13 May 2020

An electronic meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30a.mvia Zoom on Wednesday, 13 May 2020.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 

 13 May 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP016/20... Development Application for 1 Chiswick Road, Auburn............................... 5

LPP017/20... Development Application for 399 Guildford Road, Guildford.................. 127

LPP018/20... Development Application for 78 Frances Street, Lidcombe..................... 205

LPP019/20... Development Application for 6-8 Factory Street, Granville....................... 353

LPP020/20... Development Application for 17-19 Peggy Street, Mays Hill.................... 521

 

 

 13 May 2020

  

 13 May 2020

 

Item No: LPP016/20

Development Application for 1 Chiswick Road, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/262  

 

 

 

Council is in receipt of a development application from Mr M S Ahmed seeking approval for demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development comprising 3 x two storey buildings consisting of a total of 16 rooms inclusive of a manager's room with at-grade car parking at 1 Chiswick Road, Auburn. The development application architectural plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The development application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days from 10 September 2019 to 24 September 2019. In response, nine (9) submissions were received, objecting to the proposal. The application was re-notified following the submission of amended plans and documents, for a period of 14 days between 29 January 2020 and 12 February 2020. In response, one (1) submission was received. As a result of the two (2) public exhibition periods, Council received a total of ten (10) submissions.

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, pursuant to the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP).  A Boarding house development is permissible with development consent in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

The proposal has been assessed against State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP), Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment), Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020, and Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP).

The development application was referred for comments externally to NSW Police, and AusGrid, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Tree Management Officer, Environmental Health Officer, and Resource Recovery Officer, to which the application is supported.

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

 

The variations sought via the subject application are as follows:

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as pursuant to the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications issued by the Minister for Planning on 23 February 2018, the application constitutes ‘contentious development’ as it is development to which is the subject of 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel approve the development application, subject to the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 2 to this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 1 Chiswick Road, Auburn, and is legally described as Lot B, Deposited Plan 85392. The land is an irregular midblock and has a frontage of 10.125m to Chiswick Road, northern boundary length of 12.99m, and eastern and western boundary length of 121.92m. The total site has an area of 1,411.9m², and is illustrated in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site presently maintains a single storey dwelling with 3 existing trees on site, being 1 x Forest Red Gum, and 2 x Camphor Laurels, a street tree, being a Brush Box / Brisbane Box, and 5 trees within 5 metres of the boundary of the site, located within adjacent properties.

The surrounding locality is characterised by high, medium and low density residential structures, comprising single and double storey dwellings, multi dwelling housing and traditional residential flat building strata developments.

The topography of the site is maintained to a 3.2% gradient, with a 3.91 metre fall to the south western corner to the north eastern corner of the site. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, pursuant to the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP), as shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is situated to the north of Chiswick. Figure 5 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Figure 5 – Aerial Photo and NearMap Insert (Source: Cumberland City Council and NearMap, 2020)

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, and is not located within a heritage conservation area. The site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item, being:

·        Item 13 ‘Horse trough’ – Cnr of Auburn Road and Water Street, Auburn

 

The heritage items listed above are illustrated in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal is for construction of a four (4) storey mixed use development comprising two (2) commercial tenancies and nine (9) residential apartments over basement level car parking.

In detail, the following description has been provided by the Applicant within the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated 22 August 2019:

Description of Proposal

The application seeks consent to:

-        Demolish the existing dwelling on the site and remove a number of trees; and

-        Construct a new generation boarding house.

The proposed boarding house will provide 20 boarding rooms (one of which will be occupied by the on site manager) and will have the capacity to accommodate a maximum of 42 persons.

Following Council’s assessment, Building C was found to be incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area, noting the building was designed to 3 storeys. In this regard, the development, as agreed by the Applicant, is modified as follows:

-        Buildings A, B and C are maintained to 2 storeys in height.

-        The number of boarding rooms has been reduced to 16 boarding rooms (inclusive of 1 manager’s room).

-        The development has a capacity to accommodate a maximum 32 persons on site.

The above will be conditioned accordingly. (Condition)

Following from the above, a numerical overview of the key components of the development is provided below:

Numerical Overview of Key Components

 

 

 

Site History

The following site history is noted as under:

-        PL2019/32         Pre-lodgement Application for a proposed boarding house with 22 rooms (including manager’s room) with at-grade parking – Meeting minutes issued on 12 July 2019. The subject application has addressed the matters raised within the pre-lodgement meeting minutes.

 

-        PL2019/7           Pre-lodgement Application for a proposed boarding house for 36 rooms with basement parking – Meeting minutes issued on 24 April 2019. The subject application has addressed the matters raised within the pre-lodgement meeting minutes.

 

-        M2015/17/A       Section 4.55(1A) Application to amend the stormwater connection point - Approved on 14 October 2019 via Delegated Authority.

 

-        DA2015/17        Development Application for demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of 5 townhouses, each having three bedrooms – Approved via Deferred Commencement on 11 May 2015 via Delegated Authority.

Deferred Commencement matters resolved on 26 August 2015.

 

-        DA2014/188      Development Application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 5 x two storey townhouses and 1 x single storey townhouse - Refused on 15 October 2014 via an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

-        PL2013/38         Pre-lodgement Application for a proposed 5 x two storey townhouse development – Meeting minutes issued on 6 January 2014.

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

 

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated 22 August 2019, and was received by Council on 26 August 2019 in support of the application.

 

Additional correspondence was received by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated 11 December 2019 in response to Council’s request for amended plans and additional information.

 

Contact with Relevant Parties

 

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

 

 

Internal Referrals

 

Development Engineer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of traffic, parking, loading, and stormwater, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Tree Management Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supportable on the grounds of tree removal, tree retention, proposed planting and landscape design, subject to standard conditions, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, who has reviewed the submitted Acoustic Report, Hazardous Materials Survey, and advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Resource Recovery Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, who has reviewed the submitted Waste Management Plan and waste arrangements proposed, and advised that the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent, which have been imposed within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

External Referrals / Concurrence Authorities

 

NSW Police

 

The development application was referred to the NSW Police Force for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

 

AusGrid

 

The development application was referred to AusGrid for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

 

 

Planning Comments

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)      State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

i)                              

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

 

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

 

Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable, or can be made suitable, to accommodate the proposed development. The following table has been provided in consideration of the above.

 

Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:  

 

A Hazardous Material Survey (HMS) has been prepared by Hayes Environmental Consulting, which has been submitted with the development application. The investigation identified:

 

·        The property has been residential single the 1960s, and contains a fibro cottage and metal sheds.

 

·        An inspection of the property, fibro cottage and metal sheds, confirms lead based paints, and asbestos-containing materials are present on-site.

 

Noting the above, management procedures have been identified within the report, which are required to be implemented in the demolition of the existing structures.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the HMS, and is satisfied with the recommendations made. In addition, Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed Council’s records, and confirmed the site is not identified as being contaminated.

 

Furthermore, a site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. Therefore, Council is satisfied that the site is suitable for its intended use.

 

c)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH)

 

The development application has been lodged under Part 2 – New Affordable Rental Housing – Division 3 – Boarding Houses pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH). The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of SEPP ARH, with the character assessment discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the SEPP ARH is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

 

 

Assessment of Character of the Local Area Pursuant to Clause 30A of SEPP ARH

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        Step 1 – Identify the ‘local area’.

 

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

 

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

 

An assessment against each step is provided below:

 

Step 1 – Identify the local area.

 

This assessment identifies the local area as primarily the visual catchment of the site (outlined in red) as viewed from directly within the site and adjacent to the site on the street. Figure 7 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings, and the visual catchment, as denoted by a red outline.

 

Figure 7 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

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

 

The zoning of the immediate locality comprises R3 Medium Density Residential to the north, east, and west of the site and R2 Low Density Residential to the south of the site, pursuant to the ALEP, as shown in Figure 5 below:

 

 

Figure 8 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

Present Character of the Area

 

The existing character of the local area is as follows:

 

·        North       Single storey villa development.

 

·        East         Single and two storey low and medium density residential           developments.

 

·        South      Single and two storey low density residential developments.

 

·        West        Single, two storey, and two storey with attic low, medium and high density residential developments.

 

Future Character of the Area

 

The future character of the local area is as follows:

 

·        North       The maximum Height of Buildings (HOB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone is maintained to 9 metres / 0.75:1 FSR, and permits medium density residential developments.

 

·        East         The maximum HOB and FSR of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone is maintained to 9 metres / 0.75:1 FSR, and permits medium density residential developments.

 

·        South      The maximum HOB of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is maintained to 9 metres, and permits low density residential developments. No FSR standard is applicable.

 

·        West        The maximum HOB and FSR of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone is maintained to 9 metres / 0.75:1 FSR, and permits medium density residential developments.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Physical impacts general include privacy, overshadowing, and visual bulk. In terms of the physical impacts of the development:

 

o   Privacy within the development and to adjoining sites has been maintained to an acceptable level, through the incorporation of sufficient building setbacks, and appropriate privacy treatments, where necessary. Furthermore, a condition will be imposed, requiring privacy treatments to be imposed to the full length of the eastern and western aspects of the balcony areas associated with Building C. (Condition)

 

o   Overshadowing to adjoining developments is limited, with the proposed development maintaining solar access to adjoining properties living rooms and private open space areas in accordance with the ADCP.

 

o   The setback of the proposed development from Chiswick Road is consistent with the desired future character of medium density residential developments in the area, as defined within the ADCP.

 

o   The height of the development and proposed floor space ratio is consistent with the relevant standards pursuant to the ALEP.

 

o   The proposal will not result in the isolation of adjoining sites, nor does it unduly constrain adjoining sites.

 

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

 

The proposed boarding house development is considered to be in harmony with nearby buildings, in particular those located to the north, east, and west of the subject site.

 

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

 

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged as a part of the development application. The BASIX certificate indicates that the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

 

e)      State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

 

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

 

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

 

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

 

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

 

The subject development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The development application was referred to AusGrid, who advised that the development proposal is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

 

 

g)      State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

 

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney 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 State Environmental Plan is not directly relevant to the proposed development.

 

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

(Vegetation SEPP)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) applies to the subject site. An assessment of the proposal has revealed the proposed development complies with the requirements of the Vegetation SEPP, noting:

 

·        The site is not located in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value as outlined within the Biodiversity Values Map;

 

·        The proposal does not exceed the area clearing threshold for native vegetation pursuant to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016; and

·        The tree species identified to be removed do not satisfy the test of significance pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

i)       Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP)

 

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP) applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of ALEP. The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP, and the applicable clauses for the proposed development, are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment against the ALEP is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

 

Permissibility

 

The proposed development is defined as a boarding house, and is permissible in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone with consent.

