Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

8 April 2020

Item No: LPP013/20

Development Application for 9 Verlie Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: DA2019/368/1

Application lodged	27 September 2019
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Aarg Group Pty Ltd
Application No.	DA2019/368/1
Description of Land	9 Verlie Street, South Wentworthville NSW 2145, Lot 15 DP 16442
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 42 place child care centre over basement car parking
Site Area	696.8m²
Zoning	R3 – Medium Density Residential Zone
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site does not contain a heritage item, is not located within the vicinity of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: 0.7:1 Proposed: 0.49:1 Height of Building Permissible: 9m Proposed: 8m (top of lift over run)
Issues	- Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space - Landscaped area - Driveway and upper storey setbacks - Site frontage

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA2019/368/1 was received on 27 September 2019 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 42 place child care centre over basement car parking.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 16 October 2019 and 30 October 2019. In response, 6 submissions were received. During the assessment process, the residents from a broader catchment area on the western side of Verlie Street had approached Council requesting to be included in the notification process, which resulted in additional 7 submissions by way of objection and 1 petition submitted to Council.

3. Council through its assessment identified a number of concerns with the proposal, and requested amended plans and additional information on 15 January 2020.

4. Amended plans received on 10 February 2020 do not warrant re-notification of the proposal.

5. There are non-compliances with the proposed development having considered the 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).

6. The proposed development seeks following notable variations:

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m² x 42 = 294m²	Proposed development = 293m² Assessing officer’s calculation = 280m² (excluding retaining walls) 280m² / 7 = 40 children Recommendation = reduce number of children from 42 to 40	11.8%
Landscaped area (DCP)	Min. 20%, width of 2m = 139.36m²	131m² (18.8%)	5.9%
Setbacks from side boundary (DCP)	Driveway – 1.5m Upper storey – 4m	Driveway – 1.1m Lift/stairs core on eastern side – 0.9m	26.6% 77.5%
Min. site frontage (DCP)	20m	15.24m	23.8%

7. The application has been referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination due to the number of submissions received during the notification period.

8. It is recommended that the application be approved for a maximum of 40 children (due to the available unencumbered outdoor space/play area), subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 9 Verlie Street, South Wentworthville, and is legally described as Lot 15 in DP 16442. The site is located on the northern side of Verlie Street. The site is a rectangular block with a frontage of 15.24m, depth of 45.72m and a total site area of 696.8m². The site is currently occupied by a detached single storey clad dwelling house and attached carport. Adjoining the subject site directly to the east and west are a two storey brick dwelling house and an attached two storey dual occupancy respectively. The immediate area is characterised by low density housing. The subject site and all adjoining properties are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. Properties located on the southern side of Verlie Street are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

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

The proposed development, as amended, involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 42 place child care centre over basement parking accommodating 11 parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

· Demolition of the existing dwelling and carport.

· Construction of a two-storey child care facility accommodating 42 children.

· Construction of a basement level car parking area accommodating 11 car parking spaces, for staff and visitors (including 1 accessible space), bin room, and lift/stairs.

· The facility proposes to accommodate 42 children, as follows:

o 7 children – 0-2 yrs

o 15 children – 2-3 yrs

o 20 children – 3-5 yrs

· The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and will employ 7 staff.

· The ground floor level contains toilets, storage, indoor and outdoor play areas, and lift/stairs.

· The first floor level contains office, toilet, staff room, kitchen, laundry, and lift/stairs.

· There is no signage proposed as part of the application.

History

Date	Action
27/9/2019	Development Application 2019/368 was lodged.
8/10/2018	The application was referred to Council’s internal departments for review.
16/10/2019 to 30/10/2018	The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days. In response, 6 submissions were received. During the assessment process, the residents from a broader catchment area on the western side of Verlie Street had approached Council requesting to be included in the notification process, which resulted in additional 7 submissions by way of objection and 1 petition submitted to Council. Total submissions by way of objections equate to 14.
15/01/2020	Application was deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline 2017, Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, as well as on-site detention, traffic, waste management and environmental health matters.
10/02/2020	Amended plans were received by Council, which do not warrant re-notification of the proposal.
8/04/2020	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 9 September 2019 and was received by Council on 27 September 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 is supportable in regards to the provision of on-site detention, subject to conditions.

Traffic Engineer

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

Tree Management Officer

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

Waste Management Officer

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

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to fit-out for food preparation area, acoustic assessment, noise management plan, noise attenuation measure, soil assessment and site contamination, subject to conditions.

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

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

Planning Comments

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

(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.

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
In 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
1. A Preliminary Site Investigation report prepared by Geotechnical Consultant Australia, which includes a soil assessment, was submitted with the application. The report did not reveal any potential matters of concern with regard to contamination and concludes that the site is suitable for its intended use, subject to recommendations to be imposed as conditions of consent. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the reports and determined that the site is suitable for such a development given that the report provides that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

(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.

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 Appendix A, which indicates that there are non-compliances with the SEPP 2017 with regard to number of children proposed and outdoor unencumbered space as under:

Control	Required	Provided
Number of children and outdoor unencumbered space (regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)	7m² x 42 = 294m²	The application indicates that an unencumbered area of 293m² is provided, which is equal to a shortfall of 1m² to accommodate 42 children. However, this calculation does not include the width of the proposed retaining walls required for the excavation of rear yard and the installation of acoustic fencing, which must be carried out wholly within the site. The assessment officer’s calculation of the unencumbered outdoor space equates to 280m². This will accommodate only 40 children. This report recommends a condition to be imposed on any consent granted for a reduction in the number of children to 40. The applicant has been advised regarding the condition to reduce the number of children.

(a) 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.

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

Removal of one (1) existing street tree and four (4) trees on site is proposed as part of this application. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections to tree removal, subject to the impositions of conditions. In addition, the proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

(a) 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 R3 – Medium Density Residential zoning applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

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

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

(b) 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 development is generally compliant with the relevant provisions. 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.

