12 August 2020

An Electronic meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30a.m. via Zoom on Wednesday, 12 August 2020.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Hamish McNulty

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 12 August 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP040/20... Electronic Determination - Modification Application for 12-14 Pritchard Street East, Wentworthville.................................................................................................... 17

LPP041/20... Electronic Determination - Modification Application for 1 Robilliard Street, Mays Hill............................................................................................................................ 145

LPP042/20... Development Application for 1 Ostend Street, Lidcombe......................... 213

LPP043/20... Development Appliaction for 3 Ostend Street, Lidcombe......................... 441

LPP044/20... Planning Proposal for a Senior Housing Development, Corner Dunmore Street and Pendle Way, Pendle Hill................................................................................ 713

 

 

 

 12 August 2020

Minutes of the Electronic Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held via Zoom on Wednesday 8 July 2020.

Present:

Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms.

In Attendance:

Jai Shankar, Nighat Aamir, William Attard, Elif Haliloglu, Stephen Peterson, Michael Lawani, Fay Ong, Elma Sukurma, Ali Hammoud, Esra Calim, Olivia Shields and Rashika Rani.

Notice of Live Streaming of CUMBERLAND LOCAL PLANNING PANEL meeting

The Chairperson advised that the Cumberland Local Planning meeting was being streamed live on Council's website and members of the public must ensure their speech to the Panel is respectful and use appropriate language.

 

The meeting here opened at 11:30a.m.

 

Declarations Of Interest:

There were no declarations of interest.

ADDRESS BY INVITED SPEAKERS:

 

The following persons had made application to address the Cumberland Local Planning Panel meeting:

 

Speakers                              Subject

 

Mairead Hawes                   Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

 

Jeremy Swan                       Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

 

Andre Mulder                       Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

 

Hugh Halliwell                         Development Application for 25A Crescent Street, Holroyd

 

Brad Delapierre                   Development Application for 58 & 60 Berwick Street, Guildford

 

Joe El-Sabbagh                  Modification Application for 81-83 Mountford Avenue, Guilford

 

The Chairperson enquired to those present in the Zoom call as to whether there were any further persons who would like to address the Panel and no further persons presented themselves.

The open session of the meeting here closed at 12:43p.m.

 

The closed session of the meeting here opened at 1:20p.m.

 

ITEM LPP033/20 - Development Application for 4-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe

panel decision 1.    That the Clause 4.6 written request to vary the height of buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 be supported.    2.    That development application DA2019/229 seeking alterations and additions to an approved 10 storey mixed use building at 4-14 Mark Street, Lidcombe (DA2017/363); and demolition of existing structures at 16-18 Mark Street, Lidcombe, and construction of an additional 8 to 11 storey mixed use building component, accommodating a combined total of 15 commercial suites and 213 residential units over 5 levels of basement parking for 627, be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 3 of the assessment report.   3.     Condition 3 be amended to read as follows:      Auburn DCP 2007: Section 7.11 Development Contributions   Development Contributions are payable in accordance with Auburn Council Section 7.11 Development Contribution Plan 2007, which has been prepared under Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).    The amounts payable will be adjusted in accordance with the section titled Review of Contribution rates and are generally indexed on a quarterly basis by the Consumer Price Index CPI (all Groups Sydney) unless otherwise stated in the plan.   Contributions will be adjusted at the payment date in accordance with the plan. and payment is to be made prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.   A sum of $889048.58 $1,294,176.93 is to be paid to Council for the purpose of LGA Wide plans being the provision of open space and recreation facilities, community facilities, accessibility and traffic works, town centre upgrades, car parking and Council's administration of the development contributions framework.   The above sum is broken down to the following items:   Item Amount Community Facilities $218,026.65 $317,037.84 Public Domain $482,207.66 $701,176.49 Accessibility and Traffic $132,904.76 $192,905.19 Administration $50,980.77 $73,807.04 Employment Generating Development $4,928.74 $9,250.37 TOTAL $889,048.58 $1,294,176.93   Council’s Development Contribution Plan 2007 is available for inspection at Council’s Customer Services Centre, Civic Place, 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands or online at: www.cumberland.nsw.gov.au   (Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the Auburn DCP 2007: Section 7.11 Development Contributions) 4.    Condition 37 be amended to read as follows:   37.  DACCB03 - Section 7.11 Contribution A monetary contribution imposed under Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Auburn Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment No. 2), is to be paid to Council. The amount of the contribution will be determined at the time of payment in accordance with the relevant Contributions Plan in force at that time. A copy of the Auburn Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment No. 2) can be viewed on Council’s website at www.cumberland.nsw.gov.au, or inspected at Council’s Service Centre located at 16 Memorial Avenue, Merrylands between the hours of 8am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday.   (Reason: To retain a level of service for the existing population and to provide the same level of service to the population resulting from new developments). 5.    Condition 37A is inserted to read as follows:   37A.DACCZ12 – COVID-19 Response Measures: Infrastructure Contributions – Timing of Payment            A monetary contribution that is required to be paid under the conditions of this consent must be paid before the issue of the first occupation certificate in respect of any building to which this consent relates, except as provided below.   If no construction certificate in respect of the erection of any building to which the consent relates has been issued before or on 25 September 2022, the monetary contribution must be paid before the issue of the first construction certificate after that date for any such building.   The above does not prevent the entry into an arrangement with the Council for deferred payment of the monetary contribution in accordance with the policy for deferred payments set out in the Auburn Development Contributions Plan 2007 (Amendment No. 2).   (Reason:  Information).   6.    Amend Condition 50 as follows:   A sign shall be erected in a suitable location on the external face of the building near the driveway entrance indicating where visitor and commercial parking is available on the site. The appropriate signage be provided on site to indicate customer parking for commercial tenancies. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson) and Marjorie Ferguson. Against: John Brunton and Irene Simms. The application was approved by the casting vote of the Chairperson. Reasons for Approval:   1.    The Panel has determined that, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the height of building development standard under Clause 4.3 of Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   2.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.   3.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone and in particular will provide high density residential development as well as commercial development that will contribute to economic growth and employment in the Lidcombe Town Centre.   4.    The proposal is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide and has been determined by the Cumberland Design Excellence Panel to exhibit design excellence in accordance with the Cumberland Design Excellence Policy.   5.    The Panel has considered the matters raised in written submissions and has determined that these matters have either been adequately addressed in the design of the development or where not specifically addressed in the development are not of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application.   6.    Subject to the recommended conditions of development consent as amended, the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality.   7.    Taking into account reasons 1-6 above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.   Reasons for Non Support (John Brunton)   The Clause 4.6 variation request is not supported because the applicant’s written statement: ·         Does not justify why compliance with the building height development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary; ·         Does not show that the objectives of the building height development standard are achieved in relation to compatibility with the character of the locality; and ·         Does not establish that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide in relation to building separation, visual privacy, acoustic privacy, solar access, natural cross ventilation and common circulation.   Reasons for Non Support (Irene Simms)   While I accept that the relocation of units to the northern section of the development is in response to the Design Excellence Panel recommendations, I do not believe that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard under Clause 4.3 of under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