 

Boarding house means a building that

 

a)   is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

b)   provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

c)   may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

d)   has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers,

 

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

 

Note. Boarding houses are a type of residential accommodation

 

Heritage

 

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, nor is it located within a heritage conservation area. The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item, being:

 

·        Item 13 ‘Horse trough’ – Cnr of Auburn Road and Water Street, Auburn

 

Given the distance of the development from the heritage item, the proposal is not expected to negatively impact upon on the surrounding heritage item.

 

Key Development Standards

 

The following key development standards are applicable:

 

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP)

 

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP) 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 ESEPP 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.

 

Refer to assessment above under the heading ‘State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’.

 

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

 

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

 

•        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

•        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

•        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the ALEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP)

 

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP) applies to the subject site. The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of ADCP, with the exception of site area, landscape area, and design of parking spaces, which is discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the ADCP is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

 

The below variations are maintained to controls applicable to multi dwelling housing development. While the proposal does not seek the construction of a multi dwelling housing development, the proposed development has been assessed against this section, in the context of controls which are typically applied to development within an R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Clause 2.1 - Site Area

 

The ADCP requires multi dwelling housing developments to have a minimum frontage width of 18 metres. In this regard, the proposal is maintained to a site with a frontage to Chiswick Road of 10.125 metres. The proposed variation achieves the aims and objectives of the requirement for site area, and is considered supportable on merits, noting:

 

o   The proposed development is maintained to a site of sufficient size to accommodate a boarding house development, while maintaining appropriate setbacks, and maintaining amenity to adjoining properties, with particular reference to visual privacy and solar access.

 

o   The control notes that sites with a width frontage less than 18m shall be amalgamated with two (2) or more sites to provide sufficient width for good building design. Due to the a-typical layout of the subdivision, that being, adjoining sites to the east and west of the allotment maintain a perpendicular layout to the subject site, having an associated frontage to Harrow Road and Auburn Road, the site is limited in its ability to amalgamate with adjoining sites to increase the width of the allotment. Furthermore, the proposal will not result in the isolation of adjoining sites, nor does it unduly constrain adjoining sites.

 

Clause 3.2 - Landscape Area

 

The ADCP requires multi-dwelling housing developments to have a minimum of 30% of the site to be landscaped open space. In this regard, the subject site requires a minimum landscape area of 423.6m², however, the proposal maintains a landscape area of 399m², equivalent to 28.26% of the site area. The proposed variation achieves the aims and objectives of the requirement for landscape area, and is considered supportable on merits, noting:

 

o   The landscape areas are of sufficient dimension to contribute to the amenity of the site, enabling planting, and permitting stormwater infiltration. To this end, the proposed development includes an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system, and introduces additional vegetation on site, that being, groundcovers, shrubs and trees, to improve the landscape character of the site and general surrounds. The proposed trees include Water Gums, a Native Frangipani, and a Blueberry Ash.

 

o   The landscape areas proposed create a buffer zone for privacy, views, and noise, between the subject development and adjacent / adjoining properties.

 

Clause 4.3.2 - Design of Parking Spaces

 

The ADCP requires all multi dwelling housing developments to have underground parking. In this regard, the proposed development is maintained to at-grade parking. The proposed variation achieves the aims and objectives of the requirement for design of parking spaces, and is considered supportable on merits, noting:

 

o   The proposed development is generally consistent with the parking arrangement approved via Development Consent 2015/17 which gained approval for demolition of existing dwelling housing and construction of five townhouses with each townhouse having three bedrooms on the subject site. The proposal maintained 9 at-grade parking spaces, in comparable locations to that proposed within the subject development.

 

o   The design of the parking areas reflects a functional requirement, and enables the adequate provision of soft-soil landscape area on site.

 

o   The proposed parking is not visible from the public domain, noting the parking spaces are designed behind Buildings A and B, and beneath Building C, and therefore maintains a satisfactory streetscape presentation.

 

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

The proposed development is appropriate located within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the provisions of the ALEP, and is consistent with the zone. The development however proposes a variation to the site area, landscape area, and design of parking spaces requirements under the ADCP. The development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relationship to its surrounding built environment, particularly having regard to the impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That development application DA2019/262 seeking demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house development comprising 3 x two storey buildings consisting of a total of 16 rooms inclusive of a manager's room with at-grade car parking at 1 Chiswick Road, Auburn, be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 of this report. 2.   Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Architectural Plans  

2.      Draft Notice of Determination  

3.      SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Compliance Assessment  

4.      Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment  

5.      Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment  

6.      Submissions x 10   

 

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

Attachment 5

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Submissions x 10

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 13 May 2020

Item No: LPP017/20

Development Application for 399 Guildford Road, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/395  

 

 

Council is in receipt of a development application from Eco Factory Pty Ltd seeking approval for construction of a four (4) storey mixed use development comprising two (2) commercial tenancies and nine (9) residential apartments over basement level car parking at 399 Guildford Road, Guildford. The development application architectural plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The development application was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 27 November 2019 to 18 December 2019. In response, one (1) submission was received, objecting to the proposal, which has been considered in the assessment of the application.

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP).  A Shop Top Housing development is permissible with development consent in the B2 Local Centre zone.

The proposal has been assessed against State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land), State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Sydney Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment), Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

The development application was referred for comments externally to Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, Tree Management Officer, Environmental Health Officer, and Resource Recovery Officer, to which concerns have been raised by Council’s Development Engineer and Environmental Health Officer.

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant matters for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, including likely impacts, the suitability of the site for the development, and the public interest. The proposed development is not considered appropriate for the site.

The non-compliances of the subject application are as follows:

 

The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination, as pursuant to the Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications issued by the Minister for Planning on 23 February 2018, the application constitutes ‘sensitive development’ as it is development to which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel refuse the development application, subject to the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 2 to this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 399 Guildford Road, Guildford, and is legally described as Lot A, Deposited Plan 102447. The site is a regularly shaped midblock site, and has a frontage of 8.71 metres to Guildford Road, a rear boundary of 8.71 metres, and eastern boundary and western boundary of 56.31 metres. The total site area is 490.4sqm, and is illustrated in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation on the subject site.

The surrounding locality is characterised as follows:

·    North       Five (5) storey residential flat building.

·    East         Two (2) storey commercial premises.

·    South      Four (4) storey mixed use (commercial and residential) development.

·    West        Two (2) storey commercial premises.

The topography of the site is maintained to a 0.9% gradient, with a 0.56 metre fall to the north eastern corner of the site. The site is zoned B2 Local Centre, pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), as shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The subject site is situated to the north of Guildford Road. Figure 5 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

Figure 5 – Aerial Photo and NearMap Insert (Source: Cumberland City Council and NearMap, 2020)

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, nor is it located within a heritage conservation area. The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item, being:

o   Item 39 ‘Hazeldene’ – Late Victorian / Federation / Queen Anne Cottage – 379 Guildford Road, Guildford

The heritage items listed above are illustrated in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal is for construction of a four (4) storey mixed use development comprising two (2) commercial tenancies and nine (9) residential apartments over basement level car parking.

In detail, the following description has been provided by the Applicant within the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Willana Urban, dated 21 October 2019:

Description of Proposal

The application proposes the construction of a four-storey, mixed-use development comprising of nine units with basement parking, landscaping and communal open space. The below table provides a breakdown of the proposed development by level.

 

Access

Vehicle access and egress is provided via a single driveway to Guildford Road. Separate pedestrian access is provided to the commercial premises and residential lobby.

Landscaping

A landscape plan prepared by TGS Architects has been prepared for the site. It provides detail on the nature of the landscape design, including planter soil depths and plant selection.

Following from the above, a numerical overview of the key components of the development is provided below:

Numerical Overview of Key Components

 

 

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Willana Urban, Reference Number 10571A_SEE, dated 21 October 2019, and was received by Council on 22 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

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is not supported, with concerns related to the proposed stormwater and On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system, access and manoeuvring, and sewer line, which have been detailed below and within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Stormwater & On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system

-        The proposed On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) design does not account for the overland flood adjacent to the subject site. The overland flood level at the associated point of disposal is approximately 33.6mAHD. The proposed OSD system and the outflow disposal arrangement will not function efficiently, as the hydraulic head available is only 150mm (33.75-33.60mAHD) above the associated flood level.

-        In light of the effect of overland flood, as outlined above, the OSD storage requirement would be severely affected, and would need to provide approximately 35m3 of detention storage. The proposed arrangement of 24.6m3 falls short of the required storage, being only 70% of the required storage.

-        The site slopes towards the north-eastern corner of the site. In this regard, the proposed point of disposal of site stormwater to Guildford Road is not hydraulically appropriate. Therefore, a drainage easement is required through the rear adjoining properties, draining either to Stimson Street or O’Neill Street.

-        The proposed OSD tank is too narrow resulting in difficulty of access and maintenance.

-        The proposed OSD tank is long and narrow, requiring an appropriate cross-ventilation arrangement, with sufficient grated cover openings at critical locations. Sealed covers are not supported.

 

Access and Manoeuvring

-        The driveway access width is required to be 5.5m for first 6m, as measured from the front property boundary, in accordance with AS2890.1-2004.

-        A clearance of 2m across and 2.5m along the driveway, within the property, on either side of the driveway, has not been provided in accordance with the Section 3.2.4(b) of AS2890.1-2004. This clearance is required for sightlines and pedestrian safety.

-        In accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004, the driveway has not been designed to be 2m clear, as measured from side boundaries, required for sightlines and pedestrian safety.

-        The shared zone for the proposed accessible car space has been designed within the aisle, which is not supported on the grounds of safety.

-        Access and manoeuvring must not be aided by mechanical or electrical means. In this regard, the proposed car lift for access, and turntable for manoeuvring, are not supported, noting there potential to fail, and consequential concern that vehicles would be left isolated within the basement.

-        A vehicle manoeuvring swept path, within the basement car park, has not been provided.

-        In accordance with the HDCP, the minimum aisle width shall be 6.1m. In this regard, the proposed aisle width of 3.51m is not supported, with the dimension not accommodating two-way traffic. 

-        The driveway access width is required to be 5.5m for first 6m, as measured from the front property boundary, in accordance with AS2890.1-2004.

