27 May 2020

An Extraordinary Meeting of Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am via Zoom on Wednesday, 27 May 2020.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.         Receipt of Apologies

2.         Declaration of Interest

3.         Address by invited speakers

4.         Reports

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

5.      Closed Session Reports

 

 27 May 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

ELPP021/20 Development Application for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands.................. 5

ELPP022/20 Development Application for 27-29 Toongabbie Road, Toongabbie..... 101

ELPP023/20 Development Application for 363-373 Guildford Road, Guildford.......... 231

ELPP024/20 Alteration to the Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal for 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe........................................................................................... 327

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 

Item No: ELPP021/20

Development Application for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    M2016/496/8  

 

 

Council is in receipt of a Section 4.56 modification application 2016/496/8 from Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including changes to basement levels, rearrangement of apartments to introduce additional dual key apartments, enlargement of Building 3 footprint, modification of roof form, reconfiguration of OSD tanks, relocation of substation kiosk and changes to glazed areas at 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands. The Architectural Plans accompanying the application are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The site was formerly known as 1-7 & 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands, which was changed to 20-22, 24, 24R & 27 Dressler Court, Merrylands, following the subdivision of the site. The subject modifications proposed are limited to Buildings 3 and 4, maintained to 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands / Lot 3, DP 1248018.

The application was publicly notified for a period of 21 days from 26 February 2020 to 18 March 2020. In response, one (1) submission was received, objecting to the proposal.

The site is zoned part R4 High Density Residential, and part SP2 Infrastructure (Drainage), pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), with the proposed works limited to the R4 High Density Residential zone. A Residential Flat Building is permissible with development consent in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

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

The proposal 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 modification application was referred for comments externally to Endeavour Energy, and internally to Council’s Development Engineer, 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 modification 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 (CLPP) approve the Section 4.56 application, subject to the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands, and is legally described as Lot 3, DP 1248018. The land is an irregular shaped lot and has a frontage of 47.78 metres to the southern Neil Street boundary, a 64.42 metre width along the northern boundary, a 131.195 metre width along the eastern boundary shared with the railway corridor, and a 129.035 metre width along the western boundary.

The subject site is located within the ‘Merrylands Town Centre’ within the Merrylands Neil Street Precinct, as identified in the Merrylands Centre Controls section of the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP). The site is adjacent to a railway corridor that spans the eastern boundary of the site and approximately 350 metres north-east from Merrylands train station. The total site area is 6,765m², and is illustrated in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 - Location Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

The site is currently vacant, with the exception of construction works associated with Building 4. The locality is characterised by existing low rise former industrial premises to the west along Neil Street, mixed use and residential flat building developments approved, under construction, and recently completed to the west and north, commercial and retail development to the south-west, and residential to the east and south.

The topography of the site is fairly consistent with a slight fall from south to north. The site adjoins the A’Becketts Creek watercourse which traverses in a north to south direction. Consequently, the land is affected by local overland stormwater overflow. The subject site currently benefits from vehicular access directly from Neil Street. Vehicular access to the development is dependent on a proposed extension of Dressler Court to the north east of the site, which will connect to a new road running through the site along the western side of the A’Becketts Creek watercourse.

The site is zoned part R4 High Density Residential, and part SP2 Infrastructure (Drainage), pursuant to the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), with the proposed works limited to the R4 High Density Residential zone, as shown in Figure 3 below:

 

Figure 3 – Zoning Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

The subject site is situated to the north of Neil Street. Figure 4 below illustrates an aerial perspective of the site and the general surroundings.

 

 

Figure 4 – Aerial Photo (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

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

 

 

Figure 5 – Heritage Map (Source: Cumberland City Council, 2020)

 

Description of the Proposed Development

 

The proposal seeks to modify Land and Environment Court Appeal No. 2017/00132564 (Development Consent DA2016/496) via a Section 4.56 Application, and includes internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including changes to basement levels, rearrangement of apartments to introduce additional dual key apartments, enlargement of building 3 footprint, modification of roof form, reconfiguration of OSD tanks, relocation of substation kiosk and changes to glazed areas.

 

In detail, the following description has been provided by the Applicant within the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 29 October 2019:

 

Proposed Modifications

 

The Section 4.56 application seeks modification to the development consent plans of the Court approved development for 2 x residential flat buildings as subsequently modified.

 

The modifications are details below:

 

Building 3 – Basement 1, 2 and 3

 

-        Raise basement levels by 500mm.

-        Rainwater tank remove and combined with tank in Building 4.

 

 

Building 3 – Ground Floor

         

-        Removal of rainwater tank outside of the building footprint to the north-west of the site and combined with tank in Building 4.

-        Relocation of substation to western corner of approved building site, adjacent to the courtyard of Unit 3.0.01.

 

Building 3 – Levels 1-11

         

-        Conversion of 3 bedroom unit, Unit 3.L.07 at Levels 1-11 of Building 3 to a dual-key apartment with a 2 bedroom and studio arrangement, with associated new balconies at the south-western elevation.

-        Modification to common corridor for Units 3.L.07 and 3.L.08 to be incorporated into the proposed dual-key apartment.

-        Extension of building envelope at the south-west elevation. The extension of the building envelope accommodates a bedroom area, lounge and kitchen, and balcony area 1m in width.

-        Removal of balconies at the south-east elevation at Levels 1-11.

-        Relocation of substation kiosk to south-western corner of the approved building footprint.

-        Minor alteration to building envelope at western corner of the approved building to enable for relocation of substation at ground level.

 

Building 3 – Roof Area

         

-        Reduction in roof form to the south-east of the building footprint as a result of removal of balconies on lower levels.

-        Minor alteration to roof form at western corner of the approved building to enable for relocation of substation at ground level.

i)                

-        Building 4 – Ground Floor

ii)              

-        Reconfiguration to OSD tank beneath landscaped areas along the north and north-eastern boundary.