ITEM LPP034/20 – modification Application for 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill

Panel decision That modification application MOD2020/0040 seeking alterations to an approved mixed use development at 185-187 Great Western Highway, Mays Hill, be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the draft notice of determination contained in Attachment 2 of the assessment report.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reasons for Decision:   1.    The Panel is satisfied that the development, as modified, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.   2.    The Panel is satisfied that the contravention of the building height development standard is minor, that compliance with the standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   3.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the height of building development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.   4.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and also consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.   5.    The Panel is satisfied that the development as modified will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality, also noting that there were no written submissions in response to the public notification and advertising of the application.   6.    Taking into account reasons 1-5 above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.

 

ITEM LPP035/20 - modification Application for 1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville

panel decision   That modification application No. MOD2019/5282 to modify floor levels, hydrant booster location, external finishes and stormwater disposal to approved residential flat building on land at 1-3 Bransgrove Street, Wentworthville NSW 2145 be approved, subject to conditions in Attachment 1 to the assessment report.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reasons for Decision:   1.    The Panel is satisfied that the development, as modified, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.   2.    The Panel is satisfied that the contravention of the building height development standard is minor, that compliance with the standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   3.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013   4.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and also consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.   5.    The Panel is satisfied that the development as modified will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality, also noting that there were no written submissions in response to the public notification and advertising of the application.   6.     Taking into account reasons 1-5 above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.

 

ITEM LPP036/20 - Development Application for 122 Robertson Street, Guildford

panel decision   That development application No. DA2020/0280 for the erection of a pergola at the rear on land at 122 Robertson Street Guildford NSW 2161 be approved subject to conditions attached to the assessment report.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reasons for Decision:   1.    The application is minor in nature and will have no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties or the locality.   2.    The application is consistent with the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and is generally consistent with the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. 3.    Approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

ITEM LPP037/20 - Development Application for 25A Crescent Street, Holroyd

panel decision 1.    That development application No. DA2020/0113 for replacement of an existing twin sided static advertising sign with a twin sided LED sign on land at 25A Crescent Street HOLROYD NSW  2142 be deferred pending the preparation  and consideration by the Panel of a further report addressing the existing use rights as they apply to the application.   2.    The further report is to be circulated to the Panel within 15 business days.   3.    In the event that the Panel is satisfied regarding the establishment and exercise of existing use rights then the application will be determined by electronic means within 5 business days of receipt of the further report.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reason for Decision: In order that the Panel may be satisfied regarding the history of approval on the site and the ability to grant consent.

 

ITEM LPP038/20 - Development Application for 58 & 60 Berwick Street, Guildford

panel decision 1.   That the Clause 4.6 written request to vary the development standard relating to building height as contained within Clause 4.3 of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 be supported.   2.   That development application No. DA2019/0501 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over basement parking accommodating 25 units and 22 car parking spaces under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 on land at 58 & 60 Berwick Street GUILDFORD NSW 2161 be approved as a deferred commencement consent subject to conditions attached to the assessment report. 3. The “reason” given to Condition 130 be amended as follows:      “To ensure that the structure as built does not exceed the approved building height”.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reasons for Decision:   1.    The Panel has determined that, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the height of building development standard under Clause 4.3 of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   2.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard of Clause 4.3 of under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.   3.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.   4.    The proposal is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide as well as State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.   5.    The Panel has considered the matters raised in written submissions and has determined that these matters have either been adequately addressed in the design of the development or where not specifically addressed in the development are not of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application.   6.    Subject to the recommended conditions of development consent as amended, the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality.   7.    Taking into account reasons 1-6 above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.

 

ITEM LPP039/20 – modification Application for 81-83 Mountford Avenue, Guildford

panel decision 1.         That modification application No. MOD2019/5251 for alterations to an approved residential flat building and townhouse units including reconfiguration of the basement, changes to floor levels, modified roof design and alteration to fencing and screening heights on land at 81-83 Mountford Avenue GUILDFORD NSW 2161 be approved subject to additional conditions listed in the schedule attached to the assessment report.   2.         Amend of condition 123 (b) as follows:   In order to provide for a turning area for parking spaces 34 and 35 by way of use of the shared area of parking space 33, the location of the bollard in disabled space 33 is to be relocated centrally within that shared space closer to the eastern wall.   For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms. Against: Nil. Reasons for Decision:   1.    The Panel is satisfied that the development, as modified, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.   2.    The Panel is satisfied that the contravention of the building height development standard is minor, that compliance with the standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.   3.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011   4.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide and is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.   5.    The Panel is satisfied that the development as modified will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality, noting that the matters raised in written submissions have either been adequately addressed in the design of the development or where not specifically addressed in the development are not of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application.   6.    Taking into account reasons 1-5 above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.

     

 

The closed session of the meeting here closed at 3:37p.m.