-        A clearance of 2m across and 2.5m along the driveway, within the property, on either side of the driveway, has not been provided in accordance with the Section 3.2.4(b) of AS2890.1-2004. This clearance is required for sightlines and pedestrian safety.

-        In accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004, the driveway has not been designed to be 2m clear, as measured from side boundaries, required for sightlines and pedestrian safety.

-        The shared zone for the proposed accessible car space has been designed within the aisle, which is not supported on the grounds of safety.

-        Access and manoeuvring must not be aided by mechanical or electrical means. In this regard, the proposed car lift for access, and turntable for manoeuvring, are not supported, noting there potential to fail, and consequential concern that vehicles would be left isolated within the basement.

-        A vehicle manoeuvring swept path, within the basement car park, has not been provided.

-        In accordance with the HDCP, the minimum aisle width shall be 6.1m. In this regard, the proposed aisle width of 3.51m is not supported, with the dimension not accommodating two-way traffic. 

Services (Sewer Line)

-        A sewer line runs across the rear of the subject site, which is in conflict with the basement car park. No information has been submitted to address this conflict.

Tree Management Officer

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

Environmental Health Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comments, who has advised that the proposed development is not supported, with concerns related to noise and acoustics, which have been detailed below and within the draft notice of determination provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

Acoustic Report

An acoustic report has not been submitted, which considers the noise impact from all mechanical plant (including air conditioners /ventilation), and the car lift and turntable, to all sensitive receivers.

Resource Recovery

The development application was referred to Council’s Resource Recovery Officer for comments, who has reviewed the submitted Waste Management Plan and waste arrangements proposed, and advised the proposed development is supportable, subject to standard conditions of consent.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comments, who have advised that the proposed development is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

 

Planning Comments

Section 4.15 Of The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979 (Ep & A Act)

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

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

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

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

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

Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable, or can be made suitable, to accommodate the proposed development. The following table has been provided in consideration of the above.

 

The Applicant has advised the following within the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects:

The land is unlikely to be contaminated, and no preliminary investigation is triggered in this case given:

·        The site is not within an investigation area or identified under the HLEP as constituting contaminated land, or land that must be subject to a site audit statement.

·        The subject site and adjoining properties are not subject to a legal notice for a matter listed under Section 59(2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

·        The site is not within an investigation area or contaminated land use referred in Table 1 of the contaminated land planning guidelines.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal and Council’s records, and confirmed the site is not identified as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. Therefore, Council is satisfied that the site is suitable for its intended use.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) applies to the assessment of the subject application, as it includes residential flat buildings that are 3 storeys or more in height and contain more than 4 dwellings. The development application has been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a Registered Architect.

SEPP 65 outlines 9 Design Quality Principles, which are addressed as follows:

 

Pursuant to Clause 28(2)(c) of SEPP 65, a consent authority must consider the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) in the assessment of a residential flat development. The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the ADG related to visual privacy, apartment size and layout, and acoustic privacy, which are discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

Visual Privacy (Building Separation)

In accordance with Design Criteria 3F-1 of the ADG, separation between windows and balconies shall be provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. In this regard, the following non-compliances are noted:

-        Measured from the northern boundary, for levels 1 to 3 (inclusive). The required separation is 6m, and the proposed separation is 2.612m / 3.93m to habitable rooms and balcony areas.

-        Measured from the eastern boundary, for levels 1 to 3 (inclusive). The required separation is 6m, and the proposed separation is 4.68m to balcony areas.

-        Measured from the western boundary, for levels 1 to 3 (inclusive). The required separation is 6m, and the proposed separation is 3.95m to balcony areas.

-        Measured between Tower A and B, for levels 1 to 3 (inclusive). The required separation is 12m, and the proposed separation is 10.7 m between habitable rooms and balconies.

In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the visual privacy objectives under the ADG, in particular, Objective 3F-1 being adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy.

Visual Privacy (General)

In accordance with Objective 3F-2 of the ADG, site and building design elements shall increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space. In this regard, the following non-compliances are noted:

-        Due to the layout and arrangement of units, and design of openings, visual privacy has not been maintained between Units 1 and 2, 4 and 5, and 7 and 8, across the void areas.

In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the visual privacy objectives under the ADG.

 

Apartment Size and Layout

In accordance with Design Criteria 4D-2 of the ADG, in open plan layout (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window. In this regard, the following non-compliances are noted:

-        Units 2, 5 and 8 maintain a maximum depth from a window of 8.9m.

-        Units 3, 6 and 9 maintain a maximum depth from a window of 8.2m.

In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the apartment size and layout objectives under the ADG, in particular, Objective 4D-2 being environmental performance of the apartment is maximised.

Acoustic Privacy

-        In accordance with Objective 4H-1 of the ADG, noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout. In this regard, the following non-compliances are noted:

-        Due to the layout and arrangement of units, and location of openings, acoustic privacy has not been maintained between Units 1 and 2, 4 and 5, and 7 and 8, within the void areas.

-        Matters related to an acoustic report, which is discussed under the heading Internal Referrals – Environmental Health Officer, above.

In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the acoustic privacy objectives under the ADG.

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

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged as a part of the development application. The BASIX certificate indicates that the development has been designed to achieve the required water, thermal comfort and energy scores.

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

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

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

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

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

The subject development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the development proposal is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

(g)     State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Sydney 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 State Environmental Plan is not directly relevant to the proposed development.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) applies to the subject site. An assessment of the proposal has revealed the proposed development complies with the requirements of the Vegetation SEPP, noting:

-        The site is not located in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value as outlined within the Biodiversity Values Map;

-        The proposal does not include tree removal, and therefore the area clearing threshold for native vegetation pursuant to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is not applicable; and

-        The proposal does not include tree removal, and therefore the test of significance pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is not applicable.

(i)      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP)

The Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) applies to the subject site. The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the HLEP related to stormwater management, which is discussed under the heading Internal Referrals – Development Engineer, above.

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP, and the applicable clauses for the proposed development, are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment against the HLEP is contained in Attachment 4 to this report.

Permissibility

The proposed development is defined as shop top housing, and is permissible in the B2 Local Centre zone with consent.

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

Note. Shop top housing is a type of residential accommodation

Heritage

The subject site does not contain a heritage item, nor is it located within a heritage conservation area. The subject site is located within the vicinity of a heritage item, being:

o   Item 39 ‘Hazeldene’ – Late Victorian / Federation / Queen Anne Cottage – 379 Guildford Road, Guildford

Given the distance of the development from the heritage item, the proposal is not expected to negatively impact upon on the surrounding heritage item.

Key Development Standards

The following key development standards are applicable:

 

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

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP)

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment) (Draft ESEPP) 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 ESEPP 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.

Refer to assessment above under the heading ‘State Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005’.

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP)

The Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP) applies to the subject site. The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the HDCP related to minimum parking spaces, services, access, manoeuvring and layout, lot size and frontage, setbacks, separation and depth, and flexibility and adaptability, which are discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the HDCP is contained in Attachment 5 to this report.

Minimum Parking Spaces

-        In accordance with Part A, Section 3.1 of the HDCP, 1 car parking space shall be provided per 20m² of commercial gross floor leasable area. In this regard, the commercial gross floor leasable area proposed is equivalent to 56.9m², and therefore the development shall be serviced by 3 commercial car parking spaces.

Furthermore to the above, the Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating Development, requires 9 residential car parking spaces, based on the unit mix proposed, and the HDCP requires 11 car parking spaces, based on the unit mix proposed. Noting that SEPP 65 applies to this development, and the ADG under Design Criteria 3J-1 prescribes the lesser of the two standards should be applied, the development shall be serviced by 9 residential car parking spaces and 3 commercial car parking spaces.

Noting the above, the proposed development is serviced by 9 car parking spaces overall, deficient by 3 spaces. In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the minimum parking spaces objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O1 being to ensure that adequate and convenient off-street parking facilities are provided for all vehicles generated by the various types of development.

-        In accordance with Part A, Section 3.1 of the HDCP, 1 bicycle space per employee shall be provided per 300m² of ground floor gross leasable floor area, and 1 bicycle space per visitor shall be provided per 2,500m² of ground floor gross leasable floor area. Furthermore, 0.5 bicycle spaces shall be provided per residential unit for residents, and 0.1 bicycle spaces shall be provided per residential unit for visitors. In this regard, the commercial gross floor leasable area proposed is equivalent to 56.9m², and 9 residential units are proposed, and therefore, the development shall be serviced by 7 bicycle parking spaces.

 

Noting the above, the proposed development is serviced by 5 bicycle spaces, deficient 2 spaces. In this regard, the proposed development is contrary to the minimum parking spaces objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O1 being to ensure that adequate and convenient off-street parking facilities are provided for all vehicles generated by the various types of development.

Access, Manoeuvring and Layout

-        The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the HDCP related to access, manoeuvring and layout, which is discussed under the heading Internal Referrals – Development Engineer, above.

Services

-        The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of the HDCP related to services, which is discussed under the heading Internal Referrals – Development Engineer, above.

Lot Size and Frontage

-        In accordance with Part C, Clause 1.1 of the HDCP, the minimum lot frontage for development between 4 and 8 storeys shall be 26 metres. Furthermore, Council may require the consolidation of more than one existing land holding to be undertaken, to achieve the requirements of the HDCP.

 

To this end, the proposed development is maintained to a site with a frontage of 8.71m, and therefore, efforts to consolidate with adjoining properties are required to be undertaken, and evidence of such efforts shall be provided to Council. It is also noted that concerns have also been raised by Council’s Development Engineer regarding vehicular access and basement parking, noting the limited lot width afforded.

 

In this regard, two valuations have been prepared, and an associated offer extended to the property owner of 395-397 Guildford Road, Guildford. Correspondence was received in response from 395-397 Guildford Road, Guildford, noting the offer has been declined, as they have no intention of selling. Regarding 401 & 403 Guildford Road, Guildford, valuation reports have not been submitted, nor has correspondence been received regarding an offer.

 

Noting the above, the proposed development is contrary to the lot size and frontage objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O1 being to ensure that commercial development is carried out on sites that are sufficient in frontage in order to provide adequate vehicular access and basement car parking, and Objective O3 being to ensure sufficient lot dimensions for vehicular access and parking.

Setbacks, Separation and Depth

-        In accordance with Part C, Clause 1.4 of the HDCP, where a site adjoins a residential zone, the side setback shall be 3m, and shall demonstrate solar access and privacy to adjoining residential development. In this regard, the site adjoins 84-86 The Esplanade, Guildford, along the western boundary, which is zoned R4 High Density Residential. The proposed development is designed to the western boundary, and as noted earlier, does not maintain the required building separation in accordance with the ADG.