The assessment provided in Appendix C indicates that there are some minor non-compliances with the HDCP 2013 with regard to landscaped area, upper level and driveway setbacks, and site frontage, which are discussed in the following section:

No.	Clause	Comment	Yes	No	N/A
PART A – GENERAL CONTROLS
3.5	Access, Maneuvering and Layout
3.5	Driveways shall be setback a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundary.	The proposed driveway is setback 1.1m from the eastern side boundary which is less than what is required. Setback shortfall of 0.4m is considered acceptable, given the provision of separate driveways which will ensure safe vehicular movement while entering and exiting the site.
PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1	GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1.5	Landscaped Area Min. 20% = 139.36m²	Area of 18.8% (131m²) is provided with min. 2m dimension. Landscaped area with dimension of less than 2m equates to 15.3m². Total landscaped area provided on site is 146.3m², or 20.9% that complies with min 20% area required. Variation to the required landscaped area based on its width is acceptable, as it is capable to retain dense plantings to the majority part of the proposed area.
5	MULTI DWELLING HOUSING
5.2	Upper storey setback 4m	Building envelope standards, which apply to the proposed child care, generally are satisfied with the exception to the lift/stairs core setbacks to the eastern side boundary. This variation is considered acceptable, given the proposed location of the lift/stairs core will not result in adverse overshadowing, privacy and amenity impacts to the adjoining properties. Articulation to the building appearance is also maintained by protrusion of the lift/stairs core forming part of the building façade.
PART I – CHILDCARE CENTRES
1	SIZE, DENSITY AND LOCATION
	Site Frontage The minimum site frontage for a child care centre is 20 metres.	The site has a frontage of 15.24m. The deficiency of the property’s site frontage is considered supportable as the proposal generally complies with relevant requirements for child care centres in terms of provision and quality of play spaces, amenity impacts of the centre, provision of parking and compatibility with surrounding properties. In addition, the subject property complies with site and location considerations contained within the Child Care Planning Guideline, which takes precedence over Council’s 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 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 Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 16 October 2019 and 30 October 2019. The notification generated total of 14 submissions in respect of the proposal, with nil submission disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

Figure 4 – Submissions summary table

Concern	Comment
1. Traffic and parking Verlie Street does not allow a two-way traffic when both sides are occupied by on street parking. High congestion and 10m wide street with no speed humps resulted in speeding on Verlie Street and frequent accidents. Traffic flow on Verlie Street will be increased being the bypass from Great Western highway and M4 for commuters travelling from South Wentworthville towards the west. Traffic peak times within AM/PM, particularly during garbage collection times, are to be considered as safety hazard and will affect children and pedestrian safety. The proposed development will reduce availability of on street parking in Verlie Street for residents. The proposed development will not provide sufficient parking for the child care centre operation. The data used in traffic assessment cannot be used to justify the proposed development as no other child care centre is operational on Verlie Street yet.	The submitted traffic report relies on surveys during peak times AM and PM between 7.00am – 9.00am and 4.00pm – 6.00pm on 25 July 2019. The data used has taken consideration of traffic generation projected from approved development at 24 Verlie Street. Council noted the additional traffic to be generated by the proposal and the findings from the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report. Revised traffic report submitted with the application prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning reference no. 19-113-2 dated March 2020 demonstrated that Verlie Street could accommodate vehicles movement from both child care centres at 9 and 24 Verlie Streets. The proposed development is a low trip generator projecting an additional/one (1) vehicle movement every two minutes during peak hour. Additional vehicles movement can be accommodated in the locality without affecting performance of Verlie Street, or on the existing road network with respect to delays or queues of nearby intersections. Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the required parking rate for child care centres located in R3 Medium Density Residential zone is 1 space per 4 children, which equates to total of 10 spaces required if the recommended reduction in the number of children from 42 to 40 is implemented. The proposed basement could accommodate the required car spaces, which will assist with providing additional parking off Verlie Street. It is noted that Council’s rate of 1 car space per 4 children is consistent with the recently introduced NSW State Government document entitled Child Care Planning Guideline, in which the rate of 1 space per 4 children encompasses the whole centre including all staff. A condition is to be imposed to ensure that all car parking spaces to be allocated to visitors. The proposed parking arrangement and swept path have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions. The provision of separate driveways for entry and exit allow all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction and provide adequate sight distance. It is envisaged that motorists will be capable of entering and exiting the site in a safe and efficient manner. In addition, there is a 1.2m separation distance between the two driveways which also provide pedestrians a safe refuge area to wait to cross when vehicles enter and exit the basement. An additional condition is included to ensure any front fencing will allow clear sightlines for vehicular access. The number of parking spaces provided is considered acceptable and appropriate to meet the parking demand of the proposed centre, without placing unacceptable demands on the availability of parking within the locality or on the local street network. The entry/exit driveway is at an obvious location that will not be missed by parents and caregivers. The parents and caregivers will be regular visitors to the centre knowing in advance the location of car parking. An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be enforced by way of conditions to encourage the use of the basement parking facility. All pickup and drop-off is expected to take place within the basement and it is not considered to create any adverse impact on the public space. The proposed car parking in the basement level has been provided with the number of spaces that complies with the DCP requirement, which will be able to absorb the demand from the development and mitigate any potential traffic impact on Verlie Street. Council’s Waste Management Section has reviewed the proposal and considered the waste arrangement satisfactory. Commercial waste arrangement may also be carried out independently from Council’s service. Conflict with Council’s garbage truck movements therefore is not anticipated given the operation of the child care centre will be wholly contained in the subject site.
2. Noise The proposed child care centre will be source of environmental noise nuisance to surrounding properties and disturbance to a quiet street.	The proposed development has been accompanied with noise impact assessment/acoustic report and Noise Management Plan, which recommended the construction of acoustic fencing to minimise noise impact from the child care centre. The design of acoustic fencing location, height and effectiveness have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and are considered satisfactory to comply with the relevant noise control provisions. The acoustic report demonstrates that the proposed centre can be accommodated on the site without noise nuisance to adjoining and surrounding properties. The noise generated from both indoor and outdoor play activities can comply with the relevant environmental noise guidelines with the imposition of a noise management plan submitted with the application and the installation of relevant noise mitigation measures such as acoustic fencing. The acoustic consultant recommendation has been captured in the Noise Management Plan submitted with the application. The centre is proposed to operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. The acoustic assessment also has had regard to noise generated from mechanical plant, car park emissions and indoor activities, which only occur during the operation of child care centre. Conditions are to be imposed in the consent to avoid any breaches to the required noise threshold, including noise management to be incorporated in the OMP.
4. The proposed child care centre is not suitable for the street located where demographic of the population consists of elderly. Oversupply of child care centres will result in business saturation and quality. No precedence of two child care centres built on the same street.	The site permits the construction of the child care centre, and proposed development generally satisfies the requirements contained within Holroyd DCP 2013, the criteria under the Child Care Planning Guideline and relevant regulations stipulated under the Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities SEPP 2017, with the exceptions above. Council may consider limiting the size of child care centres if they share a property boundary as pertained in Holroyd DCP 2013. In this instance, the proposed child care centre is not sharing any property boundary to the approved child care centre at 24 Verlie Street and it is located 100m away from each other. The site and location considerations contained within the Child Care Planning Guideline takes precedence over Council’s DCP, where more than one child care centre may be permitted on the same street. The approved child care centre at 24 Verlie Street has addressed the required criteria applying specifically to the site. The subject application has also been submitted with supporting documentation and was found to be satisfactory, as discussed within the body of this report. Cumulative traffic generation has been addressed in the revised traffic report submitted with the application prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning reference no. 19-113-2 dated March 2020, demonstrating that Verlie Street could accommodate vehicles movement from both child care centres at 9 and 24 Verlie Streets. The existing demography of the area is not a matter of consideration under the Child Care Planning Guideline and relevant regulations stipulated under the Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities SEPP 2017. In relation to the child care centre quality, it is the operator’s responsibility to satisfy the relevant child care provider requirements and comply with the regulations to maintain its licence and business operation.
5. Impact of development on adjoining property to the west, such as, unauthorised parking on driveway, damage and waste management during construction, waste management, trespassing, window height, and construction hours.	Suitable conditions will be imposed in relation to any potential damage and waste management during construction, waste management, potential trespassing and construction hours to minimise impact of the proposed development on the adjoining property. Unauthorised parking on driveway can be reported to Council’s compliance section for action, if it occurs. Condition regarding parking during construction period will be imposed. The upper level setback on the western side has been increased to 4m to reduce any potential overlooking into the adjoining property from the proposed office and kitchen windows.