-        Increase to rainwater tank capacity at north-eastern corner of building footprint.

 

Building 4 – Roof Area

         

-        The roof at the south-west of the roof form is increased in height.

 

Building 4 – External Layout

         

-        Reduction in glazing area across overall building envelope.

-        Increase in glazed balustrades on all elevations of building envelope.

 

Materials and Finishes

         

-        No changes are proposed to the previously approved finishes and materials of Building 3 with the development site which includes dark brick, painted render, powder coated aluminium window frames and louvres. It is noted that the modifications to the elevations show a decrease in glazing to windows, increasing painted render and an increase in glass balustrades.

 

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

 

Numerical Overview of Key Components

 

 

DKA – Dual Key Apartments

 

Note: The proposal converts 11 x 3 bedroom units to 11 x dual key apartments comprising 11 x studio units and 11 x 2 bedroom units.

 

Dual key apartments are defined under the Apartment Design Guide as:

 

An apartment with a common internal corridor and lockable doors to sections within the apartment so that it is able to be separated into 2 independent units. Under the BCA, dual key apartments are regarded as two sole occupancy units. They are also considered as two units when calculating apartment mix.

 

The above definition has informed the assessment and unit mix of the subject modification application.

 

Site History

 

-        M2016/496/7 - Section 4.56 modification application seeking internal and external alterations to Building 3 and 4, including reconfiguration of car parking arrangement, balcony reconfiguration on the southern elevation of Building 3, rearrangement of apartments on the northern elevation of Building 4 to introduce dual key apartments and relocation of substation kiosk – Approved on 28 August 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

-        M2016/496/6 - Section 4.56 modification application seeking to remove the subdivision component of the development – Approved on 4 October 2018 via Delegated Authority.

 

-        M2016/496/5 - Section 4.56 modification application seeking amendments to the approved subdivision of the site from 7 lots to 6 lots – Approved on 14 August 2018 via Delegated Authority.

 

-        M2016/496/4 - Section 4.56 modification application seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, and relocation of hydrant booster and substation kiosk – Approved on 13 March 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

-        M2016/496/3 - Section 4.56 modification application seeking internal and external alterations to Building 4 – Approved on 13 March 2019 via the Cumberland Local Planning Panel.

 

-        M2016/496/2 - Section 96AA modification application seeking minor alterations to an approved residential flat building development – Approved on 11 September 2017 via Delegated Authority.

 

-        DA2016/496 - Development Application for construction of a 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 & 4) over 3 levels of basement parking accommodating a total of 438 car parking spaces and 5 on-grade spaces; Building 3 being 12 storey accommodating 178 units and Building 4 being Part 6, Part 8 and Part 12 storeys accommodating 133 units. The application includes consolidation of 2 existing lots making up the overall site of 1-11 Neil Street and re-subdivision of the consolidated lot into 3 Torrens title lots and 4 Stratum Lots – Deferred on 26 April 2017 following consideration by the Sydney West Central Planning Panel (SWCPP).

 

The applicant subsequently lodged a Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of the Development Application with the NSW Land and Environment Court (Appeal Number 2017/132564), which was approved subject to Deferred Commencement Consent conditions.

 

Deferred Commencement matters were resolved on 23 August 2018.

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

 

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd, dated 29 October 2019, and was received by Council on 18 November 2019 in support of the application.

 

Additional correspondence was received by Planning Direction Pty Ltd, dated 25 March 2020, in response to Council’s request for amended plans and additional information.

 

Contact with Relevant Parties

 

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

 

Internal Referrals

 

Development Engineer

 

The modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comments, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported. No changes were sought to the approved conditions of consent.

 

External Referrals

 

Endeavour Energy

 

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

 

Planning Comments

 

Section 4.56 of The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Ep & A Act)

 

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

 

 

Section 4.15 of The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Ep & A Act)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(c)     State 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 a residential flat building that is 3 storeys or more in height, and contains more than 4 dwellings. The modification 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 apartment development. The proposed development has been assessed to comply with the requirements of the ADG, with the exception of solar and daylight access, and apartment size and layout, which are discussed below. A comprehensive assessment against the ADG is contained in Attachment 3 to this report.

 

Variations Sought

 

Solar Access and Daylight

 

·        The ADG requires a maximum of 15% of apartments in a building may not receive direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm midwinter. In this regard, the proposed modification maintains 21.1% of units not receiving direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm midwinter, representing a variation of 19 units. Importantly, the approved development has been endorsed with a variation of 18.7% of units not receiving direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm midwinter, representing an approved variation of 9 units. In this regard, the proposed variation to the approved development is maintained to 10 units.

 

Note: The percentage variations listed above are based upon the number of approved and proposed units respectively.

 

The proposed variation achieves the aims of Objective 4A-1 - Solar and Daylight Access, and is considered supportable on merits, noting:

 

o   In accordance with Design Criteria 4A-1 – Solar and Daylight Access of the ADG, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building shall receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter. In this regard, the proposed development maintains 229 units achieving 2 hours solar access, equivalent to 71.1% of units.

 

o   The non-compliance is a result of the introduction of dual key apartment for Units 3.L.07 (totalling 11 apartments), which proposes to alter the approved 3 bedroom unit design to a 2 bedroom unit and studio unit. The proposed change allows the development to achieve Objective 4K-1 – Apartment Mix, which aims to provide ‘a range of apartment types and sizes to cater for different household types now and into the future’.

 

Apartment Size and Layout

 

·        The ADG requires the width of cross-over and cross-through apartments to be at least 4m internally, to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts. In this regard, the proposed modification application proposes to reduce the width of Units 3.L.07 located within Building 3 to a width of 2.66m, representing a variation of 33.5%.