 

As such, the proposed development is contrary to the setbacks, separation and depth objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O2 being to protect the amenity of adjoining sites and reduce the impact of buildings on the public domain, and Objection O10 being to provide adequate separation between proposed and existing buildings.

-        In accordance with Part C, Clause 1.4 of the HDCP, development adjoining residential shall have a rear setback of 6m. In this regard, the site adjoins 84-86 The Esplanade, Guildford, along the northern boundary, which maintains an existing residential flat building, and the proposed development is setback 3.93 metres.

 

As such, the proposed development is contrary to the setbacks, separation and depth objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O2 being to protect the amenity of adjoining sites and reduce the impact of buildings on the public domain, and Objection O10 being to provide adequate separation between proposed and existing buildings.

Flexibility and Adaptability

-        In accordance with Part C, Clause 3.10 of the HDCP, adaptable housing shall be provided in accordance with Part B of the HDCP.  In accordance with Part B, Clause 1.12 of the HDCP, for multi dwelling development and residential flat buildings, 15% of units shall comply with AS4299-1995 – Adaptable Housing Class B. In this regard, based on the proposed 9 residential units, 2 adaptable units are required, however, only a single adaptable unit is proposed, being Unit 1.

 

As such, the proposed development is contrary to the universal housing and accessibility objectives under the HDCP, in particular, Objective O3 being to encourage accessibility housing design for people with limited mobility.

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

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

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

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

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

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the assessment of the application and are not considered acceptable, namely due to the concerns related to visual privacy (building separation), visual privacy (general), acoustic privacy, limited building separation, minimum parking spaces, lot size and frontage and setbacks, separation and depth.

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

The site is not considered to be suitable for the development as proposed, namely due to the concerns related to visual privacy (building separation), visual privacy (general), acoustic privacy, limited building separation, minimum parking spaces, lot size and frontage and setbacks, separation and depth.

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

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail               Sign            Not Required  

In accordance with Council’s notification requirements contained within the HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 27 November 2019 to 18 December 2019. In response, one (1) submission was received, which is contained within Attachment 6 to this report.

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

 

The Public Interest (EP & A Act S4.15(1)(E))

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

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contributions

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

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with the Holroyd Section 94 Contributions Plan 2013. In accordance with the currently indexed rates, the current rate of the required contribution is $118,233. Should the application be approved, a condition to reflect the above contributions shall be imposed.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

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

 

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 therefore recommended that the development application be refused.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That Development Application DA2019/395/1 seeking construction of a four (4) storey mixed use development comprising two (2) commercial tenancies and nine (9) residential apartments over basement level car parking on land at 399 Guildford Road, Guildford, be refused for the reasons contained in the draft notice of determination contacted in Attachment 2 to this report. 2.   Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans  

2.      Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination  

3.      Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 ADG Compliance Assessment  

4.      Attachment 4 - Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Assessment  

5.      Attachment 5 - Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Assessment  

6.      Attachment 6 - Submissions (1x)   

 

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination

 13 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 ADG Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

 

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Assessment

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Submissions (1x)

 13 May 2020

 

 13 May 2020

Item No: LPP018/20

Development Application for 78 Frances Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/286  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2019/286 was received on 6 September 2019 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey boarding house development comprising two separate buildings and a total of 25 rooms over basement car parking. It should be noted that a total of 26 rooms were initially proposed however, due to the concerns that the size of the communal living room is considered to be inadequate to accommodate 32 occupants, minor design changes to the internal configuration of the buildings have been recommended as part of a deferred commencement condition to create a larger common room, which has resulted in one less boarding room.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 1/10/2019 and 15/10/2019. In response, 17 submissions were received, of which 10 were considered to be ‘unique’ submissions.

 

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

4.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be contentious development.

Subject Site And Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 170277 and is known as 78 Frances Street LIDCOMBE NSW 2141. The land is regular in shape with a frontage width of 15.24m and an average depth of 63.49m, resulting in a total site area covering 966.8m2. The site is located on the south eastern side of Frances Street. The site has a moderate slope towards the rear with a fall of approximately 1.8m.

A site inspection of the premises carried out on 1/10/19 confirmed that the site is currently occupied by an existing single storey brick and fibro cottage with tile roof and associated outbuilding including 2 detached carports and 2 detached metal sheds located on the southern side of the site.

The character of the residential development in the locality is undergoing transition from modest single storey residential dwellings to larger two storey multi dwelling residential developments. The existing developments adjoining the site include a multi dwelling development directly to the south and a single storey dwelling house directly to the north. Further north of the site is another multi dwelling development at 84 Frances Street and several multi dwelling developments also exist on the opposite side of Frances 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 is in receipt of a development application on 6 September 2019 seeking approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house development comprising two separate buildings and a total of 25 rooms over basement car parking.

 

·        Demolish existing single storey dwelling and ancillary structures including a detached fibro shed and carports along the southern side boundary.

·        Removal of five (5) trees including Council’s street tree.

·        Construct a 2x2 storey boarding house development containing 25 rooms (comprising of 17 single rooms, 7 double rooms and a manager’s room) accommodating a total of 32 lodgers including the manager. Each room is self-contained being equipped with a kitchen, bathroom and laundry facility that is integrated into the kitchen. The development also provides a communal room, a manager’s room with separate courtyard attached and 3 boarding rooms which are nominated as accessible rooms (G11, 113 and 115). A lift is also proposed to allow access from the basement levels and to the ground & first floor levels.

·        Construct a basement level car park to accommodate 14 car spaces including 3 accessible spaces with a turning bay, 6 motorcycle spaces and a new driveway via Frances Street.

·        Site drainage and landscaping works which include a communal open area located in the central courtyard with direct access from the communal room and 6 bicycle spaces.

History

A pre-DA meeting (PL-29/2019) was held on the 5 June 2019 for a development proposal of a 2 storey boarding house containing 22 rooms and 12 at grade car parking spaces. The key issues discussed at the meeting included concerns with regard to the communal living room, landscaped area, solar access, private open space, parking, access and mobility, character of the local area and drainage. Due to the number of inconsistencies, the applicant was advised the proposal could not be supported by Council.

The current application proposes a new design scheme comprising of 2x2 storey boarding house development which initially contained 26 rooms with basement level parking. However, as there are concerns with the size of the communal living room proposed, a deferred commencement condition is recommended to be imposed to reduce the number of boarding rooms to 25. In this instance, internal design changes are recommended to remove one boarding room, by combining rooms G02 and G03 into a larger communal living room and converting the existing communal living room into a double boarding room.

Further, it is noted that whilst the existing communal living room is compliant, it is considered that an enlarged communal living room is appropriate given that the development will accommodate a maximum of 32 occupants on site.

On 17 April 2020, Council received a submission of additional information containing amendments to the basement layout accommodating 14 parking spaces. Whilst the revised basement plan is satisfactory, the size of the communal living room remained unchanged and therefore remains a concern to Council.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by MOMA Architects dated August 2019 and was received by Council on 10 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 proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended deferred commencement conditions of consent.

Environment and Health

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

Landscape Architect/Officer

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

Waste Management

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

External Referrals

NSW Police

The application was required to be referred to NSW Police for comment. Council received formal correspondence on 25/09/19 raising no objections to the proposed development subject to advisory conditions being recommended to be imposed should consent be granted.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

BASIX Certificate 1036129M dated issued on 27 August 2019 prepared by Outsource Ideas P/L has been submitted with Council. As a result of the design changes required to reduce the number of boarding rooms, a revised BASIX Certificate is required and has been included as part of the deferred commencement condition.

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

The relevant objectives and provisions of the ARHSEPP 2009 has been considered in the assessment of the application and the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the boarding house provisions under Division 3 of the plan. A comprehensive assessment has been carried out and is provided in the compliance table below including a detailed discussion in relation to the design of the development being compatible with the local area is also considered.

 

 

Clause 30A Character of Local Area

Division 3 of the SEPP contains provisions and development standards that apply to the development for the purpose of a boarding house. The development as proposed is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions and development standards of the instrument at clause ‘30A Character of the local area’. This clause specifies that ‘a consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area’.

In order to determine the compatibility of the proposal, an assessment of the character of the area and application of the ‘character test’ for development derived from the planning principle 11209 of 2005 Project Venture Development’s Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council has been undertaken.

Step 1 – Identify the local area

The assessment identifies the local area as primarily the visual catchment of the site (as viewed from within the site and directly adjacent to the site on the street) which is shown in the aerial view provided earlier in the report.

Zoning map of locality

The site is located on the south eastern side of Frances Street and is situated within an established medium density residential area that is bounded by an R2 zoning interface. The immediate locality is predominantly characterized by detached residential dwellings interspersed with medium density housing and the existing building form consists primarily of 1 and 2 storey single dwelling houses and multi dwelling townhouses.

 

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

Subject Site

Adjoining development to the south

Adjoining development to the north

Development located directly opposite subject site

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and is located on the southern side of Frances Street and north of the Lidcombe train station. The locality is characterised by a mix of one and two storey detached single dwellings and multi dwelling developments. The site is located within walking distance to Lidcombe town centre – located less than 800m south of the site and contains a variety of commercial and retail uses and services.

Immediately adjacent to the south side comprises of a two storey multi dwelling housing development and to the north is a single storey dwelling. Further north of the site contains another two storey multi dwelling development and several multi dwelling developments also exists on the opposite side of Frances Street. To the rear eastern side of the site are single storey dwellings.

 

The character of the residential development in the immediate locality is undergoing transition from modest single storey dwellings to large two storey dwellings and multi dwelling developments that is consistent with the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

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

In order to determine the compatibility of the development with the established character of a local area, the ‘character test’ derived from the Land and Environment Court’s Planning Principle and case law – Project Venture Development’s Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council can be applied. The character test determines the compatibility of the development by asking whether the physical impacts of the proposal on surrounding development is in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the area. These questions are discussed in detail below.

·    Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable?

The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

The physical impacts of the proposal are assessed having regard to the impact of the development on the amenity of surrounding properties. Amenity in this instance generally include privacy, solar access, visual bulk and compatibility in the streetscape.