Concern

Comment

1. Traffic and parking

Verlie Street does not allow a two-way traffic when both sides are occupied by on street parking.

High congestion and 10m wide street with no speed humps resulted in speeding on Verlie Street and frequent accidents. Traffic flow on Verlie Street will be increased being the bypass from Great Western highway and M4 for commuters travelling from South Wentworthville towards the west. Traffic peak times within AM/PM, particularly during garbage collection times, are to be considered as safety hazard and will affect children and pedestrian safety.

The proposed development will reduce availability of on street parking in Verlie Street for residents.

The proposed development will not provide sufficient parking for the child care centre operation.

The data used in traffic assessment cannot be used to justify the proposed development as no other child care centre is operational on Verlie Street yet.

The submitted traffic report relies on surveys during peak times AM and PM between 7.00am – 9.00am and 4.00pm – 6.00pm on 25 July 2019. The data used has taken consideration of traffic generation projected from approved development at 24 Verlie Street. Council noted the additional traffic to be generated by the proposal and the findings from the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report. Revised traffic report submitted with the application prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning reference no. 19-113-2 dated March 2020 demonstrated that Verlie Street could accommodate vehicles movement from both child care centres at 9 and 24 Verlie Streets. The proposed development is a low trip generator projecting an additional/one (1) vehicle movement every two minutes during peak hour. Additional vehicles movement can be accommodated in the locality without affecting performance of Verlie Street, or on the existing road network with respect to delays or queues of nearby intersections.

Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the required parking rate for child care centres located in R3 Medium Density Residential zone is 1 space per 4 children, which equates to total of 10 spaces required if the recommended reduction in the number of children from 42 to 40 is implemented. The proposed basement could accommodate the required car spaces, which will assist with providing additional parking off Verlie Street.

It is noted that Council’s rate of 1 car space per 4 children is consistent with the recently introduced NSW State Government document entitled Child Care Planning Guideline, in which the rate of 1 space per 4 children encompasses the whole centre including all staff.

A condition is to be imposed to ensure that all car parking spaces to be allocated to visitors. The proposed parking arrangement and swept path have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to conditions.

The provision of separate driveways for entry and exit allow all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction and provide adequate sight distance. It is envisaged that motorists will be capable of entering and exiting the site in a safe and efficient manner. In addition, there is a 1.2m separation distance between the two driveways which also provide pedestrians a safe refuge area to wait to cross when vehicles enter and exit the basement.

An additional condition is included to ensure any front fencing will allow clear sightlines for vehicular access. The number of parking spaces provided is considered acceptable and appropriate to meet the parking demand of the proposed centre, without placing unacceptable demands on the availability of parking within the locality or on the local street network.

The entry/exit driveway is at an obvious location that will not be missed by parents and caregivers. The parents and caregivers will be regular visitors to the centre knowing in advance the location of car parking. An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be enforced by way of conditions to encourage the use of the basement parking facility. All pickup and drop-off is expected to take place within the basement and it is not considered to create any adverse impact on the public space.

The proposed car parking in the basement level has been provided with the number of spaces that complies with the DCP requirement, which will be able to absorb the demand from the development and mitigate any potential traffic impact on Verlie Street.