 

The proposed variation achieves the aims of Objective 4D-3 – Apartment Size and Layout, and is considered supportable on merits, noting:

 

o   The narrowed width is maintained to a limited area of the unit, being the area associated with a bedroom plus ensuite, and bathroom. The living areas within the unit continue to achieve an appropriate level of amenity, with the combined living, dining and lounge room continuing to comply with the minimum 4m width requirement.

 

o   The non-compliance is a result of the introduction of a dual key apartment for Units 3.L.07, which proposes to alter the approved 3 bedroom unit design to a 2 bedroom unit and studio unit. The proposed change allows the development to achieve Objective 4K-1 – Apartment Mix, which aims to provide ‘a range of apartment types and sizes to cater for different household types now and into the future’.

 

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

 

A BASIX Certificate has been lodged as a part of the modification 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 modification application.

 

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

 

The application is subject to Clause 45 of the ISEPP, as the subject development occurs within 5 metres of an overhead electricity power line and the original proposed development also included a substation, which is proposed to be relocated. As such, the Consent Authority is required to give written notice to an electricity supply authority. The modification application was referred to Endeavour Energy, who advised that the modified development proposal is supported, subject to standard recommendations and comments.

 

Clause 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

 

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

 

(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 proposed modifications do not include tree removal, and therefore the area clearing threshold for native vegetation pursuant to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is not applicable; and

iii)            

·        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 has been assessed to comply with the requirements of HLEP, with the exception of the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard, which is discussed below. 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 part of the land on which Buildings 3 and 4 are sited is zoned R4 High Density Residential pursuant to the HLEP. The subject development continues to be characterised as 2 x residential flat buildings.

 

Residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

 

Note. Residential flat buildings is a type of residential accommodation

 

Heritage

 

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

 

Given the minor nature of the changes proposed, the proposal is not expected to negatively impact upon on the heritage item, or potential archaeology on the site.

 

Key Development Standards

 

The following key development standards are applicable:

 

 

Variations Sought

 

Height of Buildings

 

 

The subject modification application proposes an increase in the Height of Buildings (HOB) of Building 4 by 0.64m, which increases the HOB variation from 38.85m (approved under Section 4.56 Application M2016/496/4) to 39.49m.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The modified development is considered to be consistent with the Height of Building objectives as outlined within Clause 4.3 of the HLEP, as it minimises the visual impact of the development, ensures sufficient solar access and privacy for neighbouring properties is maintained, and provides an appropriate scale of development.

 

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

 

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

 

·        The site continues to be consistent with the high density residential character envisaged by the R4 High Density Residential zone, and the sites’ proximity to public transport and the town centre.

 

·        The additional height is maintained to the proposed roof cover over the approved stairwell access of Building 4, and will not result in noticeable bulk, as viewed from the public domain.

 

·        The additional height does not change how the building will be read in the contact of the overall development.

 

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

 

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

 

The circumstances of the case are considered to warrant support of the departure. The development continues to respond to the site, and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, and the development does not unduly compromise other relevant controls. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings development standard, and development within the R4 High Density Residential zone. In this regard, the exception is well founded and can be supported.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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, related to Height of Buildings (HOB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR), as contained within the HLEP, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

 

The Draft CLEP however de-lists the subject site from the Cumberland Heritage List, as all structures and remnants relating to its former uses have been removed and the site is currently undergoing redevelopment. Any built features relating to its former significance are no longer present, and any archaeological potential would be considered low/nil and likely to be highly disturbed.

 

(c)     Planning Proposal for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands (PP)

 

A Planning Proposal for 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands (PP) has been lodged with Council, which seeks to amend the HLEP by:

 

·        Amending the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard from 3.5:1 to 3.66:1; and

 

·        Amend the Height of Building (HOB) development standard for the southern portion of the site from 39m to 50m.

 

·        The PP notes the intended outcomes for the planning proposal are as follows:

 

·        Create a strong urban corner to Neil Street, identifying and reinforcing this gateway to the Merrylands Town Centre from Neil Street to the east;

 

·        Establish a building height which is generally consistent with the surrounding built form;

 

·        Present a more suitable transition in building height from the higher scale mixed use development in the core of the Merrylands town centre to the lower-scale residential development and the Holroyd Gardens to the north;

 

·        Create variation in the height plane that currently sees a plateau of 12 storeys on the site;

 

·        Contribute to the integration of development with public transport by creating higher residential density 300m from the Merrylands Railway Station; and

 

·        Provide a mix of housing choices within the locality; and maintain and contribute to the natural landscape by responding to dedication of land on the site to provide a future public park and landscaped drainage swale corridor.

 

The following assessment under the development standards are applicable:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The subject site and locality is not known to be affected by any natural hazards or other site constraints likely to have a significant adverse impact on the proposed development. The proposal seeks modification to Buildings 3 and 4 of the approved residential flat building development. Modifications are minor in nature and will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding development. Accordingly, it is considered that the development is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

 

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

 

Advertised (newspaper)             Mail                  Sign              Not Required

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the HDCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 21 days between 26 February 2020 and 18 March 2020. In response, one (1) submission was received, which is contained within Attachment 6 to this report.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94 Contributions)

 

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 Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013.

 

A condition was imposed on the original consent requiring the payment of contributions, which has been satisfied with a Works-In-Kind agreement entered into with Cumberland City Council. Modification application 2016/496/7 related to 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands, required the payment of additional contributions to the amount of $82,632 (CPI based on August 2019), noting the changes made to the unit mix of Building 4. Similarly, the subject application requires the payment of additional contributions, noting the changes made to the unit mix of Building 3.

 

In accordance with the currently indexed rates, the following additional contributions apply:

 

-        11 x 1 bedroom units = $157,064

-        11 x 2 bedroom units = $265,624

-        Credit of 11 x 3 bedroom units = ($353,455)

 

The current rate of contributions applicable for the proposed changes is $69,233. The draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 2 includes a recommendation to reflect the above contributions.