With regard to solar access, it is acknowledged that the development will shadow the adjoining townhouses respective private open space immediately to the south. However, the scale of the impact is considered reasonable based on the orientation of the block (i.e. the townhouse development possesses a northern side boundary) and therefore overshadowing is unavoidable. As a result, the townhouse units private open space will be largely overshadowed and receives little to no solar access during mid-winter however, sufficient solar amenity will be provided throughout the rest of the year.

Despite this, the development is considered acceptable as the building has been designed to minimise the extent of overshadowing through the use of a flat roof rather than a pitched roof form which further reduces the building height and shadow impacts to the neighbouring property’s private open space. The overall height of the proposed building is a maximum of 7.6m which is well less than the permitted 9m height as shown in the elevation plan. Moreover, it is considered that the adjoining development to south would have similar overshadowing impacts to that of any two storey townhouse development, if it were to be developed on the site instead.

Additionally, the design of the proposal comprises of two separate buildings with a large central courtyard located between the two buildings coupled with the proposed 1.5m side setback to the southern side assists to also break-up the bulk and mass of the development and alleviates overshadowing impact on adjoining site.

In terms of privacy, reasonable building separation (through setbacks), side windows placements/sizes and appropriate fencing is proposed to be provided to mitigate direct views and overlooking. Further, a condition is to be imposed requiring enhanced privacy measures to the external stairs adjacent to the lift to be incorporated into the design so as to minimise overlooking into adjoining buildings.

To improve street presentation and visual aesthetic of the buildings, a condition is also recommended to be imposed for extra glazing elements to be provided on the western street elevation which will involve the replacement of the small windows on the western street facing façade of the building with full floor to ceiling height windows and two hi-light windows to be provided on the northern wall of the building corridor adjacent to the driveway access to the basement carpark.

The site shares a rear common boundary to 57 and 59 Harry Avenue zoned R2 which are currently occupied by one storey detached dwellings. The development provides a complying setback of 4 metres from the rear boundary and the bulk and scale of the development is considered to be compatible and not dissimilar to other two storey residential developments established in the area.

The northern neighbouring properties at 80 and 82 Frances Street (detached single dwelling houses) are located between the subject site and a multi dwelling housing complex at 84 Frances Street. The redevelopment of the site will not result in site isolation of the northern neighboring properties as the two properties can be amalgamated and full development potential can still be achieved in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

Based on the above discussion, the physical impact of the proposal on surrounding developments is considered reasonable and therefore acceptable in this instance.

Step 4 - Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

The main building types established in the local area are one and two storey residential detached single dwelling houses and multi dwelling developments. Given that the predominant future character of the immediate area is to maintain the medium density residential use in terms of use and building type, it is likely that there will be upgrades to the residential housing stock via alterations and additions, knock down rebuilds and new multi dwelling developments. As such, the proposed two storey building form, materials and finishes are considered to be in harmony with the emerging development in the area. The building has an appearance from the street of a new multi dwelling house. In this context, it is considered that the proposal is considered to be compatible with the existing and future desired character of the locality and the proposal will have acceptable impacts on the neighbouring developments.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provision of the ALEP 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the ALEP 2010 and the objectives of the R3 Medium Residential Density Zone.

(a)     Permissibility: -

The proposed development is defined as a ‘boarding house’ and is permissible in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone with consent.

A Boarding house means a building that:

a)      is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

b)      provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

c)      may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

d)      has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

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

Figure 4 – Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 Compliance Table

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

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

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland City local government area, those being:

•        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

•        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

•        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the ALEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010

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

Whilst there are no specific controls under the ADCP 2010 that are directly relevant to a boarding house development, the following sections of the ADCP 2010 have been considered in the assessment:

·        Parking and Loading

·        Access and Mobility

·        Stormwater Drainage

·        Waste

·        Multi Dwellings

The proposal generally complies with the requirements of the ADCP 2010, with the exception of the following clauses of 2.1 and 2.8 of the Multi Dwellings section; relating to minimum frontage width and setback requirements for below ground structures, which are considered acceptable on merit as discussed in further detail below. Moreover, it should be noted that the Multi Dwellings section whilst relevant, is of limited application in so far as the development relates to a boarding house and not a multi dwelling development and therefore is used only to assist in guiding the development. A full ADCP 2010 analysis is attached as Attachment A to this report.

Multi dwellings:

2.1 – D1 Minimum frontage width for Multi dwelling housing is 18m.

The proposal is for a purpose-built boarding house development and as such is not considered to be directly relevant to the type of land use proposed. The site has a minimum frontage of 15.34m and the development is consistent with built form objectives in relation to the form, scale and height and therefore responds appropriately to the site characteristics, locality and also relates well to the surrounding developments.

2.8 - D1 Below ground structures shall comply with a side setback of 1.2m to provide for deep soil planting and an adequate area for construction.

The development proposes a nil boundary setback in the basement level. Despite the non-compliance noted, the development still meets the objectives of this requirement for the purposes of providing deep soil planting which has been proposed at the front and northern portion of the site. A deep soil area of approximately 97sqm has been provided on site and is considered adequate.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)           Mail               Sign                Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 1/10/2019 and 15/10/2019. The notification generated a total of 17 submissions in respect of the proposal with Nil disclosing a political donation or gift.

Of these seventeen (17) submissions, a total of ten (10) constitute a ‘unique submission’ being a submission which is unique in substance, distinctive or unlike any other submission. A unique submission precludes form letters and petitions from being counted more than once toward the total number of unique submissions. These definitions are in accordance with directions from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Having regard to Council’s delegations, on 20 November 2019, a Council Resolution was made to amend Council’s internal policy and subsequent delegation to refer DA’s to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) when ten (10) or more objections are received in accordance with the Local Planning Panels Direction – Schedule 1, Clause 2(b) as provided in the Ministerial Direction dated 23 February 2016.

Given that there are 10 unique submissions that have been received by Council, the application is therefore required to be referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for determination.

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

Issue:	Planner’s Comment:
1.      The development represents extreme overdevelopment, lack of open space and limited landscaping.	The development proposes a boarding house which is a permissible form of development in the R3 medium density residential zone as prescribed under ALEP 2010.   The size of the development is considered to be acceptable. The proposed development is consistent with the applicable planning controls in the R3 zone with regard to FSR, height, setbacks, open space and landscaping requirements which guides the size of the development. The development meets the objectives of the land use zone by providing for additional housing in the area and is considered suitable and compatible with the local character and surrounding developments in the area.
2.      Concern is raised with regard to the overflow of parking impacting on residents in Frances Street as only 13 parking spaces have been proposed to be provided for a 26 room boarding house with a potential to house 32 lodgers. Frances Street is already overcrowded with an excessive number of vehicles trying to find parking when there is a limited amount of space.	The proposal is considered satisfactory and provides adequate parking onsite in accordance with the SEPP ARH 2009 parking requirements. The application has also been accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment Report which has been reviewed by Council’s  Development Engineer with regard to the parking implications of the development and has raised no issues. On this basis, the impact of the development on traffic and the availability of on-street parking is not considered to be unreasonable in this instance.
3.      Concerns are raised with regard to increased bike traffic on the footpath affecting residents as a result of allowing more bicycles.	The proposal meets the relevant development standards for bicycle parking under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and this is considered to be satisfactory to assist in reducing road traffic congestion.
4.      There are concerns about the lack of privacy to the neighbouring properties as a result of the proposed development.	The proposal provides reasonable building separation (through setbacks) and appropriate fencing to mitigate direct views and overlooking. Further, there are no balconies or large windows proposed on the side elevations which help to further minimise privacy impacts. A condition is also to be imposed for privacy screens to be incorporated into the design of the external stairs providing access from the ground level common open space to the first-floor level of the front building located adjacent to the lifts. The development is therefore considered satisfactory with regard to privacy.
5.      The development is in high contrast to this area’s neighbourhood character as it proposes to house dwellers in 26 rooms for short periods of time. The proposed development is commercial in nature and is lacking any sympathy with its surrounds.	The matter regarding the developments compatibility with the local character has been discussed extensively throughout the report and is considered satisfactory. As evident in Frances Street, several large multi dwelling developments have been established in the mix of older one and two storey single detached dwelling houses. Given that the predominant future character of the immediate area is to maintain the medium density residential use, it is likely that there will be upgrades to the residential housing stock via alterations and additions, knock down rebuilds and new multi dwelling developments. As such, the proposed two storey building form, materials and finishes are considered to be in harmony with the emerging development in the area. The development exhibits a modern building appearance from the street that is not dissimilar to that of a new multi dwelling house. In this context, it is considered that the proposal is compatible with the existing and future desired character of the locality.
6.      The development will result in a disturbance to the peace of residents in relation to the excessive construction noise from the months long building process.	Standard conditions of consent will include measures to ensure that construction are within the hours of 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 4pm on Saturdays, with no construction works to be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays; to minimise noise impacts to surrounding properties.
7.      There are concerns regarding the nature of the individuals living in the boarding house and the threat this development could pose on the safety of young children that walk by this property from nearby schools and childcare centres. Boarding houses are also renowned for delivering social problems.	A boarding house is permissible in the R3 zone and there are no restrictions in regard to boarding houses and its proximity to schools or childcare centres. The boarding house will be managed by an in-house manager who shall implement the Plan of Management (House Rules) endorsed by Council. Furthermore, the development application was referred to the NSW Police Crime Prevention Officer for comment who raised no issues with the proposal and have provided conditions which will be included in the consent notice.
8.      Overshadowing and loss of views	It is acknowledged that some overshadowing is unavoidable due to the east/west orientation of the block (i.e. the impacted property possesses a northern side boundary). The applicant has attempted to reduce the overshadowing impacts through various architectural design treatments including the use of a flat roof rather than a pitched roof form to further reduce the building height and shadow impacts. The overall height of the proposed building is 7.6m which is well less than the permitted 9m height as shown in the elevation plan. The design of the proposal which comprises of two separate buildings with a large central courtyard located between the two buildings coupled with the proposed 1.5m side setback to the southern side assists to reduce the overall bulk and mass of the development and alleviates overshadowing impact on adjoining sites. In relation to view loss, the development is not considered to generate any significant view loss as the built form proposed is consistent with the controls. Further, the development complies with the maximum building height of 9m with a proposed maximum height of 7.6m.
9.      Proposed boarding house will devalue the property in the area.	Depreciation in property values is not considered to be a matter for consideration under the relevant section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.
10.     Increased waste generation.	The application has been assessed by Council’s Waste Management Team and the advice provided indicated that the method of waste disposal is satisfactory. The boarding house includes an enclosed waste storage area which will house all the required bins.
11.    Non-compliance with relevant requirements of multi dwelling sections including lot frontage, streetscape, basement wall, landscaping and deep soil requirements and the number of parking spaces.	The development relates to a purpose-built boarding house and not a multi dwelling development. As such, this section of the ADCP 2010 is not technically applicable. The development proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions under the SEPP ARH 2009 and the proposal complies in full. In this regard, the proposal is considered satisfactory to proceed.
12.    Concern is raised with regard to the basement excavation affecting the structural integrity of the immediate adjoining developments. Also, there is no dilapidation report submitted with the application on the existing structure on neighbouring properties to ensure that there is no future damage during construction.	Standard conditions for underpinning works and a dilapidation report will be imposed to ensure that basement excavation will not negatively impact on the structural integrity of the immediate adjoining developments.
13.    Acoustic report does not address the noise impacts generated by the common room and common outdoor area of the development.	The submitted acoustic report has been reviewed by Council’s Environment and Health Team and the advice provided raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions including compliance with the acoustic report. It is noted that the acoustic report recommends the use outdoor communal area cease use after 10:00 pm on a daily basis. Further, the Plan of Management which includes ‘House Rules’ details restrictions on the use of the communal area and outdoor open space requiring prior approval from the boarding house manager for social gatherings. Communal areas will be further passively controlled by signage and actively managed by the manager of the boarding house who will monitor and ensure that residents are made aware of the house rules and behave in a reasonable and considerate manner. The proposal is therefore considered to be satisfactory.