Council’s Waste Management Section has reviewed the proposal and considered the waste arrangement satisfactory. Commercial waste arrangement may also be carried out independently from Council’s service. Conflict with Council’s garbage truck movements therefore is not anticipated given the operation of the child care centre will be wholly contained in the subject site.

2. Noise

The proposed child care centre will be source of environmental noise nuisance to surrounding properties and disturbance to a quiet street.

The proposed development has been accompanied with noise impact assessment/acoustic report and Noise Management Plan, which recommended the construction of acoustic fencing to minimise noise impact from the child care centre.

The design of acoustic fencing location, height and effectiveness have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and are considered satisfactory to comply with the relevant noise control provisions.

The acoustic report demonstrates that the proposed centre can be accommodated on the site without noise nuisance to adjoining and surrounding properties. The noise generated from both indoor and outdoor play activities can comply with the relevant environmental noise guidelines with the imposition of a noise management plan submitted with the application and the installation of relevant noise mitigation measures such as acoustic fencing.

The acoustic consultant recommendation has been captured in the Noise Management Plan submitted with the application.

The centre is proposed to operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. The acoustic assessment also has had regard to noise generated from mechanical plant, car park emissions and indoor activities, which only occur during the operation of child care centre.

Conditions are to be imposed in the consent to avoid any breaches to the required noise threshold, including noise management to be incorporated in the OMP.

4. The proposed child care centre is not suitable for the street located where demographic of the population consists of elderly. Oversupply of child care centres will result in business saturation and quality. No precedence of two child care centres built on the same street.

The site permits the construction of the child care centre, and proposed development generally satisfies the requirements contained within Holroyd DCP 2013, the criteria under the Child Care Planning Guideline and relevant regulations stipulated under the Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities SEPP 2017, with the exceptions above.

Council may consider limiting the size of child care centres if they share a property boundary as pertained in Holroyd DCP 2013. In this instance, the proposed child care centre is not sharing any property boundary to the approved child care centre at 24 Verlie Street and it is located 100m away from each other. The site and location considerations contained within the Child Care Planning Guideline takes precedence over Council’s DCP, where more than one child care centre may be permitted on the same street.

The approved child care centre at 24 Verlie Street has addressed the required criteria applying specifically to the site. The subject application has also been submitted with supporting documentation and was found to be satisfactory, as discussed within the body of this report. Cumulative traffic generation has been addressed in the revised traffic report submitted with the application prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning reference no. 19-113-2 dated March 2020, demonstrating that Verlie Street could accommodate vehicles movement from both child care centres at 9 and 24 Verlie Streets.

The existing demography of the area is not a matter of consideration under the Child Care Planning Guideline and relevant regulations stipulated under the Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities SEPP 2017.

In relation to the child care centre quality, it is the operator’s responsibility to satisfy the relevant child care provider requirements and comply with the regulations to maintain its licence and business operation.

5. Impact of development on adjoining property to the west, such as, unauthorised parking on driveway, damage and waste management during construction, waste management, trespassing, window height, and construction hours.

Suitable conditions will be imposed in relation to any potential damage and waste management during construction, waste management, potential trespassing and construction hours to minimise impact of the proposed development on the adjoining property. Unauthorised parking on driveway can be reported to Council’s compliance section for action, if it occurs. Condition regarding parking during construction period will be imposed. The upper level setback on the western side has been increased to 4m to reduce any potential overlooking into the adjoining property from the proposed office and kitchen windows.

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. The development was lodged prior to 15 January 2020. Therefore, the Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan does not apply. The payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013 does not apply to the proposed child care centre on the subject site.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

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, subject to reduction in number of children to 40 (to comply with the outdoor unencumbered space) and the draft conditions.

Report Recommendation:

1. That Development Application No. DA2019/368/1 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 40 place child care centre over basement car parking on land at 9 Verlie Street South Wentworthville be deferred commenced, subject to attached conditions.

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

Attachments

1. Revised Full Set of Architecturals

2. Revised Stormwater Plans

3. Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment

4. Submissions

5. Locality Map

6. Appendix A - SEPP (Education & Child Care Facilities) 2017

7. Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

8. Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

9. Appendix D - Child Care Guideline 2017

10. Draft Notice of Determination

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

8 April 2020

Item No: LPP014/20

Development Application for 20 Cumberland Road, Greystanes

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: DA2019/417/1

Application lodged	30 October 2019
Applicant	Baini Design
Owner	Mrs J Kayrouz & Mr J Kayrouz
Application No.	DA2019/417/1
Description of Land	20 Cumberland Road GREYSTANES NSW 2145, Lot 1 DP 239389
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots
Site Area	562m²
Zoning	R2 Low-Density Residential (Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013)
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site is not a heritage-listed item and is not within a heritage conservation area.
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space Ratio Permissible: 0.5:1 Proposed: 0.48:1 Height of Building Permissible: 9m Proposed: 7.31m
Issues	Rear setback, principal private open space.

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA2019/417/1 was received on 30 October 2019 seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 25 November 2019 and 10 December 2019. In response, nil submissions were received.

3. The subject site is not a heritage-listed item and is not situated within a heritage conservation area pursuant to the provisions of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

4. The subject site is located 40m north-east of a State Heritage Item ‘Lower Prospect Canal Reserve’ (I01945).

5. The variations from the controls in the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 are as follows:

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
Principal Private Open Space	Minimum area - 25m²	18.4m²	26.4%
Sunlight Access	C.5 Direct sunlight access for a minimum of 3 hours between 9am – 4pm at winter solstice to at least one main living area	Lot 1 Approximately 1.5 hours of direct sunlight access to the living room.	50%
Rear setback	30% of site depth (13.25m)	4.4m (rear west) 11.5m (rear east)	West rear: 66.79% East rear: 13.2%

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

7. The application is referred to the Panel as there is a declared conflict of interest.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is located on the southern side of Cumberland Road, Greystanes and comprises an area of 562m². The subject site currently has a single-storey dwelling with attached garage, front boundary fencing, and detached shed at the rear of the site.