 

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

 

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

 

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

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

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the HLEP and is consistent with the zone objectives. The development however proposes a variation to the solar and daylight access, and apartment size and layout design criteria under the ADG, and further variation to the Height of Buildings (HOB) development standard under the HLEP. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That modification application M2016/496/8 seeking internal and external alterations to Buildings 3 and 4, including changes to basement levels, rearrangement of apartments to introduce additional dual key apartments, enlargement of Building 3 footprint, modification of roof form, reconfiguration of OSD tanks, relocation of substation kiosk and changes to glazed areas at 20-22 Dressler Court, Merrylands, be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 of this report. iv)             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 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment  

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

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

6.      Attachment 6 - Submission X 1   

 

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Architectural Plans

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Draft Notice of Determination

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Compliance Assessment

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Assessment

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Submission X 1

 27 May 2020

 27 May 2020

 

Item No: ELPP022/20

Development Application for 27-29 Toongabbie Road, Toongabbie

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/0506  

 

 

1.      The subject application was lodged on 19 December 2019 and notified to surrounding properties from 11 March 2020 to 1 April 2020. No submissions were received as a result of the notification.

2.      Council through its assessment identified number of concerns with the proposal and requested amended plans and additional information on 30 March 2020. Additional information and amended plans to address the deferral items were received by Council on 16 April 2020. The amended plans do not warrant renotification.

3.      Issues relating to variation to building height and FSR, number of storeys, basement design, waste management, stormwater management, ADG non-compliances (deep soil, building separation/visual privacy and ground floor POS), adaptable units and car spaces, and inadequate information remain unresolved.

4.      The application involves the following numerical non-compliances which are not considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

 

5.      The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as it involves variation to development standard more than 10% and is a development with 4 or more storeys to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments applies.

6.      Having regard to the nature and extent of the above variations, the application is recommended for refusal with the reasons provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

REPORT:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 27-29 Toongabbie Road, Toongabbie and is legally described as Lots 40 and 41 Section B in DP 10697. The total site area is 1,393.5m2 with frontage of 30.48m on Toongabbie Road. Improvements on site consist of a single storey and a two storey dwelling with associated outbuildings located on each of the existing sites. There are existing trees located on the subject site and within the Council’s street verge. The site falls towards Toongabbie Road by approximately 1m from the north to south.

The subject site is located within the R4 – High Density Residential zone and borders the B2 – Local Centre zone to the north. It is located approximately within 300m walking distance to Toongabbie Railway Station and the town centre. Vehicular access to the site is designated from Cox Lane to the north. Part of Cox Lane servicing the property at 64-78 Aurelia Street, which was approved for mixed use development with seniors living (DA2016/57), has been completed. Existing developments adjoining the site include single storey dwelling houses located to the eastern and western sides. Residential flat building development has been approved at 23-25 Toongabbie Road under DA2016/75. Existing lot at 31 Toongabbie Road will be landlocked as a result of this subject application as it is also burdened by the land dedication to form part of Cox Lane.  

Toongabbie Road is presently undergoing transformation by replacing the older stock of residential dwellings with multi dwelling development and residential flat buildings. The site does not contain any heritage items and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are no heritage items located within the visual catchment of the subject site.

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

Zoning map with subject site marked in dark blue. Source: Cumberland Council 2020

Subject site – View from Toongabbie Road. Source: Cumberland Council 2020

 

 

Description of the Proposed Development

 

DA2019/0506 proposes demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, and construction of a residential flat building including a 3 storey building facing cox lane and a 5 storey building facing Toongabbie Road over basement parking accommodating 20 residential units and 25 parking spaces. Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

 

 

The proposed apartment mix is as follows:

 

·    4 x 1-bedroom units (20%)

·    12 x 2-bedroom units (60%)

·    4 x 3-bedroom units (20%)

 

Application History

 

 

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

 

A Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 19 December 2019 was submitted with the application.

 

Contact with Relevant Parties

 

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

 

Internal Referrals

 

Development Engineering

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment. Response received indicates that the proposal is not satisfactory due to traffic and parking, basement design and stormwater concerns. The matters raised are included in the reason for refusal.

 

Landscape and Tree Management

 

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment. Response indicates that the proposal could be supported subject to conditions.

 

Environmental Health

 

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment. The response received indicates that the proposal could not be supported as a revised acoustic report to address noise during construction, communal open space, and mechanical and basement ventilations is required. If the proposal were to be supported, the revised acoustic report could be conditioned. The matter raised is included in the reason for refusal.

 

 

Waste Management

 

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment. The response received indicates that the proposal, as amended, is not satisfactory due to odour impact from the proposed openings of the waste storage room. The matter raised is included in the reason for refusal.

 

External Referrals

 

Endeavour Energy

 

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

 

Transgrid

 

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

 

NSW Police

 

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment. The response indicates that NSW Police does not object to the proposal, subject to conditions.

 

Planning Assessment

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

BASIX certificate 1034598M_02 dated 16 December 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.

 

(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 Biljana Pop Stefanija (8789) 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.

 

 

 

A comprehensive ADG assessment is provided at Attachment 5.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A comprehensive LEP compliance table is provided at Attachment 5.

 

The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation (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 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.

 

(b)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(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 5. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table.

 

 

 

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

 

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))

 

The proposed development fails to address the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Reg), including appropriately addressing clause 4.6 variation request. 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 would be included in the draft determination if the proposal were to be supported.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development will not have significant adverse social or economic impacts in the locality. However due to the out of scale built form, insufficient deep soil provision, stormwater system design detriment to the environment, adverse impacts from waste storage design, inadequate laneway access, traffic parking and amenity of the future occupants and the adjoining properties, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the existing and future built environment.