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with the Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans (Auburn Development Contributions Plan 2007).

The calculation is based on:

·        25 x 1 bedroom, less credit for 3 bedroom = $73,948.66

As at 14/04/2019, the fee payable is $73,948.66. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations And Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Auburn LEP and Auburn DCP and is considered to be satisfactory for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R3 Medium Density Zone under the relevant provisions of the Auburn LEP 2010. The proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. 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 deferred commencement conditions.

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

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2019/286 for Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house development comprising two separate buildings and a total of 25 rooms over basement car parking on land at 78 Frances Street LIDCOMBE  NSW  2141 be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to conditions 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.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Submissions Received (10 unique submissions)  

4.      Plan of Management  

5.      Landscape Plans  

6.      Survey Plan  

7.      Stormwater Plans  

8.      Appendix A - DCP Compliance Table   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Submissions Received (10 unique submissions)

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Plan of Management

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Landscape Plans

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Survey Plan

 13 May 2020

Attachment 7

Stormwater Plans

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Appendix A - DCP Compliance Table

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 13 May 2020

Item No: LPP019/20

Development Application for 6-8 Factory Street, Granville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0036  

 

 

1.      Development Application 2020/0036 was received on 24 January 2020 for the Demolition of an existing local heritage listed building and former child care centre building on site.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of twenty-one (21) days between Wednesday 4 March 2020 and Wednesday 25 March 2020. There were no submissions to the development application.

3.      The subject site is listed as a heritage item in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as Heritage Item I109.

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

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as the demolition of a heritage listed item is identified as being a sensitive development.

 

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is situated on the corner of Factory Street with First Street Granville and is provided with the following dimensions: -

·        First Street and rear boundary - 24.385 metres.

·        Factory Street and western side boundary - 35.7 metres.

This provides for a site area of 870 square metres.

The rear of the site faces a sealed laneway and hence the site has three road frontages.

The levels of the land are: -

·        North West corner: - 10.98 metres AHD.

·        North east corner: - 10.78 metres AHD.

·        South west corner: - 11.53 metres AHD.

·        South east corner: - 11.63 metres AHD.

This provides a fall towards the rear of between 550 mm and 850 mm with the lowest level being at the north east corner.

A heritage listed two storey building is situated at the southern side of the site facing First Street which is numbered I109 within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan being a former shop. Hence, this is a site that contains a local heritage item.

In November 1993, Parramatta City Council approved Development Consent 560/1993 for use of the site as a multi-cultural centre, a dwelling house and pre-school subject to conditions. Following approval, it is identified that the dwelling house was never constructed.

There are two buildings on site being a pre-school, a heritage listed building and an associated playground. There is open space across the north eastern part of the site which may have been used for car parking in the past. That part of the site comprises an area of bitumen pavement and grass surroundings. While the whole site is listed as a heritage item the building at the south east corner of the site forms the actual heritage item being the former shop.

Land to the west is residential in nature.

There is another heritage listed site at nearby 10 William Street which is item number 205 being the William Street Cottages. The site is located approximately 20 metres to the North West but situated on the northern side of the laneway.

There is also an industrial building situated at 12 William Street.

Land on the eastern side of Factory Street is industrial in nature with industrial or warehouse land use predominating.

The site has been fenced off from the public as there are significant concerns that the heritage listed building will fail. Hoarding has been erected along the southern part of the building to stabilize the building following site inspections by Council officers and structural engineers.

The location of the site is shown below.

Photos of the site prior to the erection of the hoarding to protect the building.

 

Photos of the building following the erection of the site hoarding and fencing.

 

Description of the Proposed Development

Development application 2020/0036 is lodged to the Council for determination to demolish the local heritage listed building and the attached former child care centre building. In this regard, all the buildings and structures on site are to be demolished. The development application does not include any other work to the site.

History

14 December 2018

Development consent 98/2018 for the partial demolition, alterations and additions to existing buildings (listed as Heritage Items in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011) for use as a child care centre for 56 children with hours of operation from 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday was approved under delegated authority subject to conditions.

27 February 2019

A Private Certifier issued the construction certificate for the project to permit construction of the child care centre as approved.

 

1 April 2019

A Section 4.55(1A) modification application Number 98/2018/A was approved under delegated authority to modify the stormwater drainage system.

13 September 2019

Council officers received information from Cam Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers concerning the structural integrity of the existing building (heritage item). In particular, the southern boundary wall on the first floor was discovered to be at risk of failure. An Emergency Order was issued by Council that required the following: -

·        Stabilization of the southern wall.

·        Take preventative action to avoid a collapse of the wall.

·        Submit to Council a structural engineer’s certificate that addresses rectification work.

The structural report that Council received concludes on page 23 that the building is in poor condition and requires immediate attention to ensure public safety.

However, the report does suggest that if the building were to be retained, it would need to be underpinned with extensive repairs including construction of a new internal frame. Such works could cost in excess of $350,000 but there are no guarantees of success.

20 September 2019

The builders erected hoarding around the building to stabilize the building.

30 September 2019

Council officers attended the site to discuss available options for the building. Council officers gave advice to the effect that the building should be repaired.

24 January 2020

Development application 2020/0036 is lodged requesting that the heritage listed item and the former child care centre building be demolished. As part of this application, the applicant has provided a detailed structural engineers report from Mance Arraj concerning the structural components of the heritage listed building. The report forms part of the development application which is addressed below.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a structural engineers report prepared by Mance Arraj and dated 18 December 2019 which forms part of the development application. The report identifies a number of structural issues that have been identified following the issue of the development consent 98/2018 for the child care centre, especially for the heritage listed building as follows.

 

Observations - Timber roof structure and floor structure

The floor and roof timber structural elements have been subjected to extensive white ant attack and in several first floor locations, the floor structural is sagging. Some areas have had supplementary joists placed in the past. Ceilings and floor coverings are deteriorated due to possible water ingress.

There is an external concrete stair leading to the upper level which is severely dilapidated with noticeable concrete spalling and corrosion of the reinforcement.

There is a steel tie rod running above the first floor level which is secured by exposed and corroded end plates on the stern and western elevations.

Observations - External and internal brick walls

·        Severe step wise cracking is evident in masonry walls.

·        All external elevations display severe cracking with some cracks being 10 to 15 mm in width at some locations.

·        Rendered finishes have also deteriorated to a large extent.

·        Steel lintels exhibit corrosion which has distressed brickwork at door and window corners.

·        The external western elevation which appears to be a later addition exhibits severe deterioration and separation from the main building which is evident in the vertical cracks.

·        The external northern and eastern elevations exhibits severe deterioration with vertical cracks.

·        The external wall on the First Street elevation has evidence of significant bowing at the eaves level towards the street.

·        The central spine wall appears to have been supplemented with an additional half skin of masonry which passes to roof level. It appears the wall has been constructed off the existing foundation.

The building is in a severely deteriorated condition which is attributed to the building age and standards of construction that existed at the time. The cause is attributed to the gradual settlement and rotation of brick and foundations which are inadequate for the site. Strategies such as underpinning repair procedures of the walls or reconstruction in segments is not practical due to the extent of the damage. The western, northern and eastern walls are considered to be beyond repair and should be demolished.

The bowing of the First Street wall elevation is in the order of 100 to 150 mm over the height of the wall. The rotation is considered to be excessive and cannot be retrieved. This is contributing to the first floor sagging with demolition being the only advisable course of action.

The central spine dividing wall addition is poorly constructed and the ceiling structure does not provide adequate restraint to the wall. Its current condition is considered to be unstable due to the high slenderness ratio and would not provide adequate fire rating.

Timber floor and roof structural elements display extensive termite attack. All white ant affected structural elements are required to be replaced. The deflection of the first floor along the First Street elevation is attributable to the rotation or bowing outwards of the wall. It appears the joists are undersized for the current codified loading requirements.

The corrosion of the end plates severely compromises the building and cannot be relied upon for any future work.

Report Conclusion

The majority of the walls are not structurally adequate and considered to be irreparably deteriorated. Based on the extent of the observed internal and external deterioration of walls, roof and floor structures, extensive remedial repair works would not be practically achievable to satisfy current building code requirements.

It is advised that full demolition and reconstruction of the building is the only practical course of action to achieve compliance with the current building codes.

The report is included in the attachments for the consideration of the Panel.

Former childcare centre

There are no technical issues associated with the demolition of the former childcare centre building adjacent to the heritage listed building. It is noted that this building is not heritage listed.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

 

The development application was referred to Councils Accredited Building Surveyor who provided advice on the matter. It is concluded that the building should be demolished as being the most practical course of action.

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))

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

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

As part of the assessment of Development Application 98/2018, the State Policy was reviewed in significant detail. As part of that application, the applicant submitted a preliminary contamination assessment report which concluded that the risk of land contamination was low because the site had not been used for any activities that would have contributed to land contamination.

The report recommended that care should be taken during demolition and construction to ensure that any asbestos material if encountered is removed by licensed contractors and disposed to a NSW EPA approved landfill site as special waste “Asbestos”. An unexpected finds protocol should also be initiated.