The site slopes to the front with the following dimensions:

- Southern corner – north west: 0.69m;

- Southern corner – north east: 0.15m

The site adjoins a two-storey dwelling to the east, a public park to the west and an educational establishment to the north.

The site is located 40m north-east of a State heritage listed item ‘Lower Prospect Canal Reserve’, (SHR: I01945). The Lower Canal was incorporated into a public reserve in 1998. The reserve is just over 6.6 km in length, measured from Reconciliation Road, Pemulwuy to Pipehead, Guildford. It varies from 40m to 100m in width and covers approximately 54.6 hectares. The Lower Canal, and its associated infrastructure, is state significant as it comprises a key component of the Upper Nepean Scheme. This scheme was the outcome of the first major engineering investigation in NSW into the provision of an adequate and reliable water supply to meet the needs of a rapidly growing Sydney. The portion of the canal to which the site is in proximity to includes a pedestrian/cycle way.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of the subject site

Figure 2 – Street view of the subject site

Figure 3 – Rear view of the subject site taken from the heritage item

Figure 4 - The heritage item (facing east)

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual-occupancy with Torrens-title subdivision to create two (2) lots. A detailed description of the development is below.

Demolition

- Existing driveway and crossover;

- Single-storey dwelling;

- Associated outbuildings.

Construction

Two-storey dual occupancy;

- One attached garage per unit;

- Four bedrooms for Unit 1, and three bedrooms for Unit 2;

- Street facing balconies accessible by master bedrooms;

- Two driveways with crossovers to their respective garages;

- Alfresco spaces to the rear, accessed from the main living area;

- Associated landscaping.

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 – Proposed dual-occupancy development

Figure 6 – Proposed dual occupancy development

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Baini Design dated 21 October 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

Internal referrals were not required for this application.

External Referrals

External referrals were not required for this application.

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)

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
In 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
2. The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated and the site has historically been used for residential purposes. The subject site continues to be used for residential purposes and contamination is not expected.

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

The proposal does not involve vegetation removal. Therefore the provisions of this SEPP are not applicable.

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

The subject site is no identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or land identified as such by the Coastal Vulnerability Area Map.

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

BASIX Certificate nos. 1053051s & 1053206s issued on 28 October 2019, prepared by Baini Design have been submitted with the application and are considered to be satisfactory.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

The subject site is within the Georges River Catchment. The proposal does not have the potential to adversely impact the groundwater or the water quality within the Georges River or its tributaries. Conditions of consent have been recommended to address the installation of erosion and sediment control measures during the demolition and construction phases of the development.

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The provisions of the HLEP2013 are applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP2013 and the objectives of the R2 Low-Density, Residential Zone.

(a) Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘Dual Occupancy’ and is permissible in the R2 Low-Density Residential Zone with consent.

Dual Occupancy means a dual occupancy (attached) or a dual occupancy (detached), and are a type of residential accommodation.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 7 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of Buildings – max. 9m	Yes	Proposed height: 7.31m
4.4 Floor Space Ratio – max. 0.5:1	Yes	Proposed FSR: 0.48:1
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size 450m²	N/A	See below discussion
4.1A Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain residential development	Yes	Pursuant to the provisions of Cl. 4.1A consent for subdivision below the minimum subdivision lot size at Cl.4.1, can be granted if the proposed development subdivision is for a dual-occupancy. Proposed: Unit One Lot: 275m² Unit two lot: 287m². In this regard, the proposed subdivision is deemed acceptable.
5.10 Heritage Conservation	Yes	The subject site is located approximately 40m north-east of a State Heritage-listed item (Lower Prospect Canal). Given the distance of the site from the item, the site is considered to be sufficiently removed, so as not to have an impact on the item. In this regard, a Heritage Impact Assessment is not required.
6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils	N/A	The subject site is not identified as having acid sulphate soil affectation.
6.2 Earthworks	Yes	Minimal earthworks proposed for the site.
6.4 Flood Planning	N/A	The subject site is not flood affected.
6.5 Terrestrial Biodiversity	Yes	The subject adjoins a ‘Remnant Native Vegetation’ zone. The development is not considered to have adverse impacts on the adjoining vegetation or habitat of native fauna, as the works are contained within the boundaries of the lot. The works that take place on the site do not have the potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure, function and composition of the land, as there are no plans for access during construction into the affected area. Appropriate demolition and construction measures shall be implemented through recommended conditions of consent. The development is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts on the existing condition of the fauna and flora on the adjoining land.
6.6 Riparian Land and Watercourse	N/A	The subject site is not identified as Riparian Land or Watercourse land.
6.7 Stormwater Management	Yes	The submitted stormwater plan is determined to be appropriate for the development and the site.
6.8 Salinity	Yes	The site is affected by moderate salinity and the proposed works are unlikely to have any impact on the salinity processes on the land.

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

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

The HDCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the HDCP 2013.

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

The following table highlights non-compliances with the DCP, which relate primarily to principal private open space and setbacks. The variations sought are considered satisfactory on merit in this instance.

Figure 8: HDCP 2013 Variation Table

Clause

Control

Proposed

Variation

1.5

Landscaping and Open Space

C.14

Principal Private Open Space

Minimum area of 25m²

18.4m²

26.4%

1.8

Sunlight Access

C.5

Direct sunlight access for a minimum of 3 hours between 9am – 4pm at winter solstice to at least one main living area

Lot 1

Approximately 1.5 hours of direct sunlight access to the living room.

50%

3.6

Setbacks

C.4

Rear Setback for dual occupancies

Minimum 30% of the length of the site

The requirement of Lot 2:

30% of 44.19m = 13.25m.

4.4m (rear west)

11.5m (rear east)

West rear: 66.79%

East rear: 3.2%

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the principal private open space and setback provisions of Council’s HDCP 2013.