The meeting terminated at 4:07p.m.

Signed:

Stuart McDonald

Chairperson

 

 12 August 2020

Minutes of the Electronic Determination Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held Monday 20 July 2020.

Present:

Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms.

Declarations Of Interest:

There were no declarations of interest.

2.             

3.            ITEM LPP037/20 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 25A CRESCENT STREET, HOLROYD

4.             

5.            BACKGROUND:

 

The matter was deferred for electronic determination in order that the Panel may be satisfied regarding the history of approval on the site and the ability to grant consent.

6.             

7.            Panel Decision

8.             

The Panel is satisfied that adequate evidence and advice has been provided confirming the existence of existing use rights under the EPA Act and EPA Regulation and that the application is able to be determined. The Panel decision is approval of the application as recommended by the Council officers, including the recommended conditions and the amended condition circulated to the Panel as part of the Addendum Report on 17 July 2020.

9.             

For: Stuart McDonald (Chairperson), John Brunton, Marjorie Ferguson and Irene Simms.

10.          

11.         Against: Nil.

12.          

13.         Reasons for Decision:

14.          

1.      The Panel acknowledges that the existing twin sided static advertising sign adjacent to the M4 Motorway has development consent and based on the information provided by the Council, including legal advice, is an “existing use” for the purposes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation.  

 

15. As the proposal is for the replacement of the static advertising signage with LED signage and noting no objections have been raised by RMS, the Panel is satisfied that the application is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013, Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and Cumberland Council Large Display Advertising Policy.

 

3.    Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, including the amended condition provided to the Panel on 17 July 2020, approval of the application will be in the public interest. 

16.          

Signed:

Stuart McDonald

Chairperson

 

  

 12 August 2020

 

Item No: LPP040/20

Electronic Determination - Modification Application for 12-14 Pritchard Street East, Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2020/0216  

 

 

1.      On 12 December 2019 Cumberland Local Planning Panel granted deferred commencement approval for DA2018/454/1 which sought consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of part 3, part 5 and part 6 storey shop top housing development comprising a commercial tenancy at ground floor level, 28 residential units above and 2 levels of basement carpark accommodating 55 car parking spaces and 1 car wash bay on land at 12-14 Pritchard Street East, Wentworthville. The Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) imposed 10 deferred commencement conditions, one of which was Condition no. 9b, requiring that Units 18 and 15 of the development provide a minimum side boundary setbacks of 6m.

2.      Subsequently, the subject Modification Application No. MOD2020/0126 was lodged on 4 May 2020 seeking Section 4.55(1A) application to modify the deferred commencement condition no.9b relating to setbacks and change the unit mix of the approved shop top housing development. The modification application proposes 4.5m side setbacks for Units 18 and 15 and redesigns Units 18 and 15 into 1-bedroom units.

3.      The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as the proposal seeks to modify a deferred commencement condition imposed by the Panel for a development involving more than 4 storeys to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments applies.

4.      The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft notice of determination.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 12 & 14 Pritchard Street, East Wentworthville, and is legally described as Lot 1, Deposited Plan (DP) 300345 and Lot 1, DP 168165. The site is located on the southern side of Pritchard Street within the B2 Local Centre zone. The site forms a regular midblock with a total area of 1379.6m2 and a combined frontage of 30m to Pritchard Street. The site has a fall of approximately 1.5m from the rear to front. The site is currently occupied by a Pathology Centre and a single storey dwelling. There is no significant vegetation on site.

The subject site is located within Wentworthville Town Centre and adjoins R2 Low Density Residential to the south. The site is bounded by B2 zoned land to the north, east and west. There is a transition occurring currently with higher density zoned sites being developed into residential flat buildings further to the south. The wider locality contains a mix of commercial and residential land uses.

The site is identified in a Planning Proposal for the Wentworthville Centre Revitalisation Project to amend planning controls, including increases to building height and floor space ratios (FSRs) and the introduction of new provisions within the Centre.

Figure 1 – Locality plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Condition no. 9b of Schedule A (deferred commencement conditions) was imposed by Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) on 12 December 2019 under Development Consent No. DA2018/454/1. The condition required that 6m side setbacks be provided for Units 18 and 15. Noting that Units 18 and 15 are both located on level 2 of the shop top housing development, the premise of the condition is to afford reasonable amenity to the private open space and living areas of Units 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the development.

 

The subject modification application however proposes side setbacks of 4.5m for the units. Given that the setbacks represent a departure from the condition, the subject Section 4.55(1A) modification application is lodged.  As such the proposed modification involves the following works:

·        Provision of 4.5m setback from the eastern site boundary to the eastern side elevation of Unit 18;

·        Provision of 4.5m setback from the western site boundary to the western side elevation of Unit 15;

·        Alteration of the development’s unit mix by redesigning Units18 and 15 from 2-bedroom units into 1-bedroom units;

·        Installation of two celestial skylights above the living rooms of units 18 and 15 to improve sunlight access;

It is noted that the proposal results in a marginal reduction of FSR from 1.974:1 (2724.25m2) to 1.96:1 (2,704m2)

The subject modification results in the following key changes within the overall development:

History

Deferred Commencement Approval DA2018/454/1 was issued by Cumberland Local Planning Panel on 12 December 2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of part 3, part 5 and part 6 storey shop top housing development comprising a commercial tenancy at ground floor level, 28 residential units above 2 levels of basement carpark accommodating 55 car parking spaces and 1 car wash bay at the subject site.

Modification Application No. MOD2020/0126 was lodged on 4 May 2020 seeking Section 4.55(1A) application to modify the deferred commencement condition no.9b relating to setbacks and change the unit mix of the approved shop top housing development. In the deferred commencement approval of the original development application, DA 2018/454/1.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 20 April 2020 in support of the application.

A signed revised Design Verification Statement prepared by Antoine J. Saouma (Registration No. 7412) was submitted with the subject modification 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/External Referrals

No internal or external referrals were required for the modification application.