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered as an over development and not suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality due to the out of scale built form, insufficient deep soil provision, stormwater system design detriment to the environment, adverse impacts from waste storage design, inadequate laneway access, traffic parking and amenity of the future occupants and the adjoining properties.

 

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 11 March 2020 to 1 April 2020. As a result of the notification, no submissions were received.

 

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

 

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development as proposed would not be consistent with the public interest, as it will not provide compatible development within the existing locality.

 

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

 

This part of the Act relates to the collection of monetary contributions from applicants for use in developing key local infrastructure. The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plans. If consent were to be granted, a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate will be imposed.

 

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, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, SEPP 55, SEPP 65, ISEPP 2007, SEPP Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017, SEPP BASIX 2004, Draft Cumberland LEP 2020, Holroyd LEP 2013 and Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be unsatisfactory for approval, subject to reasons for refusal.

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

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That DA2019/0506 for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 2 lots into 1 lot, and construction of a residential flat building including a  3 storey building facing Cox Lane and a 5 storey building facing Toongabbie Road over basement parking accommodating 20 residential units and 25 parking spaces on land at 27-29 Toongabbie Road, Toongabbie be refused with reasons provided within the draft notice of determination at Attachment 1.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Clause 4.6 Variation Request  

3.      Architectural Plans  

4.      Stormwater Concept Drawings  

5.      Stormwater Letter of Response  

6.      Traffic Report  

7.      Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 –Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development  

8.      Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013  

9.      Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Clause 4.6 Variation Request

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Architectural Plans

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Stormwater Concept Drawings

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Stormwater Letter of Response

 27 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 6

Traffic Report

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 –Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 8

Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

 27 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 9

Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 

Item No: ELPP023/20

Development Application for 363-373 Guildford Road, Guildford

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/0525  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2019/0525 was received on 23 December 2019 for the Alterations and additions to the signage layout and extension of hours of operation (Monday - Friday & Sunday 8.00am to 10.00pm and Saturday & the day before a Public Holiday).

2.      The application was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 19 February 2020 and 4 March 2020. A notice was placed on site for the duration of the notification period in accordance with Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013. No submissions were received as a result of notification.

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

4.      The application is referred to the Panel as the applicant and landowner is Cumberland City Council.

 

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site comprises of Guildford Community Centre which is located at 363-373 Guildford Road Guildford situated at the corner of Guildford Road and O’Neill Street and is located within the Guildford Town Centre.

The Guildford Community Centre provides rooms and facilities for meetings, training, community programs and community services.

The subject site is located within B2 Local Centre Zone. The objectives of the B2 Local Centre Zone are as follows:

·        To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

·        To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

·        To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

·        To permit residential development that is complementary to, and well-integrated with, commercial uses.

The site is located approximately 120m from bus zones and the Guildford Railway Station. The adjoining sites include a combination of both commercial and residential developments which is consistent with the objectives of the zone as above.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Zoning map of subject site

Figure 3 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 4 – Street view from Guildford Road

Figure 5 - Street view from O’Neill Street

 

 

Description of the Proposed Development

 

Council has received a development application for alterations and additions to the signage layout and extension of hours of operation (Monday - Friday & Sunday 8.00am to 10.00pm and Saturday & Public Holidays 8.00am to 12.00am).

History

DA 2010/532/1 for Alterations and additions to existing premises and use as a community youth centre approved on 5 January 2011.

Under DA 2010/532/1 the hours of operation conditioned in the consent are:

Condition 76. As requested by the applicant, the hours of operation of the premises are to be restricted to between:-

10.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays with no works on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant being Cumberland City Council has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Architect Graham Bakewell dated November 2019 and was received by Council on 23 December 2019 in support of the application. A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic has also been submitted 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

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who raised number of concerns with the associated noise. The application was subsequently deferred seeking a revised acoustic report. The revised acoustic report was submitted on 9 March 2020 and has since been reviewed by the Environment and Health Officer. Following the second review, the Environment and Health Officer has advised that the proposed development can be made satisfactory subject to the relevant noise mitigation conditions and other standard conditions as included in the draft notice of determination.

External Referrals

 

The development application was referred to NSW Police for comment. The recommended Conditions of Consent provided by NSW Police shall be approved under the endorsed documentation. 

 

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)

 

The site is not identified in Council’s records 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. The subject site is currently used for residential purposes and contamination is not expected.

 

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

 

The application for proposed signage complies with the relevant controls for the

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage. A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 64 is contained in Appendix A in full.

 

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 due to the nature of the proposal.

 

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

 

Local Environmental Plans

 

Holroyd Local Environment Plan 2013

 

The provision of the Holroyd Local Environment Plan 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Holroyd Local Environment Plan 2013 and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre Zone.

 

(a)     Permissibility:-

 

The proposed development is defined as ‘Community facilities’ and is permissible in Zone B2 Local Centre with consent.

 

Community facility means a building or place –

 

a)         owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

 

b)         used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

 

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd Local Environment Plan 2013 the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix B.

 

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

 

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(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 local government area, those being:

 

·        Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013,

·        Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, and

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

The relevant planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the Holroyd Local Environment Plan, 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 (Holroyd DCP)

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advertised (newspaper)            Mail                Sign                Not Required

 

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013 the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 19 February 2020 and 4 March 2020. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development.

 

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.

 

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

 

Draft Cumberland Development Control Plan (Draft DCP)

 

The Draft Cumberland Development Control Plan 2020 (Draft DCP) has been prepared by Cumberland City Council to provide a single planning framework for the future planning of Cumberland City.

 

The following sections of Draft DCP are relevant for the development application:

 

·        Part G3 – Traffic, Parking, Transport and Access (Vehicle). Section 4.7 – Other Land Use of the Draft DCP states parking requirements for Community Facilities.

·        Part E2 – Community Facilities. This section of the Draft DCP lists controls for community facilities regarding bulk and scale, traffic, parking, transport, landscaping, open space, and operational plan of management.