It is considered that no change to site conditions would have occurred since the granting of the development consent because the site has not been in use. The site is now barricaded from the public due to concerns governing the structural stability of the heritage listed building.

It is considered that the development application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP 55.

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

A wattle tree growing almost against the rear of the heritage listed building will require removal and has been approved to be removed. The tree is also showing partial decay along its fringes which is evident by the number of branches without leaves. There are no objections to the removal of the tree. Generally, there are no issues that need to be addressed under the State Policy.

Regional Environmental Plans

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment area and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as to consistency with the requirements and objectives of the planning instrument and associated development control plan.

Local Environmental Plans

The provision of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

(a)     Permissibility: -

The proposed development is defined as demolition work which is permitted with consent within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Matters concerning: -

·        Floor space ratio (Max allowed 0.5:1).

·        Height of buildings (Max allowed 9 metres).

Do not need to be addressed because no building work is proposed. The development application is purely for demolition of buildings.

Parramatta LEP Compliance Table

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

Clause 5.10 is applicable to the development application. A heritage impact assessment report prepared by Graham Hall and dated December 2019 has been submitted with the development application to address the heritage listed item.

The report outlines the history of the site from 1884. It appears the building (excluding the former child care centre building) was constructed sometime around 1899 and was used as a boarding house and later as a dining room from 1910. By 1925, the building was used as a fruit shop. The building was altered and converted to two flats after World War 2 and after 1993, it was used as the Granville Multicultural Centre.

In 1993, a child care centre was approved on site which operated from 1994 to 2016.

The original envelope and position of the building has been retained although it has been significantly altered over the years. The changes to the building include: -

·        A corrugated colourbond roof.

·        The cladding on the gable end which was most likely weatherboard material has been replaced with battened fibro or fibre cement sheeting.

·        The brick walls have been painted with murals.

·        Windows being replaced with anodised aluminium windows.

·        The entry door having been replaced with a modern flush door. The ground floor has modular ceilings which may conceal original ceilings.

·        All outbuildings have been demolished.

·        Extensions occurring after 1943 along the western side of the building.

·        Construction of a single storey skillion roofed building for use as a child care centre in 1994.

The building is built to its boundaries like a shop; however, there is no evidence of former awnings, verandas or display windows.

At the time Development Application 98/2018 was lodged with Council, the building appeared to be in fair condition, although there were some structural cracks observed and the interior painted finishes were found to be in poor condition.

As work commenced to the building under the development consent and construction certificate, it was observed that the southern wall was bowing outwards by between 100 mm and 150 mm. With Council’s agreement and on the advice of Mance Arraj structural engineers, temporary strutting was installed to prevent the wall from collapsing onto the footpath and more detailed investigations were carried out. It was found that following the removal of the non - original ceilings, wall linings and partitions, extensive previously hidden alterations and structural defects have been discovered. The defects include: -

·        The southern wall bowing out by between 100 mm and 150 mm at the eaves level.

·        Vertical and stepped cracking present in all four walls and longitudinal interior walls.

·        Inadequate construction used for an internal longitudinal wall.

·        Inadequate internal walls to support building loads.

·        A steel rod running the length of the building in disrepair.

·        The extension at the western end of the building separating from the main structure.

·        Rising damp along the southern wall as well as salt attack which has begun to corrode the motor joints.

·        Unsafe internal stair due to the concrete cover spalling leaving reinforcement exposed and rusting.

·        Inadequate joists used for the first floor.

·        The floor and roof frames under attack and now weakened by termites.

Almost all of the walls would need to be dismantled and rebuilt on new concrete footings given that the foundation supporting the building is identified as being in decay. Underpinning work is not feasible in this instance. Footings can be satisfactorily underpinned, although to ensure an even bearing pressure, it may be necessary to remove floors and underpin the internal walls as well as the external walls. Any wide cracking in the walls still needs to be dealt with by brick stitching or partial dismantling and rebuilding. Underpinning of the building in its present form would be a dangerous operation.

Remedies

Almost all of the walls would have to be dismantled and rebuilt on new concrete footings which would raise a number of issues as follows: -

·        Some of the bricks could be cleaned and reused together with similar recycled bricks but it is logistically impossible to number them and reuse them in their present positions.

·        Unlike cavity walls, solid brick walls like those that are existing would not comply with the Building Code of Australia.

·        If cavity walls were used, the question of the brick bond arises in respect of those walls which were not stuccoed. The outer skin of cavity walls is normally laid in stretcher bond. This could be done or snap headers could be used to replicate the existing weak colonial bond.

·        A decision on whether to use lime mortar or white cement motor would have to be made.

·        The need for control joints would need to be checked.

·        The thickness of the internal and external walls would need to be checked and probably altered allowing for the low compressive strength of any reused bricks as well as height and length of the walls.

·        The rising damp would need to be addressed. This would require an injected dampcourse material. Any reconstructed walls would incorporate a dampcourse.

·        It would be necessary to remove the flooring, the roofing and the damaged floor ceiling and roof framing to enable the rebuilding of the brick walls to proceed. The termite damaged members would need to be discarded. It might be possible to reuse some of the undamaged material but the resultant structure would not comply entirely with the Building Code of Australia.

·        It might be possible to reuse the roofing and the modern metal windows but the modern sheet flooring would need to be replaced.

The report on page 26 concludes that the historical significance of the building at 8 Factory Street has been diminished by a series of irreversible alterations. The building is listed as a heritage item within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan however it will be lost.

There are numerous structural defects which have emerged which are such that the building can neither be safely stabilised or repaired regardless of cost. Demolition will regrettably result in the loss of the item but it is the only feasible option.

Comments

A site inspection of 2 March 2020 has identified that the building appears to be unsafe as follows: -

·        Cracks within the brickwork.

·        The bowing of the southern wall is visible.

Hoarding is being used to temporary secure the southern wall.

In this regard, some of the issues identified are observed across the external fabric of the building.

An internal site inspection has also been undertaken and it is identified that many of the issues raised within the reports submitted by the applicant are clearly visible within individual rooms.

Council officers engaged an independent consultant Nimbus Architecture and Heritage to review the reports submitted by the applicant and to prepare an independent report addressing the matter.

The report recommends the following on page 30 and 31: -

·        That Stanhope House (The heritage listed building) be retained and that remedial works be undertaken so long as it is structurally feasible to complete such remedial works and make the building safe for use.

·        Further research be conducted into the history of the site including construction dates.

·        A secondary examination be undertaken to determine if it is feasible to complete remedial works that will make the building safe whilst not meeting all requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Remedial works could include: -

·        Application of sacrificial renders to the exterior walls to remedy existing and mitigate future salt attack.

·        Lower the grading of the footpaths and paving around the building particularly to the northern façade where the base of the brick vents is level with the paving.

·        Reinstate the original fenestration and alignment of windows and doors particularly to the Factory Street façade.

·        Remove the intrusive external concrete stairway.

·        Reinstate internal joinery based on the remaining timber cornices.

Demolition work is not recommended by Nimbus Architecture and Heritage. However, if demolition is approved, the following activities should be undertaken:

·        An archival photographic recording should be undertaken for Council and the local library.

·        A heritage interpretation plan be prepared to highlight the history of the site.

·        An archaeological assessment be undertaken to determine the archaeological potential of the site. It is possible that excavations may uncover archaeological remains and a possible well associated with the existing structure.

As demolition is being recommended by this report, the above requirements have been appropriately included in the draft set of conditions.

Council’s Building Assessment

An independent assessment by Council’s Accredited Building Surveyor dated 22 April 2020 has identified that the reports prepared by CAM Consulting and Mance Arraj indicate similar defects within the two storey structure. The external walls do not show excessive damage with only cracks within the brickwork. The photos of the internal walls, the dilapidated timber first floor and western wall distinctly shows the settlement of the foundation. The building is not habitable and extensive repair can salvage the building for some time; however, the building will need constant expensive maintenance and would be a liability.

Council’s Accredited Building Surveyor is recommending that the building be demolished as the most practical course of action.

Impact of the proposal

Demolition will result in the permanent loss of the item. It is determined that: -

·        The building is unsafe in its current form and cannot be used.

·        The building cannot be safely stabilised in the long term.

·        It is impractical to retain the present structure without significant cost implications.

·        There are no options available for conserving the building.

Conclusion

Although the building is listed as a heritage item in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, the historical significance of the former Victorian boarding house at 6 to 8 Factory Street has been diminished by a series of irreversible alterations, as well as a deterioration of the building over the years which is still continuing.  Numerous structural defects have been identified in the building, and these defects can neither be safely stabilised nor repaired without significant cost implications.

Whilst demolition work will result in the loss of the heritage item, opportunities to recognise the historical contribution of the site have been identified. Should the Panel support the development application, the applicant would be required to prepare the following:

·        An archival photographic recording should be undertaken for Council and the local library.

·        A heritage interpretation plan be prepared to highlight the history of the site and that future development is sympathetic to the existing structure and its context.

·        An archaeological assessment be undertaken to determine the archaeological potential of the site. It is possible that excavations may uncover archaeological remains and a possible well associated with the existing structure.

The above requirements have been included in the draft set of conditions.

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

(a)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland local government area those being: -

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP) are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

It is identified that the building is being listed as a heritage item under the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 despite the issues that are being identified. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the building is structurally unstable and that the recommendations made in the structural reports available and in this assessment report should be followed.

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

The Parramatta Development Control Plan is applicable to the development application

Part 3.5 “Heritage” chapter addresses heritage concerns for developments occurring on or adjacent to heritage listed sites and Section 4.4 of Part 4 “Special Precincts” “Heritage Areas” chapter addresses developments specific to heritage conservation areas.

Both parts / chapters would not apply to the development application as neither provision addresses the full demolition of a heritage item. As such, Council officers are required to rely upon Clause 5.10 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 for assessment purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail                Sign             Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Parramatta Development Control Plan, the development application was notified for a period of twenty one (21) days between Wednesday 4 March and Wednesday 25 March 2020. There were no submissions to the development application and works sought.

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 7.12 (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 works sought do not contribute to employment activities. As such, a contribution is not required to be levied for the works sought.