The variations are considered acceptable on merit considered that the proposal performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and may be supported for the reasons discussed below:

Rear Setback shortfall (Lot two)

In accordance with the HDCP 2013, dual occupancies require a rear setback of 30% of the lot depth.

Lot two’s lot is therefore required a minimum rear setback of:

- 13.25m (30% of 44.19m)

Lot two proposes a rear setback which varies between 4.4m – 11.5m. The variation is considered acceptable as the subject lot comprises an irregular allotment configuration and there is no distinct delineation between the rear and side lot boundaries. Furthermore, the subject site adjoins a public park to the west and there is no opportunity for overlooking where the reduced rear setback is applied as the site does not adjoin residential lots to the west. The dwelling is consistent with the existing streetscape character and the minimum deep soil and landscaping area has been achieved.

In this regard, the variation is considered acceptable.

Direct Sunlight Access shortfall (Lot one)

In accordance with the HDCP2013, new dwellings are to ensure direct sunlight access for a minimum of 3 hours between 9am – 4pm at the winter solstice (22 June) to be provided to at least one main living area of the dwelling.

Lot One’s main living area is orientated south-east and will reach a maximum 1.5 hours of direct sunlight access. The variation is considered acceptable as the site is an irregular allotment configuration. It should be noted that the layout of lot two, where the living room is situated at the north next to the garage cannot be reciprocated on Lot One. It is therefore unfeasible as the current location of the garage and available width cannot accommodate relocating the living room. The proposed layout in its current form provides adequate residential amenity to the internal living area and there is a reasonable amount of sunlight access. Additionally, the private open space to the rear of lot one is afforded solar access for a minimum 3 hours between 9am to 4pm and it is considered to provide adequate residential amenity.

Principal Private Open Space area shortfall (Lot two)

In accordance with the HDCP2013, each lot shall have a minimum principal private open space area of 25m² with a minimum width of 4m. Lot two proposes an area of 18.4m².

The shortfall of 6.6m² (26%) is considered to be acceptable as the overall minimum private open space has been achieved. Furthermore, the proposed area of principal private open space is deemed useable and meets solar access requirements. It is also noted that the minimum width for principal private open space has been achieved.

In this regard, the variation is considered acceptable.

These non-compliances are considered acceptable as the proposal will protect the amenity of adjoining sites, permit adequate solar access and will provide for a landscaped residential setting including the provision of a functional private open space area for the development.

There is no draft planning agreement associated with the subject 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 proposed development is contributing to the provision of housing in the Cumberland LGA to meet the needs of the local population.

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

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 HDCP2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 25 November 2019 and 10 December 2019. No submissions were received in respect of the proposal.

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 recommended conditions will have no significant adverse impacts on the public interest.

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

Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure.

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

The calculation is based on:

· The number of bedrooms

As at 18 March 2020, the fee payable is $12,381. 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.

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 Regulation 2000, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 Low-Density Residential Zone under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013. The proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with Council’s controls have been discussed in the body of this report. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

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

Recommendation:

That Development Application No. DA2019/417/1 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision into 2 lots on land at 20 Cumberland Road GREYSTANES NSW 2145 be approved, subject to attached conditions.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination

2. Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

3. Survey Plan

4. Architectural Plans - External

5. Architectural Plans - Internal

6. Landscape Plan

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

8 April 2020

Item No: LPP015/20

Planning Proposal - 2-36 Church Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Environment and Precincts

File Number: PP-1/2019

Lodged	14 November 2019
Proponent	Urbis on behalf of Billbergia
Description of Land	Lots 1-18 DP 217589, 2-36 Church Street Lidcombe
Site Area	Approximately 10,132m²
Site Description and Existing Use	The site is vacant residential land made up of 18 individual lots that total approximately 10,132m² in land area. The site has street frontage along Church Street that measures approximately 273 metres.
	The proposal seeks to increase the Height of Building controls across the site from: · 14.9 metres to 22 metres · 16.9 metres to 44 metres · 22.9 metres to 53 metres · 27 metres to 53 metres The proposal also seeks to increase the Floor Space Ratio from 1.29:1, 1.49:1 and 2.49:1 to 4.21:1.
Existing Planning Controls	Zoning	R4 High Density Residential
	Height of Building (HoB)	14.9 metres 16.9 metres 22.9 metres 27 metres
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	1.29:1 1.49:1 2.49:1
Requested Planning Controls	Zoning	No Change
	Height of Building (HoB)	22 metres 44 metres 53 metres
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	4.21:1
Recommended Planning Controls	Zoning	No Change

	Height of Building (HoB)	22 metres 32 metres 40 metres
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	3.2:1
Heritage		Nil.
Disclosure of political donations and gifts		Nil.
Previous consierations		Nil.

Summary:

This report seeks to provide an overview of a Planning Proposal Request submitted to Council on 14 November 2019 for 2-36 Church Street, Lidcombe. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010) to allow the redevelopment of the site for an integrated residential neighbourhood, including social housing mixed with private housing and a child care centre, by:

· Increasing the height of building controls from:

o 14.9 metres to 22 metres

o o 16.9 metres to 44 metres

o o 22.9 metres to 53 metres

o o 27 metres to 53 metres

· Increasing the floor space ratio from, 1:29:1, 1.49:1, 2.49:1 and 2.6:1 to 4.21:1

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

Figure 1: Status of the Planning Proposal

Report:

1. The Site And Its Context

The site, located at 2-36 Church Street, Lidcombe, is owned by Land and Housing Corporation NSW (LAHC). The site is close to Lidcombe railway station and within 400m of the hub of the Lidcombe Town Centre. The project, entailing a mixed tenure residential development of four stand-alone buildings with basement parking and a child care centre, will facilitate redevelopment of the site as part of the NSW Government’s Communities Plus Program. This program seeks to deliver new communities where social housing blends with private housing, with good access to transport, employment, improved community facilities and open space.

The Communities Plus Program seeks to leverage the expertise and capacity of the private and non-government sectors. As part of this program, Billbergia was selected as the successful proponent to develop the site.