 

It is noted that the Draft DCP requires a traffic and transport impact statement to ascertain the car parking rates for a community facility. A traffic and transport impact statement is not warranted for the subject application as the proposed works are minor in nature which do not require additional car parking on the site.

 

It is noted that the Draft DCP does not list specific hours of operation for community facilities. However, as the site is zoned B2 – Local Centre, Part C, Section 3.11 of the draft DCP regarding the hours of operation for development in business zones is relevant, even if this is mainly for commercial and retail developments.

 

The proposed hours of operation for this development are outside the standard hours of operation as outlined in the Draft DCP. Where this is the case, the draft DCP requires the submission of an acoustic report and a plan of management. An acoustic report and a plan of management has been submitted with the application and are assessed to be satisfactory to justify the proposed hours of operation. Furthermore, conditions have been included in the draft conditions in relation to noise, crime prevention and operational plan of management.

 

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the draft Cumberland DCP and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

 

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contributions

 

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contributions are not applicable to the subject proposal.

 

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 No 64, Holroyd LEP 2013, Holroyd DCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B2 Zone under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd Local Environment Plan 2013. 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. DA2019/0525 for alterations and additions to the signage layout and extension of hours of operation (Monday - Friday & Sunday 8.00am to 10.00pm and Saturday & Public Holidays 8.00am to 12.00am) on land at 363-373 Guildford Road GUILDFORD NSW  2161 be approved.

 

1.      Architectural Plans  

2.      Plan of Management  

3.      Acoustic Report  

4.      Police NSW Recommended Conditions  

5.      Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 Assessment  

6.      Appendix B - Local Environmental Plan Assessment  

7.      Appendix C - Development Control Plans  

8.      Draft Notice of Determination   

 

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans

 27 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 2

Plan of Management

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Acoustic Report

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Police NSW Recommended Conditions

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 5

Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 Assessment

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 6

Appendix B - Local Environmental Plan Assessment

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 7

Appendix C - Development Control Plans

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 8

Draft Notice of Determination

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 

Item No: ELPP024/20

Alteration to the Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal for 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Environment and Precincts

File Number:                                    PP-3/2018  

 

 

Lodged	30 October 2018
Proponent	Pacific Planning
Owner	Raad Property Acquistion No 10 Pty Ltd
Site Address	2 Bachell Avenue Lidcombe (Lot 2 DP 219413)
Site Area	Approximately 8,750m2
Existing Use	The site contains a freestanding warehouse constructed in 1973 and has been used for a commercial laundromat since 2016. The site is identified within the Flood Planning Area and includes a part of land identified as below Foreshore Building Line. The existing stormwater channel/culvert runs through the site in a south to north-west direction and partly covered in adjacent to and below the freestanding warehouse.
Proposal	Seeks an alteration to the Gateway Determination to: ·   Increase the floor space ratio (FSR) control for the site from 2.5 to 3:1 ·   Increase the height of building (HoB) control for the site from 14m and 28m to 14m, 18m and 38m ·   Add Office and Business Premises as additional permitted use ·   Apply a floor space cap of 7000m2 to the additional permitted use.
Existing Planning Controls	Zoning	IN1 General Industrial
	Height of Building (HoB)	Nil
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	1:1
Requested Planning Controls	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	Nil
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	3:1
Controls recommmended by the CLPP	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	Consider applying height controls
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	2:1
Controls endorsed by Council	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	14m 27m
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	2.5:1
Gateway Determination	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	14m 27m
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	2.5:1
Gateway Determination Alteration Request by Proponent	Zoning	B5 Business Development
	Height of Building (HoB)	14m 18m 38m
	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	3:1
Heritage		Nil
Disclosure of political donations and gifts		Nil
Previous considerations		CLPP: 13 March 2019 Council: 15 May 2019 Gateway Determination: 16 December 2019

This report provides an overview of a request from the proponent for an alteration to a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal for 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe.  The alteration to the Gateway Determination seeks to:

·        Increase the floor space ratio control for the site from 2.5 to 3:1

·        Apply a 38m height of building control to the majority of the site, with 14m and 18m height of building controls applying to the frontage to Bachell Avenue

·        Add Office and Business Premises as additional permitted uses

·        Apply a floor space cap of 7000m² to the additional permitted uses.

Other aspects associated with the Gateway Determination, such as the change of zoning to B5 Business Development and removal of the foreshore building line, are not proposed to be altered as part of this request.

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

Figure 1 Planning Proposal Status

1.      The Site And Its Context

The site is located at 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe (Figure 2). The site currently contains a freestanding warehouse, utilised by a laundrette, with a footprint of approximately 2,500m². The warehouse is located in the middle of the site with land on either side vacant. The site is an irregular triangular shape measuring approximately 8,750m² in area.

Figure 2 The Site

Local Context

The site is located on the southern end of the Lidcombe East Industrial Precinct, and is adjacent to a residential area (to the west) and railway infrastructure (to the south).

 

The site is located approximately 1 kilometres away on foot from Lidcombe Railway Station (approx. 15 minutes walking distance).

Regional Context

The site is located in the suburb of Lidcombe within the Local Government Area of Cumberland Council approximately 6 kilometres east of Parramatta CBD and 16 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD.

2.      Planning Controls (Auburn LEP 2010)

The site is currently zoned IN1 General Industrial with an FSR of 1:1. No height of building control applies to the site.  These are shown in Figures 3 to 5.

Figure 3 Current Zoning on Site

Figure 4 Current Floor Space Ratio on Site

Figure 5 Current Height of Building Control on Site (note: no controls in place)

 

The site is also identified on the Flood Planning Area Map and the Foreshore Building Line Map, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6 Flood Planning Map

Figure 7 Foreshore Building Line Map

 

3.      The Planning Proposal

Original Planning Proposal

The original Planning Proposal Request submitted to Council in November 2018 sought to:

·        Rezone the site from IN1 General Industrial to B5 Business Development

·        Introduce a new B5 Business Development zone to the Land Use Table of Auburn LEP 2010

·        Amend the floor space ratio control for the site from 1:1 to 3:1

·        Remove the Foreshore Building Line that applies to this site.