 

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 zone under the relevant provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. 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.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2020/0036 for the demolition of an existing local heritage listed building on land at 6-8 Factory Street Granville be approved subject to attached conditions as listed in the attached schedule.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Demolition and Elevation Plans  

3.      Demolition and Site Plan  

4.      Appendix A - Structural Engineers Report ( Mance Arraj)  

5.      Appendix B - Structural Engineers Report (Cam Consulting)  

6.      Appendix C - Heritage Report  

7.      Appendix D - Notice of Emergency Order Served  

8.      Appendix E - Independent Heritage Assessment Report   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Demolition and Elevation Plans

 13 May 2020

Attachment 3

Demolition and Site Plan

 13 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 4

Appendix A - Structural Engineers Report ( Mance Arraj)

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Appendix B - Structural Engineers Report (Cam Consulting)

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Appendix C - Heritage Report

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Appendix D - Notice of Emergency Order Served

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Appendix E - Independent Heritage Assessment Report

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 13 May 2020

Item No: LPP020/20

Development Application for 17-19 Peggy Street, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/450/1  

 

 

1.      The subject application was lodged on 20 November 2019 and notified to surrounding properties from 4 December 2019 to 8 January 2020. No submissions were received as a result of the notification.

2.      The application was deferred on 17 January 2020 due to non-compliances with the ADG and DCP controls, and inconsistency of information.

3.      Additional information and amended plans to address the deferral items were submitted on 21 February 2020. The amended plans addressed the majority of the concerns regarding ADG non-compliances. The amended plans were renotified to surrounding properties from 26 February 2020 to 26 March 2020. No submissions were received.

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

5.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP 2013) and the Draft Cumberland LEP and DCP 2020.

6.      The application involves the following numerical non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

 

 

7.      The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft determination at Attachment 4.

REPORT:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 17 & 19 Peggy Street, Mays Hill and is legally described as Lots 63 and 64 in DP 13239. The site has an area of 1365.8 m2 and frontage of 30.48 m to the eastern side of Peggy Street. There is currently a single storey dwelling and associated fibro outbuildings located on each of the existing sites. There are a number of established trees on the subject site and within the adjacent road reserve. The site falls approximately 4 m towards the south eastern corner.

The subject site, and all surrounding sites are zoned R4 – High Density Residential, as shown on the zoning map below.

The subject site does not contain any heritage items and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the subject site.

Aerial view of the locality with subject site highlighted in blue. Source: Nearmap 2020

Zoning map with subject site shown hatched. Source: Cumberland Council 2020

Subject site – View from Peggy Street. Source: Cumberland Council 2019

Description of the Proposed Development

DA 2019/450 proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat building accommodating 16 units, over basement parking for 21 cars.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows: -

 

The proposed apartment mix is as follows:

·    3 x 1 bedroom (18.75%)

·    10 x 2 bedroom (62.5%)

·    3 x 3 bedroom (18.75%)

Application History

The applicant attended a pre-lodgement meeting in August 2017 to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the site for a 4 storey residential flat building. There is no other site history relevant to the subject application. Key actions relating to DA2019/450 are detailed in the following table.

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Weir Phillips dated 2 August 2019 was submitted with the application. An addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects was submitted to council as part of the amended plans dated 20 February 2020.

Contact with Relevant Parties

 

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

 

 

Internal Referrals

 

Development Engineering

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. Response received indicates that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions, including a deferred commencement condition requiring the registration of a drainage easement in favour of the subject site and amendments to the stormwater plans. The conditions recommended by the Development Engineer are included in the draft determination.

 

Landscape and Tree Management

 

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

 

Environmental Health

 

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment. The response received indicates that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

Waste Management

 

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Unit for comment. The response received recommends that the application be deferred. Amended plans address waste issues. A condition recommended for a bin tug is included in the draft determination.

 

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment pursuant to clause 45 of the SEPP Infrastructure. The response received 23 December 2019 indicates that Endeavour Energy does not object to the proposal.

Transgrid

The application was referred to Transgrid for comment. The response received 4 December 2019 indicates that Transgrid does not object to the proposal.

Planning Assessment

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

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

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

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

 

Matter for consideration	Yes	No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?
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
Is the site listed on Council's contaminated land database?
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?
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?
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: A Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by EI Australia was submitted with the application. The report identified that the site was vacant land prior to being used for residential purposes since the 1960s and the likelihood of contamination is low. However, the consultant has provided recommendations, including the completion of a Hazardous Materials Survey, which can be addressed by condition.

 

 

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

BASIX certificate 1011269M_02 dated 6 September 2019 was submitted with the application. The proposal achieves the target scores for energy, water and thermal comfort and relevant commitments are shown on the architectural plans. The amended plans did not require a revised BASIX Certificate.

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

The proposal is classified as a residential apartment development and SEPP 65 applies. A design verification statement signed by registered architect Tony Sukkar (6779) was submitted with the application.

The design quality principles from Schedule 1 of the SEPP are considered in the following table:

 

Pursuant to clause 28(2)(c) of SEPP 65, a consent authority must consider the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) in the assessment of a residential flat development.

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

 

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the building separation provision of the ADG.

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

Building Separation

Under Part 3F of the ADG, a minimum 6m building separation is required from habitable rooms and 3m to non-habitable rooms. The proposal achieves a 4.5m building separation to the kitchen windows along the northern elevation for Units G.1, 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 and a 3m building separation to the bedrooms for Units G.1, G.2, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2. The northern adjoining property is setback a minimum 6m from the southern boundary and combined with a 4.5m building separation proposed, this equates to a total building separation of 10.5m. Additionally, the 1.8m side boundary fence will obscure views from the kitchen window for Unit G.1 and the hi-light windows proposed for Units 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 will limit overlooking. The location of the kitchen windows will not affect the solar access achieved to these units as the living areas are orientated to the west, which is compliant with the minimum 2 hour solar access requirement. 

Furthermore, the openings for the bedrooms along the northern elevation are to the west for Units G.1, 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 and to the east of Units G.2, 1.2, 2.2 and 3.2 with no openings along the northern elevation of the building. This will not have any privacy or overshadowing impacts on the existing development at No. 11-15 Peggy Street and is therefore considered acceptable.

Having regard to this, and the increased building separation proposed along the southern side boundary to maximise the solar access to the property adjoining to the south, the variation will not have any significant amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and is considered acceptable.

A comprehensive ADG assessment is provided at Attachment 2.

(d)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP (ISEPP) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

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

The proposed development involves works within proximity to the existing overhead power lines. As such, the application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment as the relevant electricity supply authority.

See discussion regarding the Endeavour Energy response under ‘external referrals’ above.

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

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

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

The proposal includes removal of all existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold and the majority of the trees on site are exempt species. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the HDCP 2013 compliance table at Attachment 3 for further comment regarding the proposed tree removal.

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

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

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

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

The proposal complies with all applicable development standards under HLEP 2013. A comprehensive LEP compliance table is provided at Attachment 1. 

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

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City. The changes proposed seek to harmonise and repeal the three existing LEPs currently applicable to the Cumberland local government area, those being:

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

The current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the HLEP 2013, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

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

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at Attachment 3. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

 

 

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the sunlight access, site coverage, side setback and building height provisions of the Holroyd DCP 2013.

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

Sunlight Access

Under Section 1.8, Part B of the HDCP 2013, dwellings on adjoining properties shall achieve a minimum 3 hours of solar access to the main living areas between 9am and 4pm in mid-winter. The proposed development results in the overshadowing of the northern windows on the adjacent development to the south. The proposal provides additional setback to the southern boundary. The side setback is required to be 3m under the HDCP 2013 and the ADG calls for their share of building separation to be 6m. A 7m is proposed along this boundary to maximise solar access to the southern adjoining property.

Furthermore, the southern adjoining property can achieve solar access to the main living areas from the eastern and western orientated windows. In view of this and in view of the desired future built character of the area, the proposal is considered acceptable from a solar access point of view.

Site Coverage

Under Section 6.2, Part B of the HDCP 2013, the site coverage of a residential flat building shall not exceed 30% of the site area. The proposal achieves a site coverage of 482m2, which equates to a site coverage of 35.3%. Minor numerical variation is sought to the site coverage (5.3%) under the proposal. The proposal is compliant with the FSR, landscaping, communal open space and deep soil requirements and will not have any significant amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and, therefore, is considered acceptable.

Setbacks

Section 6.3, Part B of the HDCP 2013 requires the basement to be setback a minimum 3m from side boundaries. The proposed basement has a 1.1m setback to the northern side boundary from the garden shed and a 1.3 m setback to the southern side boundary. This is considered satisfactory, as the proposal complies with the minimum deep soil requirements, side setbacks and landscaping requirements and will not result in any impacts on trees on adjacent sites.

 

Lot Consolidation

Under Section 1.1, Part N of the HDCP, amalgamation of one of the lots (No. 19 Peggy Street) with the adjacent allotments to the south at No. 21 and 23 Peggy Street and No. 22 Rees Street is required. Given that the remaining lots (No. 21 and 23 Peggy Street and No. 22 Rees Street) can be redeveloped without the amalgamation of No. 19 Peggy Street, and the amalgamation in accordance with this provision results in the isolation of No. 17 Peggy Street, the proposed amalgamation pattern offers a better planning outcome and is considered acceptable.

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 s 4.15(1)(a)(iiia))

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

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

Pursuant to clause 92 of the Regulation, the provisions of AS 2601 must be considered in the case of a development application for the demolition of a building. Standard conditions are included in the draft determination to require the proposed demolition works to be carried out in accordance with AS 2601.

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

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

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of HDCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified from

4 December 2019 to 8 January 2020, and renotified from 26 February 2020 to 18 March 2020. As a result of the notifications, no submissions were received.

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

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

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

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Mays Hill centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

·        3 x 1 bedroom dwellings – 8,494 x 3 = $25,482

·        10 x 2 bedroom dwellings –14,366 x 10 = $143,660

·        3 x 3 bedroom dwellings – 20,000 x 3 = $60,000

·        minus credit for the existing 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings – $28,732

At the time of this development consent, the current rate of the contribution is $200,410. The draft determination at Attachment 4 includes a condition to require payment of contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

 

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

 

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and the Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

 

Report Recommendation: That DA2019/450 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part four (4), part five (5) storey residential flat building comprising 16 units over a basement level of car parking on land at 17-19 Peggy Street Mays Hill be approved subject to the conditions within the draft notice of determination provided at Attachment 4.

 

1.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

2.      ADG Compliance Table  

3.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Complaince Table  

4.      Draft Notice of Determination  

5.      Architectural Plans  

6.      Stormwater Plans   

 

Attachment 1

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 13 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 2

ADG Compliance Table

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Complaince Table

 13 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 May 2020