A development application on this site was approved by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel in December 2019 to support a redevelopment of the site in accordance with the outcomes of the Communities Plus Program. This approval was based on the current controls of the site, and provides 262 apartments. The planning proposal is seeking to achieve greater social, affordable and private housing outcomes on the site through changes in the height and floor space ratio controls.

Figure 2: The Site

Local Context

The boundaries of the site to the north, east and west are defined by Church Street. The site is approximately 350m east of Lidcombe Station. The site is bounded directly to the south by the Lidcombe-Olympic Park railway corridor.

The site is approximately 10,132m2 and is currently comprised of 18 lots. Street frontage along Church Street measures approximately 273 metres.

The site falls approximately 8m across the length of the site. There are steeper areas of slope towards the north-western edge of the site.

The majority of the lots on the northern side of Church Street contain single and double storey detached dwelling houses, with the exception of an eight level residential flat building to the north-west of the site. At the far eastern end of the site is a raised bridge that crosses over the railway corridor and leads through to a light industrial area.

There is a large landscaped median strip in the north-east of the site which will be used to provide additional open space amenity for the proposal.

Regional Context

Lidcombe is a principal local centre within the Cumberland local government area. Lidcombe is approximately 18km west of the Sydney CBD and 8km to the east of the Parramatta CBD. Lidcombe Railway Station is serviced by the T1 Western Line, the T2 Inner West & Leppington Line, the T3 Bankstown Line and the T7 Olympic Park line. There are also four bus stops located within five minutes walking distance of the site, providing access to a range of local and cross-regional bus services.

Figure 3: Regional Context

2. Planning Controls (Auburn LEP 2010)

Current Planning Controls

The site is currently zoned R4 High Density Residential, with Maximum Height of Building controls of 14.9m, 16.9m, 22.9m and 29m and Floor Space Ratio controls of 1:29:1, 1.49:1, 2.49:1 and 2.6:1 applying across the site. Lidcombe Railway Station, which is adjacent to the site, is listed as a heritage item. These controls are shown graphically in Figures 4 to 7.

Figure 4: Current Land Use Zoning

Figure 5: Current Height of Building

Figure 6 Current Floor Space Ratio

Figure 7: Current Heritage Items

Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy

The Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy has been developed by Council and is included as part of the planning proposal for the new Cumberland Local Environmental Plan. The Strategy supports the provision of an increased range of heights in Lidcombe Town Centre to facilitate improved urban design and the economic growth of the town centre, including public domain improvements in the future.

The building heights of the strategy range from 18 metres to 60 metres within the Lidcombe Town Centre. Building heights on the northern side of the railway line will graduate east to west from 29 metres, 36 metres, 38 metre, 55 metres to 60 metres. On the southern side of the railway line, the building heights will graduate east to west from 45 metres, 55 metres to 60 metres.

Figure 8: Proposed Building Heights in Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy

The site for this planning proposal is not located within the area investigated for the Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy, but is adjacent to the study area. The low density development to the north will maintain its existing 9 metre maximum building height, and the residential apartment complex on the corner of Church Street and Swete Street will remain at 25 metres.

3. The Planning Proposal Request

The Planning Proposal Request seeks to amend the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010) to allow the redevelopment of the site for an integrated residential neighbourhood, including social housing mixed with private housing and a child care centre, by:

· Increasing the height of building controls from:

o 14.9 metres to 22 metres

o 16.9 metres to 44 metres

o 22.9 metres to 53 metres

o 27 metres to 53 metres

· Increasing the floor space ratio from, 1:29:1, 1.49:1, 2.49:1 and 2.6:1 to 4.2:1

The changes to planning controls identified in the Planning Proposal Request is outlined in Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9: Proposed Height of Building Controls in Planning Proposal Request

Figure 10: Proposed Floor Space Ratio Controls in Planning Proposal Request

The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:

· Deliver approximately 42,000m² of additional gross floor area (GFA) to the Lidcombe Town Centre. The floor space will be predominantly for residential accommodation, with a high proportion being dedicated to social housing

· Deliver residential development providing varying unit sizes and affordability options within walking distance of existing local facilities and public transport connectivity

· Achieve consistency with State Government policy to encourage growth within existing centres

· Promote sound planning practice and transport focused development

· Manage redevelopment of the site resulting from the amalgamation of 18 existing lots, in a timely and comprehensive manner.

A concept plan of the Planning Proposal Request is provided in Figure 11.

Figure 11 Concept Plan of the Planning Proposal Request

The proponent is also proposing a public benefit offer of:

· Social housing units to be retained by Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) and operated under lease by an appointed Community Housing Provider

· Monetary contribution towards local road upgrades and traffic management improvements.

The offer will be considered by Council should a Gateway Determination be issued, with reference to Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and Interim Affordable Housing Policy.

Based on the Planning Proposal Request, a total of 480 apartments are provided. This is an increase of 218 apartments when compared to the approved development under the current controls.

4. Amended Planning Proposal for Site

Council has reviewed the Planning Proposal Request in relation to the built form components of floor space ratio and height. This review has considered the interface with the adjoining residential areas and Lidcombe Town Centre, and overshadowing impacts of the proposal in relation to adjoining residential areas and the heritage listed Rookwood Cemetery and Necropolis. Based on this review, an amended planning proposal is identified for the site.

Interface with Town Centre and Adjoining Residential

The current planning controls encourage a stepped form from west to east away from the Lidcombe Town Centre. This approach is maintained with the proponent’s Planning Proposal Request and is also consistent with the approach used for the Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy.

The proponent’s proposed building heights of 53 metres are higher than the building heights of 25 metres adjoining the site and the building heights of 45 metres within the north east part of the town centre, as identified in the Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy.

In relation to the interface between the low density residential along Church Street and the concept plan included in the Planning Proposal Request, a building separation of over 20 metres will be provided between existing low density dwellings on the northern side of Church Street and the proposed buildings.