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 4.55(1A):

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

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

The requirement at Clause 7 of SEPP No. 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:

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

The site and neighbouring land parcels have recently been cleared of all vegetation to facilitate future residential development. As such, the SEPP does not apply.

(b)     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”.

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

 

An amended BASIX Certificate 975895M_06 dated 19 March 2020 with regard to the revised dwelling mix has been submitted. The submitted BASIX certificate achieves target scores and is considered satisfactory.  Conditions of Consent have been applied requiring adherence to the BASIX Certificate requirements.

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

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains more than 4 dwellings. A design statement addressing the design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 was prepared by the project architect. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development. A revised design verification statement signed by registered architect Antoine J. Saouma (Registration No. 7412) was submitted with the s4.55(1A) application. Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant.

In the absence of 6m side setbacks for Units 18 and 15 as imposed under DA2018/454/1, the proposed modification which encapsulates 4.5m side boundary setbacks for Units 18 and 15, alteration of the unit mix and provision of skylights for Units 18 and 15 is considered acceptable in this instance. It is considered that the 4.5m setbacks will appropriately articulate and modulate the built form along the side elevations as strict compliance of 6m imposed would. Further, it will afford visual relief for Units 13, 14, 16, and 17 by providing southerly outlook from their private open spaces and living areas. Noting that the gross floor area for the proposal is marginally reduced from the approved under DA2018/454/1, it is also considered that 4.5m setbacks will provide balance of  equitable gross floor area for the development in accordance with Holroyd LEP provisions and reasonable amenity for other units in the development  and adjoining developments.

The 4.5m setback will provide the development with adequate building separation distances between neighbouring sites to achieve acceptable levels of external and internal visual privacy. Also, the reduced building bulk and proposed skylights proposal will afford the Units 18 and 15 optimised opportunities to receiving sunlight in living areas and improve amenities into the private open spaces and living areas of other units on level 2.

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development will maintain 20 out of 28 units (70%) achieving 2 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm. Also, in accordance with Apartment Design Guide less than 15% of the residential units will not receive adequate sunlight in mid-winter. Noting the southern orientation of Units 18 and 15, it is unlikely that strict compliance with  the 6m side setbacks condition as imposed by the Panel under DA2018/454/1 will afford significant sunlight opportunities into the private open spaces and living areas of Units, 13, 14, 16 and 17. It is however noted that the provision of the 4.5m setbacks minimises visual intrusion impacts for Units, 13, 14, 16 & 17 and neighbouring developments. Also, recognising that there is no net loss in parking spaces despite the unit mix alterations (higher 1-bedroom proportion), it is considered that overall amenity of the development is improved.

Further recognising that the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 requires nil side setbacks for residential flat building developments in the B2 Local Centre zone, it is considered that the 4.5m side setbacks proposed for the units is reasonable. Noting the above, it is satisfied that the proposed modification and overall development is designed in accordance with the Apartment Design Guide.

Figure 4 – Proposed floor plan of Units 18 and 15

Figure 5 – South elevation showing Units 18 and 15

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

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

The provisions of the 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 original development application, DA2018/454/1 was referred to Endeavour Energy and TransGrid for comment, who raised no objections, subject to conditions. The proposed modifications are unlikely to result in any changes in this regard, therefore is considered acceptable.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013

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

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘shop top housing’ and is permissible in the B2– Local Centre zone with consent. The proposed modification will continue the use of the development as approved being a shop top housing.

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd LEP 2013 and 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.

(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.

(c)     Wentworthville Town Centre Planning Proposal

The planning proposal for the revitalisation of the Wentworthville Town Centre has been endorsed by Council for finalisation and gazettal by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

The subject site is not proposed to change in regard to zoning and FSR as part of the planning proposal; however, the building height has been increased from 17m to 23m for the front portion of the property whilst the rear remains at a maximum of 17m.

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

The Holroyd DCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the DCP. 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 the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the proposed modification was notified for 14 days between 18 May 2020 to 1 June 2020.

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

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

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

The monetary contribution for the development is amended as a result of proposed the alteration to the unit mix in accordance with provisions in Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions.

The subject development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Holroyd Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2013. A condition is imposed requiring the payment of contributions.

In accordance with the currently indexed rates for the Wentworthville Centre contribution area, the following contributions apply:

It is noted that the Section 7.11 contribution payable for the approved development under Development Consent No. DA2018/454/1 which encapsulated 4 x 1-bedroom dwellings, 20 x 2-bedroom dwellings, 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings and 220 m2 of non-residential development  totals $378,320.00.

Recognising that the modification proposes a decrease in proportion of 2-bedroom units and increase in proportion of 1-bedroom units, it results in a decreased Section 7.11 development contributions payable. Given that the modification application proposes 6 x 1-bedroom units, 18 x 2-bedroom units, 4 x 3-bedroom units 220 m2 of non-residential, the currently indexed development contribution payable is $370,334.70.

Note: This includes credit for the existing 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings on the site.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development as modified is appropriately located within the B2 – Local Centre zone under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd LEP 2013. Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council is satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents and neighbouring developments. It is considered that the proposal minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That Modification Application No. MOD2020/0126 for Section 4.55(1A) application to modify setbacks and unit mix of approved shop top housing development on land at 12 & 14 Pritchard Street East, Wentworthville be approved subject to attached conditions.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Previous Development Consents  

4.      Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table  

5.      Appendix B – Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

6.      Appendix C – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table  

7.      Shadow Diagram- 6M Setback from East and West  

8.      Shadow Diagram- 6M Setback from East and West   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Previous Development Consents

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Appendix A - Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Appendix B – Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Appendix C – Holroyd DCP 2013 Compliance Table

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Shadow Diagram- 6M Setback from East and West

 12 August 2020

Attachment 8

Shadow Diagram- 6M Setback from East and West

 12 August 2020

 12 August 2020

 

Item No: LPP041/20

Electronic Determination - Modification Application for 1 Robilliard Street, Mays Hill

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2020/0200  

 

 

1.      Modification Application No. MOD2020/0085 was received on 24 June 2020 for section 4.55(1A) application to delete condition 194 relating to the substation location, which is to be retained internally within commercial tenancy 4 as indicated on the original approval (DA2019/499/1) dated 13 September 2017. Condition 194 was imposed by Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) on 10 June 2020 under MOD2020/0085 approval. The applicant indicated that the substation has since been constructed and completed in June 2020 without consent on the location proposed under MOD2020/0085, which is located externally facing Robilliard Street. The relocation of substation results in the internal reconfiguration of car parking layout on the basement levels. 