The Proposal was reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel on 13 March 2019. The Panel:

·        Supported the change in zoning to B5 Business Development

·        Was of the view that insufficient evidence had been provided by the applicant to justify a maximum floor space ratio of 3:1 based on the proposed mix of land uses submitted with the proposal. However supported an increase in floor space ratio and was of the view that an floor space ratio of 2:1 may be more appropriate in the context of the site and surrounding land uses

·        Recommended consideration should be given to including height controls over the subject site

·        Recommended, having regard to the above, the Planning Proposal Request proceed to the next stage of assessment and be reported to Council seeking a resolution to forward an amended planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Proposed Planning Controls Reported to Council

The proposal was reported to Council on 15 May 2019 seeking a Gateway Determination for a planning proposal that sought to:

·        Rezone the site from IN1 General Industrial to B5 Business Development

·        Introduce a new B5 Business Development zone to the Land Use Tables

·        Amend the floor space ratio control for the site from 1:1 to 2.5:1

·        Apply a height of building controls of 14m and 27m to the site

·        Remove the Foreshore Building Line that applies to this site.

 

A floor space ratio of 2.5:1 was applied to the site. This floor space ratio was considered to be a compromise between the floor space ratio of 2:1 recommended by the Panel and the floor space ratio of 3:1 being sought by the proponent. The feasibility of a floor space of 2.5:1 was supported by the proponent’s economic study.

Height of building controls of 14m and 27m were applied to the site in response to the Panel’s recommendation. The dual building heights were applied to ensuring the taller element of the proponent’s concept plan were located to the rear of the site with the lower elements fronting Bachell Avenue, creating a transition from the lower density residential development on the north western side of Bachell Avenue.

Council resolved that the planning proposal with the identified controls be forwarded for a Gateway Determination.

Gateway Determination

A Gateway Determination was issued of 16 December 2019. Prior to public exhibition, the Gateway Determination required:

·        A flood impact study to address potential impacts of realignment and enclosure of the existing stormwater drainage channel

·        The supporting urban design report be updated to be consistent with the planning proposal and clearly demonstrate the potential built form interface along Bachell Avenue

·        The economic study be updated to be consistent with the planning proposal

·        The planning proposal be updated, if required, to be consistent with the outcomes of the studies referred to above.

4.      Alteration To The Gateway Determination

An alteration to the Gateway Determination has been requested by the proponent.  The alteration seeks to:

·        Increase the floor space ratio control for the site from 2.5 to 3:1

·        Apply a 38m height of building control to the majority of the site, with 14m and 18m height of building control applying to the frontage to Bachell Avenue to create a transition from neighbouring residential properties

·        Add ‘Office and Business Premises’ as additional permitted use

·        Apply a floor space cap of 7000m2 to the additional permitted uses

Further details on the alterations requested is provided in the table below.

Alteration Request	Details
Office and business premises as additional permitted uses	The proponent’s original background studies included office and business premises as component of the redevelopment of the site, although this was not clearly articulated in their original planning proposal. Therefore, Council’s planning proposal did seek to include the additional permitted uses.   The proponent has emphasised that it was always their intention to seek office and business premise as an additional permitted use as they are essential to the feasibility of the proposal. The proponent’s updated economic study indicates that the redevelopment of the site is not viable without office space being part of the redevelopment.   To limit the impact on competing locations such as the Lidcombe Town Centre and the Parramatta Road Corridor, the proponent is seeking a floor space cap of 7000m2 be applied to the additional permitted uses.
Increase to the floor space ratio	The proponent has provided an updated economic study that concludes that an FSR of 2.5:1 is not feasible. The economic study outlines that an FSR below 3:1 does not provide a greater enough return to alleviate the risks associated with redeveloping the site. The feasibility assessment determines that FSR’s of below 3:1 returns less than the 15% return on investment that is required to promote the redevelopment of the site consistent with the proponent’s concept.
Height of building control	The proponent has revised their Urban Design Report and are now seeking height of building controls of 38m be applied to the majority of the site, with heights of 14m (approximately 4m wide) and 18m (approximately 9m wide) applying to the frontage to Bachell Avenue.

Table 1 Details of Alteration Request to Gateway Determination

An indicative concept of the proposal associated with the alteration to the Gateway Determination is provided in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Indicative Concept of Proposal for the Site

5.      Amended Planning Proposal

Council has reviewed the alteration request for the Gateway Determination in relation to the land uses proposed on the site, as well as the built form components of floor space ratio and height. Based on this review, an amended planning proposal is identified for the site.

Land Uses Proposed on the Site

The proponent has provided clarification regarding the role of office and business premises as a land use that is intended on the site.  This land use would complement other land uses proposed on the site that are consistent with the B5 Business Development zoning, such as high technology industries, warehousing and distribution. The proponent is also seeking a floor space cap of 7000m² for office and business premises. 

In relation to the proposed additional permitted uses, while office and business premises is not included in the Land Use Table for B5 Business Development under the draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan, it is considered appropriate for this location as it would complement the range of other land uses identified in the proposal.  The inclusion of office and business premises as an additional permitted uses would also support the renewal of employment at this location, consistent with the outcomes of the Cumberland Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy.

In relation to the floor space cap for office and business premises, the imposition of the cap is supported to allow the viability of the development to be preserved, whilst protecting office and business uses along Parramatta Road and the Lidcombe town centre.  The proposed floor space of 7000m² represents a minority of the floor area provided for the site, and is anticipated to provide office and business premises needs for the employment lands in the Lidcombe area, as distinct from the needs of the Lidcombe town centre. 