Overshadowing Impacts

A review of overshadowing indicates that the buildings identified in the planning proposal do not impact on adjoining residential areas. The location and siting of the buildings casts a shadow across the train corridor.

The proponent’s proposed building heights of 53 metres and 44 metres overshadow the northwest corner of Rookwood Cemetery and Necropolis. This provides an unacceptable impact on the heritage listed site. The review by Council indicates that a maximum building height of 40 metres will avoid overshadowing impacts on the cemetery.

Amended Planning Proposal

Based on the review, an amended planning proposal is identified for the site with the following planning controls:

· A graduated maximum building height on the site, consistent with the current planning approach, based on 40m for the two buildings closest to Lidcombe Train Station (western end), 32m for the third building and 22m for the fourth building (eastern end)

· A floor space ratio of 3.2:1 for the site, aligned with the proposed maximum building heights in the amended planning proposal.

The proposed planning controls for the amended planning proposal are provided in Figures 12 and 13.

Figure 12: Proposed Height of Building Controls with Amended Planning Proposal

Figure 13: Proposed Floor Space Ratio Controls with Amended Planning Proposal

Based on the amended planning proposal, a total of 384 apartments are estimated to be provided. This is an increase of 122 apartments when compared to the approved development under the current controls.

5. Strategic Merit Assessment

Built Form

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment following consideration of built form, as:

· The range in building heights encourage a stepped form from west to east away from the Lidcombe Town Centre, consistent with the approach to current planning controls on the site and the Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy

· The amended planning proposal with reduced building heights and floor space ratio controls will result in a built form that minimises interface impacts on adjoining residential properties.

Traffic and Transport

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment following consideration of traffic and transport, as:

· The surrounding road network operates with a reasonable level of service during peak periods

· The adjoining road network is capable of accommodating traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the proposal

· The proposed site access arrangements are projected to result in motorists being capable of entering and exiting the subject site in a safe and efficient manner

· The proposal is within walking distance to public transport services at Lidcombe Town Centre, providing local and regional access to key centres.

Heritage

There is strategic merit in progressing the proposal to the next phase of assessment following consideration of heritage, as:

· The site is outside of the curtilage of Heritage Item No. A56 ‘Lidcombe Signal Box’ (south side of railway lines)

· The reduced building heights outlined in the amended planning proposal will avoid overshadowing impacts on the State Heritage Listed Rookwood Cemetery and Necropolis.

Economic and Social Benefits

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

· The proposal will provide a mixed tenure residential development consisting of private, affordable and social housing, contributing to an increase in housing supply for different market segments

· There will be a temporary increase in employment opportunities as a result of construction jobs associated with the proposal.

Consistency with 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:

· Planning Priority 5: Delivering housing diversity to suit changing needs: as the proposal will deliver variety of apartment types including social and affordable housing apartments

· Planning Priority 6: Delivering affordable housing suitable for the needs of all people at various stages of their lives: as the proposal will deliver affordable and social housing

· Planning Priority 11: Promoting access to local jobs, education opportunities and care services: as the proposal will deliver additional housing opportunities close to the employment and education facilities that are located in close proximity to the Lidcombe Town Centre and adjoining employment areas.

Consistency with Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities

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 10. Greater housing supply: the proposal provides a greater amount of housing supply than would be possible if there were no change to the height and floor space ratio control

· Objective 11. Housing is more diverse and affordable: the proposal aims to deliver a range of housing types, sizes and tenures increase housing diversity and affordability

· Objective 14 A metropolis of three cities – integrated land use and transport creates a walkable and 30 minute cities: the proposal provide additional housing within walking distance of Lidcombe station. The level of service offered by Lidcombe Station is greater than other centres, and provide a greater level of opportunity for the future residents to access jobs and services.

Consistency with the Central City District Plan

There is strategic merit in forwarding this proposal for a Gateway Determination, as the amended proposal is generally consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the Central City District Plan:

· Planning Priority C5 Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport: the proposal seeks to deliver additional housing in close proximity to established residential neighbourhoods, services and public transport

· Planning Priority C6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage: the proposal for a new residential apartment development within 400m of Lidcombe train station and the town centre will encourage users of the site to utilise public transport and to walk

· Planning Priority C9 Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30 minute city: the proposal will facilitate the provision of additional housing in close proximity to the Lidcombe train station and associated railway lines. These railway lines access strategic centres, giving more people access to services via public transport within 30 minutes.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the amended planning proposal, with revised building height controls of 40 metres, 32 metres and 22 metres, and revised floor space ratio control of 3.2:1, be reported to Council seeking a Gateway Determination. This recommendation is being made as:

· The proposal will provide a mixed tenure residential development consisting of private, affordable and social housing

· The amended proposal will minimise interface impacts with adjoining residential properties, and avoid overshadowing of the heritage listed Rookwood Cemetery and Necropolis

· The proposal is in close proximity to public transport services and the adjoining road network is capable of accommodating the traffic projected to be generated by the proposal

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

Consultation:

The proposal and supporting documentation were exhibited for a period of 28 days, from 8 February 2020 to 9 March 2020, as required by Cumberland’s Planning Proposal Notification Policy. A total of 15 submissions were received during the exhibition period. The submission raised concerns about the following issues:

· Increase in traffic and traffic congestion as a result of the development

· Parking issues created by the development

· Street parking on Church Street and Swete Street are currently heavily used bycommuters

· Overshadowing impacts

· Loss of privacy and overlooking due to number of units proposed

· Inconsistency with Auburn and Lidcombe Town Centre Planning Controls Strategy..

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 resolve to forward this planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination, there will be 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 Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) recommend that:

1. The amended planning proposal, with building height controls of 40 metres, 32 metres and 22 metres, and floor space ratio control of 3.2:1, 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. Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal Request

2. Attachment 2 - Design Report

3. Attachment 3 - Traffic Impact Assessment

4. Attachment 4 - Social Impact Assessment

5. Attachment 5 - Heritage Impact Statement

6. Attachment 6 - Summary of Submissions