2.      The application is being reported to the CLPP for determination as it exceeds Council delegation in relation to the modification of condition that was specifically required to be provided by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel

3.      The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the draft notice of determination held at Attachment 1.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site forms Lot 100 in DP 1256634, which previously comprised of 5 separate allotments (Lot 109 in DP 13239, Lot B in DP 367709, Lot 12 in DP 1052755, Lot 10 in DP 1052755, and Lot 11 in DP 1052755). The site is a corner lot that is known as 1 Robilliard Street, Mays Hill. The site has an area of 3,687m2, a frontage to Robilliard Street of 50.67m to the west, and a frontage to Great Western Highway of approximately 53.1m to the north. The site is located within B6 Enterprise Corridor zone. The approved mixed use development on site is currently under construction. The existing developments adjoining the site include an existing petrol station to the west, and a mixture of single dwellings and residential flat buildings to the south and east.

Figure 1 – Locality plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of substation as built

Description of the Proposed Development

Condition 194 was imposed by Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) on 10 June 2020 under MOD2020/0085 approval. The applicant has indicated that the substation has since been constructed and completed in June 2020 without consent on the location proposed under MOD2020/0085, which is situated externally facing Robilliard Street. The relocation of substation results in the internal reconfiguration of car parking layout on the basement levels. 

Therefore, the proposed modification application involves the following works:

Basement levels

-     Internal reconfiguration of car parking spaces;

-     Relocation of substation;

Ground floor level

-     Relocation of substation on Robilliard Street; and

-     Internal changes to commercial tenancy 4 by increasing total gross leasable area by 9m². 

History

Development consent DA2016/499/1 was issued by Council under delegated authority on 13 September 2017 for the demolition of existing structures; consolidation of 5 lots into 1 lot; construction of part 3 (Building B); part 7 storey (Building A) mixed use development comprising 84 residential units; ground floor commercial space above 2 levels of basement parking accommodating 125 carparking spaces at the subject site.

Construction Certificate for DA2016/499/1 was issued on 8 August 2019 by NW Building Certification (CC No. NW17/2389).

S4.55(1A) application (DA2016/499/3) was approved by Council on 4 November 2019 to modify floor to floor heights of the ground and first floor levels.

S4.55(1A) application (M2016/499/2) was approved by Council on 6 March 2020 to modify location of on-site detention tank and stormwater drainage.

S4.55(2) application (MOD2020/0085) was approved by CLPP on 10 June 2020 for various modifications to approved mixed use development including changes to external finishes and increase in height of lift overrun. The proposed substation relocation was not supported by CLPP and the car parking layout on the basement levels therefore did not require to be reconfigured.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 12 March 2020 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application as previously referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment is considered satisfactory for the changes proposed to the basement layout, and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent. The relocation of substation resulted in reconfiguration of car parking layout on 2 basement levels, however this will not change the numbers of car parking spaces approved on the site previously determined under MOD2020/0085. Conditions imposed to ensure that sufficient aisle width will be maintained.

Endeavour Energy

The applicant has submitted documentary evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has satisfied the requirements of the energy provider. The proposal therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Planning Comments

Section 4.55(1A):

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

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

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

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

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the building is 3 storeys or more, and contains more than 4 dwellings. A design statement addressing the design quality principles prescribed by SEPP 65 was prepared by the project architect. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development. A revised design verification statement signed by registered architect Ziad Boumelhem (Registration No. 8008) was submitted with the s4.55(1A) application. Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, it is considered the proposal is generally compliant.

Condition 194 was imposed by Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) on 10 June 2020 under MOD2020/0085 approval. The applicant has indicated that the substation has since been constructed and completed in June 2020  without consent on the location proposed under MOD2020/0085, which is situated externally facing Robilliard Street (refer to Figure 3). The substation has been constructed to closely match the existing footpath level and will be treated with black coloured slat screening with lockable key accessible only by the energy provider (refer to Figure 4).

The proposed substation treatment is considered acceptable in this instance, as there are existing substations which have been approved and built within the front setbacks of residential flat buildings on Robilliard Street (refer to Figure 5). The location of substation will replace the approved planter boxes adjoining to the Robilliard Street residential entry, which was previously included in the calculation of communal open space (COS). The replacement of planter boxes will reduce the area previously approved as COS. However, under the subject modification application, the reduction of COS by 21m² will still result in a compliant area required by clause 3D-1 of the ADG. Where 25% of the site area is required for COS, the proposed modification will provide an area of 25.86%. The proposal will continue to satisfy ADG requirement for COS.    

Figure 4 – Elevation plan of substation

Figure 5 – Existing substations on Robilliard Street streetscape

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

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

The provisions of the 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 original application was referred to Endeavour Energy and was considered satisfactory subject to the conditions imposed. The current modification for relocation of substation on the site has been also been approved by the electricity provider.

 

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site has frontage to a classified road. The original application was assessed under the provision of this clause and was considered satisfactory subject to conditions imposed. The proposed modification does not alter the outcome of the original assessment.

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

The application is subject to clause 102 of the ISEPP as the annual average daily traffic volume is greater than 40,000 vehicles. The original application was assessed under the provision of this clause and was considered satisfactory subject to conditions imposed. The proposed modification does not alter the outcome of the original assessment.

