s to the south of the M4 Motorway. The site is also located adjacent to the Liverpool to Parramatta Transitway and bus stops which service a variety of routes. These bus routes comprise the following:

· T80 – Liverpool to Parramatta via T-way

· 802 – Liverpool to Parramatta via Green Valley

· 820 – Guildford to Merrylands

· 821 – Guildford to Smithfield Industrial Area.

2. Planning Controls (Holroyd LEP 2013)

The site is currently zoned B5 Business Development, with an FSR of 1.0:1 and Maximum Height of Building control of 20m apply across the site.

Figure 8 Land Use Zoning

Figure 9 Floor Space Ratio

Figure 10 Height of Buildings

3. The Planning Proposal Request

The proposal seeks to:

· Amend Schedule 1 of the HLEP 2013 to include shop, business premises (that do not exceed 10,500sqm in total), and office premises (that do not exceed 7,000sqm) as additional permitted uses to apply to the southern portion of 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield

· Amend map sheet APU_006 to identify the overall site.

· Amend map sheet HOB_006 of HLEP 2013 to apply a maximum height of building control of 29 metres to the southern portion of the overall site.

Figure 11 Proposed Amendment to Map Sheet APU_006

Figure 12 Proposed Amendment to Map Sheet HOB_006

The intended outcome of this Planning Proposal is to enable the redevelopment of the subject site to realise a high-quality mixed-use development that:

· Contributes to the rejuvenation and revitalisation of the site

· Introduces compatible land uses that will contribute to the creation of a vibrant, active and economically sustainable locality

· Serves as a transformative or catalyst site for the adjoining industrial land

· Provides for the orderly and economic development of the land and is strongly supported by retail businesses

· Leverages the site’s strategic location in proximity to a range of bus networks (including the dedicated bus Transitway between Liverpool and Parramatta)

· Increases public amenity with revitalised services in the locality.

This will serve to deliver the vision of the overall site at 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield, as an integrated mixed-use precinct comprising of a variety of compatible land uses that improve amenity and generate employment for the local community and the wider area.

Public Benefit Offer

No formal letter of offer providing public benefit has been submitted to Council, however, the applicant acknowledges Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and supporting Guidelines.

Council will progress negotiations with the applicant should the Panel and Council support the Planning Proposal being progressed to Gateway Determination. Negotiations will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Planning Agreements Policy and support Guidelines.

It should be noted that the majority of the public benefits discussed in the planning proposal would not be considered to be public benefits as they are key requirements to enable the redevelopment of the site.

4. Strategic Merit Assessment

Height Increase

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The additional height is of a minor scale and only applies to the southern portion of the overall site

· There are no impacts on any residential areas or public open space, and no adverse overshadowing or overlooking impacts as result of the increase.

Traffic and Parking

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· Traffic management works that have been approved for the development of the northern part of the site have the capacity to facilitate the redevelopment of the southern portion of the site.

· The site is capable of being self-sufficient in terms of parking provision for the proposed land uses.

· The projected net change in traffic activity as a result of the proposal will not have any unacceptable traffic implications on the road network capacity

Economic and Social Benefits of the Additional Permitted Uses

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as:

· The proposal provides the landowner with a greater flexibility to redevelop the site for an economically viable land use

· The proposed floor space cap provides Council with certainty that the majority of the site will be development in accordance with the underlying land use zone

· The development has the potential to deliver 1,427 direct ongoing jobs across retail, commercial office, medical and child care uses

· The scale of retail uses will allow for a solid convenience and goods offer serving the immediate worker market and local Smithfield residents

· Supporting analysis determines that the Smithfield trade area has sufficient available spending to support up to three full-line supermarkets at present and into the future. This is due to the size of the Smithfield trade area’s resident population and the demand for retail services generated by a large worker population in the Smithfield/Woodpark area

· Supporting analysis submitted with the proposal identifies that, whilst the impact on the Greystanes Shopping Centre is identified in the ‘medium’ category of impact, this is considered acceptable given it would not be sufficient to undermine the viability of the centre as Greystanes currently trades at an above average sales rate of $10,100 per square metre

· The quantum of commercial office space should not represent an oversupply of commercial office space that is likely to compete with commercial office space in the Merrylands Strategic Centre.

Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement

· Planning Priority 10 – Supporting a strong and diverse local economy across town centre and employment hubs, as the additional permitted uses propose provide a greater diversity of land uses on the site that aim to promote greater economic output from the site

· Planning Priority 11 – Promoting local jobs, education opportunities and care services, as the proposal seeks to provide a diverse range of employment activities

· Planning Priority 12 – Facilitating the evolution of employment and innovation lands to meet future needs, as the additional permit uses will meet the needs of the surrounding residential and employment population in Smithfield.

Greater Sydney Region Plan

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment as it is generally consistent with the following planning directions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan:

· Objective 4 – Infrastructure use is optimised, as the proposal provides mixed use retail land uses in proximity to established infrastructure and services that is accessible to a wider population with public transport

· Objective 6 – Services and infrastructure meeting the communities changing needs, as the proposal facilitates a the redevelopment of the site that will provide a range of service to both the surrounding residential population, as well as workers that are employed in the greater Smithfield/Woodpark Industrial employment area

Central City District Plan

There is strategic merit in forwarding this proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, as it is generally consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the Central City District Plan:

· Planning Priority C2 – Planning for a city supported by infrastructure, as the proposal seek to rezone land close to key existing infrastructure such as the Cumberland Highway and Parramatta to Liverpool Transit way.

· Planning Priority C5 – Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport, as the proposal seeks to deliver additional jobs and diversity of employment opportunities in close proximity to established residential neighbourhoods.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be reported to Council seeking a Gateway Determination. This recommendation is being made as:

· The proposal provides the landowner with a greater flexibility to redevelop the site for an economically viable land use

· Future development is unlikely to have an overly adverse impact on other nearby supermarkets and retail activities

· The quantum of commercial office space should not represent an oversupply of commercial office space that is likely to compete with commercial office space in the Merrylands Strategic Centre

· The projected net change in traffic activity as a result of the proposal will not have any unacceptable traffic implications on the road network capacity

· Is consistent with the strategic planning framework outlined in Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement, Greater Sydney Region Plan and Central City District Plan.

Consultation:

Preliminary Exhibition of Planning Proposal Request

The proposal and supporting documentation were exhibited for a period of 28 days, from 11 November 2019 to 11 December 2019, as required by Cumberland’s Planning Proposal Notification Policy. A total of three submission were received during the exhibition period. 1 submission did not relate to the proposal, 1 submission support the proposal, and 1 submission objected to the proposed building height and additional permitted uses as they were not consistent with the current planning controls for the site.

Financial Implications:

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

Policy Implications:

Communication / Publications:

There are no communication/publication implications for Council associated with this report.

Report Recommendation:

That Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) recommend that:

The Planning Proposal Request for 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield, proceed to the next stage of assessment, and be reported to Council seeking a resolution to forward the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Attachments

1. Planning Proposal Request

2. Traffic Review

3. Ecomonic Impact Assessment Retail

4. Economic Benefits Report

5. Stage 3 Concept Design

6. Summary of Submissions