Built Form Components

The proponent is seeking amendments to some of the built form components of the site.  This includes an increase in the floor space ratio of the site from 2.5:1 to 3:1 and changes to building heights, to enable a transition of height from 14m to 38m.

In relation to the density of the site, a review of the economic study indicates that a floor space ratio below 3:1 does not provide a greater enough return to alleviate the risks associated with redeveloping the site.  The constraints of the site also require alterations to drainage channels on the site (with an additional cost for the development) to enable an effective use of the site and to remove the flood burden for neighbouring residential properties.  It is considered appropriate that a floor space ratio of 3:1 is supported for this proposal.

In relation to the maximum height, the proposal by the proponent of 38m is in relation to the office component of the site.  This height is considered to be inconsistent with height controls for offices along the Parramatta Road corridor under current planning controls (27m) and proposed planning controls for development identified in the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (27m). A review by Council indicates that a maximum building height of 29.9m is more consistent with the comparable controls and is aligned with the proponent’s indicative concept.

In relation to the lower heights, the proponent has also identified a transition of heights of 14m and 18m at the site frontage along Bachell Avenue.  While the transition of heights is supported for the site, the inclusion of three tiers of height is not considered to be effective mechanism in managing height on the site.  It is proposed that a similar arrangement to the current Gateway Determination is retained, with a single maximum height at the street frontage, and that this should be 18m in accordance with the indicative concept for the site.

 

Amended Planning Proposal

Based on the review, an amended planning proposal is identified for the site with the following planning controls as part of the alteration to the Gateway Determination:

·        Increase the floor space ratio control for the site from 2.5 to 3:1

·        Apply a 29.9m height of building control to the majority of the site, with a height of building control of 18m applying to the frontage to Bachell Avenue

·        Add Office and Business Premises as additional permitted uses

·        Apply a floor space cap of 7000m² to the additional permitted uses

The proposed planning controls for the amended planning proposal in relation to floor space ratio and height of building controls are provided in Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9 Proposed Floor Space Ratio Control with Amended Planning Proposal

Figure 10 Proposed Height of Building Controls with Amended Planning Proposal

It is noted that the following controls are retained as per the Gateway Determination:

·        Introduction of B5 Business Development Zone for the site

·        Removal of Foreshore Building Line that applies to the site

6.      Strategic Merit Assessment

Land Uses Proposed on Site

 

There is strategic merit in seeking an alteration to the Gateway Determination for the amended planning proposal as:

·        The additional permitted uses of office and business premises is appropriate at this location and support the renewal of employment lands in Lidcombe, consistent with the strategic directions outlined in the Cumberland Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy, and provide a greater range of employment activities on the site

·        The floor area cap of 7000m² for the additional permitted uses balances the viability of the development with the distinct land use needs of the local area, including the Lidcombe town centre and employment lands in Lidcombe and Parramatta Road.

Built Form Components

There is strategic merit in seeking an alteration to the Gateway Determination for the amended planning proposal as:

·        The amended floor space ratio for the site supports the economic viability of future development of the site, realising the renewal of employment lands in the Lidcombe area

·        The amended height of building controls retains lower height on the street frontage with adjoining areas, and provides an appropriate maximum height towards the rear of the site consistent with the outcomes being sought through the indicative concept.

Consistency with Strategic Merit Assessment for Planning Proposal with Gateway Determination

The amended planning proposal identified for the alteration to the Gateway Determination continues to be consistent with the strategic merit assessment with the planning proposal that has received a Gateway Determination.  This includes:

·        Consistency with strategic plans, including the Central City District Plan, Cumberland 2030: Our Local Strategic Planning Statement and the Cumberland Employment and Innovation Lands Strategy

·        Consistency with technical issues identified, including the introduction of the B5 Business Development zone, flood planning and foreshore building line, and traffic and transport.

It is recommended that the amended planning proposal, with revised building height controls of 18m and 29.9m, and revised floor space ratio control of 3:1, be reported to Council seeking alteration to the Gateway Determination. This recommendation is being made as:

·        The proposal will support the renewal of employment lands in Lidcombe, consistent with the strategic directions of the Cumberland Local Employment Lands Strategy

·        The amended proposal clarifies the land use and built form for the site in a manner that is generally consistent with the character of the surrounding area

·        The amended proposal continues to be consistent with strategic and technical considerations identified in the original proposal that has received a Gateway Determination.

The proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days from 13 November 2018 to 11 December 2018, in accordance with Cumberland Council’s Planning Proposal Notification Policy.

In response to the exhibition, Council received no written submissions during or after the exhibition period.

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

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

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

 

Report Recommendation: That the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP): 1.       Recommend that the request for an alteration to the Gateway Determination for 2 Bachell Avenue, Lidcombe be reported to Council, seeking a resolution to seek a revised Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that: i)   Increases the floor space ratio control for the site from 2.5:1 to 3:1 ii)  Applies a 18m and 29.9m height of building control to the site iii) Adds Office and Business Premises as an additional permitted uses to the site iv) Applies a floor space cap of 7000m2 to the additonal permitted uses. 2.       Note that the following controls are to be retained as included in the Gateway Determination for the proposal: i)   Introduction of B5 Business Development Zone for the site ii)  Removal of Foreshore Building Line that applies to the site.

 

1.      Minutes from CLPP Meeting 13 March 2019  

2.      Minutes from Council Meeting 15 May 2019  

3.      Gateway Determination 16 December 2019  

4.      Updated Urban Design Report  

5.      Updated Economic Study   

 

Attachment 1

Minutes from CLPP Meeting 13 March 2019

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Minutes from Council Meeting 15 May 2019

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Gateway Determination 16 December 2019

 27 May 2020

 

Attachment 4

Updated Urban Design Report

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 27 May 2020

 

 

Attachment 5

Updated Economic Study

 27 May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27 May 2020

 27 May 2020