Clause 104 – Traffic generation developments

The application is subject to clause 104 as the proposal triggers the requirements for traffic generating developments listed in Schedule 3 of the ISEPP. The original application was assessed under the provision of this clause and was considered satisfactory subject to conditions imposed. The proposed modification does not alter the outcome of the original assessment.

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

Tree removal on site has been approved in the original assessment. The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

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

N/A

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2013

The provision of the Holroyd LEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Holroyd LEP 2013 and the objectives of the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘shop top housing’ and is permissible in the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zone with consent. The proposed modification will continue the use of the development as approved being a shop top housing.

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd LEP 2013 and 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.

(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))

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

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was not required to be publicly notified.

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

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

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

 

Additional monetary contribution for the additional commercial floor area has been imposed as a condition of consent under MOD2020/0085 approval.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development as modified is appropriately located within the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zone under the relevant provisions of the Holroyd LEP 2013. Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council is satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. It is considered that the proposal minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

Report Recommendation: That Modification Application No. MOD2020/0200 for Section 4.55(1A) application to delete condition 194 relating to the substation location and internal reconfiguration of car parking spaces on land at 1 Robilliard Street, Mays Hill NSW 2145 be approved subject to attached conditions.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Endeavour Energy Letter of Approval Substation  

4.      Previous Development Consents  

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

6.      Appendix B - Holroyd LEP 2013  

7.      Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

Endeavour Energy Letter of Approval Substation

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Previous Development Consents

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

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

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Appendix B - Holroyd LEP 2013

 12 August 2020

 

 

Attachment 7

Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 12 August 2020

 

Item No: LPP042/20

Development Application for 1 Ostend Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/0504  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2019/0504 was received on the 19 December 2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of 12 rooms and at-grade car parking.

2.      The development application was notified between Tuesday 10 March and Tuesday 7 April 2020. In response, there were 44 submissions to the development including two petitions containing 18 and 78 signatures respectively.

3.      The variations to the development are:-

 

 

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

5.      The development application is referred to the Panel for determination as the development is considered to be contentious.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is legally described as Lot 161 in DP 8683 and is known as 1 Ostend Street Lidcombe. The site has two street frontages with Nicholas Street to the south and Ostend Street to the east. The area of the site is calculated at approximately 613.18 square metres.

The levels of the land are:

·        North east corner - 17.06 metres AHD.

·        North west corner - 16.2 metres AHD.

·        South east corner - 16.21 metres AHD.

·        South west corner - 15.11 metres AHD.

 

This provides a fall to the rear of between 860 mm and 1,100 mm with the lowest level being at the rear south west corner.

A single storey dwelling house with an attached awning and an outbuilding is situated on the site. There is a large liquid amber tree situated at the rear of the site which will require removal to facilitate the development.

The site is not affected by flooding or overland flow and there are no heritage listed items situated close to the site.

The site is within a residential area of Lidcombe with single storey and two storey dwelling houses predominating.

A public park and playing fields is situated on land on the southern side of Nicholas Street which is land zoned as RE1 (Public Recreation). The land is known as Phillips Park which is managed by Council.

The location of the site is shown below.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos of the site are provided below.

 

 

 

 

 

Description of the Proposed Development

Development Application Number 2019/0504 is proposing the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of twelve rooms with at grade car parking for six (6) vehicles, on site landscaping and storm water engineering works. The development has the following components.

Demolition work

The existing dwelling house, awning and outbuilding will be demolished. In addition, a large liquid amber tree within the rear yard of the property will also be removed to facilitate the development.

Ground Floor

The ground floor of the building is provided with the following features:-

·        Five (5) boarding rooms, a common room and a corridor.

·        A car park for six (6) vehicles with vehicle access from Nicholas Street.

First floor

The first floor comprises of seven (7) boarding rooms including an internal corridor.

Total number of rooms

There are twelve (12) rooms in total with six (6) of the rooms being provided for single people and six (6) of the rooms being provided for couples. As such, this would provide short term accommodation for eighteen (18) boarders.

History

Following a pre lodgement meeting on November 7 2019 and the issue of pre lodgement notes on November 14 2019, the applicant lodged the development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of 12 rooms and at-grade car parking on December 19 2019 for determination.

The development application was notified for a period of twenty eight (28) days between Tuesday 10 March and Tuesday 7 April 2020. In response, there were 44 submissions to the development including two petitions containing 18 and 78 signatures respectively.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners and dated 16 December 2019.

 

 

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is generally satisfactory subject to conditions. Matters raised concerning the vehicle manoeuvring area for car space Number 6, stormwater drainage and driveway access shall be satisfied to subject to submission of amended plans to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Landscape

Council’s Tree Management Officer gave initial advice at the pre lodgement stage raising no objection to the removal of the tree being a Liquid Amber species. As such, no formal referral was required as part of the development application assessment process.

External Referrals

Auburn Area Police Command

The development application was referred to the Crime Prevention Officer for assessment. As per the comments of Thursday 25 June 2020, there are no objections to the development subject to conditions. Comments and conditions relevant to the development include the following:

·        Lighting.

·        Use of closed circuit television cameras on site.

·        Signage.

·        Landscaping.

·        Fire and safety measures.

·        House rules.

·        Site management.

Appropriate conditions addressing the relevant matters are to be incorporated into any consent that may be issued.

Energy Australia and Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to both Energy Australia and Endeavour Energy because there will be works within proximity to an overhead power line. Council officers did not receive any response from either energy provider since the referral was made on 18 February 2020. Given that more than 21 days have lapsed since the referral was made as per the requirements of Clause 45(1)(b)(iii) of State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007, it is concluded that there are no objections to the development that is sought.

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

The requirement at clause 7 of SEPP No. 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 (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

As specified above, the development application was referred to the relevant energy provider because there will be works within proximity to an overhead power line and as such, Clause 45(1)(b)(iii) of the State Policy will apply. Council officers did not receive any response from either energy provider since the referral was made on February 18 2020. Given that more than 21 days have lapsed since the referral was made as per the requirements of the clause, it is considered that there are no objections to the development that is sought.

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

The development application includes the removal of a liquid amber tree within the rear yard of the property. The removal of the tree is acceptable as it is not a native species and not a tree worthy of retention.

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

The BASIX Certificate shows that the development achieves a score of 40 and 50 for water and energy which is a pass mark for both components. Generally, the BASIX Certificate is satisfactory for approval. The assessment of the certificate is at Appendix (A) attached to the report.

(e)     State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009

The relevant objectives and provisions of the ARHSEPP 2009 has been considered in the assessment of the development application and the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the boarding house provisions under Division 3 of the plan. It is identified that the development site is not within an accessible area as defined by the State Environmental Policy. In this regard, the site is located 1.05 km from the Lidcombe Railway Station (Direct) or 1.36 km by road taking the shortest distance and the site is within zone R2 Low Density Residential.

Under Clause 27 of the State Policy, Clause 29, 30 and 30A do not apply to developments on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area. As such, Council’s local planning controls will apply. A comprehensive assessment has been undertaken and is provided in the compliance table below.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

The site is located within the area within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as to consistency with the requirements and objectives of the policy or the associated Development Control Plan.

Local Environmental Plans

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development site. It is identified that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. 

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a boarding house which is permitted with consent within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment is attached at Appendix C.

(b)     Clause 4.6 Variation to a development standard

A Clause 4.6 variation is not required for the development that is proposed.

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

(a)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City 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 current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the ALEP 2010, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy Chapter) is relevant to the development application. However, there are no specific provisions addressing boarding houses. The relevant provisions can be used to guide the assessment of the development but generally, a merit assessment will need to be made where appropriate. A comprehensive assessment is provided at Appendix C attached to the report.

The following table highlights the variations identified which relates primarily to site coverage and deep soil zones.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 2.2 (Subpart D1) and Part 3.2 (Subpart D1 and D2) relating to site coverage and deep soil zone. The three are connected and the cause of the variations are related to the need to provide a car park on site to service a boarding house.

Should there be no car park, the applicant would be able to comply with all three provisions. In terms of the variations, the following is relevant to the application:-

·        An onsite car park is required to support the development which forms part of the servicing of the site. This essential requirement along with manoeuvring areas will consume crucial land area. As such, it is not feasible to meet the 65% site coverage requirement or the provisions under Part 3.2.

·        The development takes the form of a two storey dwelling house with the building being consistent with the streetscape setting.

·        The front setback and much of the southern site setback comprises landscaping and deep soil zone which is consistent with the streetscape.

·        A basement car park could be constructed on site however vehicle access to such a structure would be limited to the rear western portion of the property. This would isolate a portion of the site and would not be an efficient use of the land. As such, this has not been pursued.

Notwithstanding the above, it is identified that it is possible to reduce two of the variations to more acceptable levels. In this regard, a small area 1.4 metres wide along the northern side of the property between the building and fence line is identified as being unused space. It would be possible to provide a pebble type finish along this area which would reduce site coverage by 23.5 square metres and result in the following:-

·        Reducing the site coverage variation under Part 2.2 (Subpart D1) to 442 square metres or 72% (Down from 466 square metres or 76%).

·        Increasing the amount of deep soil zone on site (Must be 900 mm wide) under Part 3.2 (Subpart D1) from 23.7% to 27.5% being an increase to 169 square metres.

An appropriate condition is included in the condition set for amended plans to be provided to Principal Certifying Authority for final approval.

 

Parking and Loading

It is identified by Council’s Development Engineers that a change to car space Number 6 will be required to improve the manoeuvring area for that space. Council’s Development Engineers are of the opinion that this is capable of being addressed by amending the gradient of the driveway so that the gradient of the driveway is consistent with the gradient of the car space.

Council Development Engineers have provided appropriate conditions addressing the car park layout and manoeuvring areas.

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 other than what has been discussed within the locality.

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

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

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

Advertised (newspaper)              Mail              Sign                Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010, the development application was notified for a continuous period of twenty eight (28) days between Tuesday 10 March and Tuesday 7 April 2020. In response, there were 44 unique submissions to the development including two petitions containing 18 and 78 signatures respectively. The submissions and objections are addressed below.

A - Permissibility and relationship to the locality

B - Traffic and Parking issues

Issues	Planners Comment
1.      There have been multiple accidents on corner of Ostend Street and Nicholas Street including one where a pedestrian was hit by a vehicle.	There is no evidence available to suggest that the development will contribute to an increase in vehicle accidents at the street corner.
2.      The streets are congested with vehicles and there is nowhere to park a car. Further, the site is too close to Parramatta Road, the M4 Motorway which intensifies traffic congestion.   There will be too many cars coming in and out of the development making it dangerous for residents. The street will become congested and there is inadequate car parking provided for the development.	The site provides for the required number of car parking spaces to service the development. Further, the site is situated at least 600 metres from Parramatta Road and the M4 Motorway and thus traffic congestion and or noise from Parramatta Road or the M4 is not an issue for this development.
3.      The motorcycle parking area is too close to the fence that will cause noise pollution. Further, the three bike parking bays within the front yard are not suitably located. The bikes could be stolen.	There are two motorcycle parking bays at the south west corner of the site adjacent to the vehicle entry point. The dwelling house at 2 Mons Street is provided with a freestanding garage adjacent to its eastern boundary which will buffer any noise being generated from a motor bike to the dwelling house on that site. Further, there is a third space situated along the northern boundary of the site. The location of the space is considered to be satisfactory. Given the location of the motorcycle parking bays, noise pollution from any occasional use of a motorcycle within the site would not be an issue and would be no different from that used from a typical residential dwelling house. The bikes bays are considered to be satisfactory. There is no evidence to suggest that theft will be an issue for the site.
4.      Cars will need to reverse out of the site onto the road which would be dangerous and the car space closest to the southern fence is difficult to get into. The car park does not comply with the Australian Standards including, any disability car space and the position of car space Number 1.	Councils Development Engineer has reviewed the car park layout plans and has determined that vehicles can be turned around on and within the site and then leave in forward motion. Notwithstanding this, Car space Number 6 (closest to the fence) is required to be modified to address a manoeuvring issue. It is determined that the car space is capable of being modified without significant changes to the site configuration. There is a requirement to address the levels of the driveway to ensure the levels are consistent with the car space. Generally, car parking is satisfactory for the site. As the outcome is known, this may be achieved as condition of consent. The remaining car parking spaces have been assessed by Council Development Engineers as being satisfactory. Council Development Engineers have provided appropriate advice and conditions concerning the car park layout and the changes that are required.
5.      The irregular bus service is not suitable for the lodgers of the boarding house. The site does not meet the day to day needs as required by the State Government for affordable rental housing for public transport services.	The location of the site relative to the Lidcombe Railway Station and town centre is noted. As stated earlier within the report, Clause 29, 30 and 30A of State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing will not apply to the development due to how Clause 27 of the same State Policy is written. As such, Council controls will apply to the development. As assessment of the development application using the relevant controls identifies that the development is suitable for the site and an adequate provision of services is provided or capable of being provided for the site.
6.      Police have been called out to the area on multiple occasions due to people drag racing cars	This is not related to the development and not a reason to refuse the development application.

C - Social issues

Issues	Planners Comment
1.      The number of people staying within the boarding house will increase and there will be increases in anti-social behaviour such as noise issues. This will disrupt the residents.	A plan of management is incorporated into the development application that addresses anti-social behaviour. The Plan of Management has been reviewed by Auburn Police Area Command. As per the comments of Thursday 25 June 2020, no objections are raised. A number of conditions are recommended where relevant addressing crime and safety matters. Additionally, the plan of management would need to be incorporated into any consent issued.
2.      The development will cause hygiene and disease issues because people will be preparing food together. It will be difficult to stop diseases. Additionally, the threat of COVID 19 spreading must not be overlooked. It is unwise to construct a boarding house because the Government has instilled self-isolation rules. Residents will add to bio hazards and spread the virus.	This is not relevant to the assessment of the development application and there is no evidence available to suggest that the boarding house will contribute to diseases.
3.      The nearby park must be protected from boarding house developments. There must be no boarding houses close to Phillips Park.	The development is permitted within consent within the R2 low density residential zone. It is identified that the development is consistent with the locality and may be supported subject to conditions.
4.      It is not safe for the living room to be at the rear of the development. The common room should be at the front for surveillance to the street.	The development is considered to be acceptable with respect to crime and safety. There are four rooms facing Ostend Street and the development is presented towards Ostend Street. There are no safety issues arising from the location of the common room.
5.      There is no boarding house manager to resolve disputes and to manage the building at night. As such, there are no checks on the development including cleanliness, numbers in each room, rubbish and noise. There will be fights and I will not be able to sleep at night due to the fights. Occupants may threaten local residents.  Boarding house resident’s act irrationally and many use drugs and illegal substances. Further, the development will house those released from jail.	Given the size of the development, a boarding house manager is not required. A plan of management will be in place to ensure disputes are addressed and daily matters of cleanliness, numbers, rubbish control and noise are controlled. The plan of management will include afterhour’s contacts and procedures for addressing any urgent issues. There is no evidence available to suggest that fights will occur between residents and occupants. There is no evidence to show the type of people being referred to will be living within the boarding house. Furthermore, a management plan is to be in place that will address any anti-social behaviour.
6.      The development will result in 48 boarders in both boarding houses at any given time which will be disruptive to the residents.	There is no evidence to show that the development will be housing 48 boarders. The development will have eighteen (18) boarders with the development at 3 Ostend Street having a maximum of eighteen (18) boarders for a total of thirty six (36) boarders.
7.      The development will reduce property values within the street.	This is not a relevant matter to consider as part of the assessment process and there is no evidence to support the claim.
8.      The kitchenette and bathrooms do not have windows to allow for natural light and ventilation. This will create issues of depression, lack of appetite and claustrophobia.	The applicant will be required to comply with the National Construction Codes 2019 (Building Code of Australia) in relation to light and ventilation of the bathrooms and kitchens. This may be addressed as a condition attached to any consent issued.
9.      There will be significant impacts onto the demographics of the area because the lodgers are transitional people who do not assimilate easily. The residents do not have families with children and will not integrate into society. The development will have a significant impact to the population density and stability of the street. The development is inappropriate within area where families reside and where neighbours know and care for one another. People have a sense of belonging to the area having been born within the area.	It is considered that the development will not adversely impact onto the stability of the local street. The development is permissible within the area and while certain alterations are required to the plans, it is considered that the development is capable of coexisting within the street without significant adverse impact.
10.    The outdoor clothes drying area is in shadow.	As the property has a north west to south east axis, the clothesline will be receiving sunlight during the afternoons for most of the year. Due to its position and the angle of the allotment, the clothes line is not in complete shadow year round.
11.    A boarding house would be counterproductive to the cultural heritage of the Lidcombe area.	There are no impediments to the approval of a boarding house within the Lidcombe area based on existing local cultural heritage provisions. There are no local heritage issues to address. Furthermore, the local planning instruments that apply to the site do not identify any cultural heritage feature within the locality to address.
12.    The threat of illegal dumping will be too great for the area including Nicholas Street and Phillips Park.	Each room will be furnished implying that illegal dumping will not be occurring.
13.    Fire safety, health regulations have not been addressed and there is no mention of a community kitchen, laundry.	The applicant has submitted documents addressing the National Construction Codes 2019 (Building Code of Australia) requirements, fire safety and a Boarding House Management Plan. Furthermore: ·    Each room has its own kitchenette and toilet facility. ·    A laundry is provided at the rear of the building facing the car park.
14.    Long term residents have an expectation of the streets to be low density and oriented to families. Migrants have settled into this area during the 1950s, who have enjoyed a peaceful existence. A boarding house in this area is not conducive to this family oriented area	This is noted but not a means for refusal of the development application. The development is assessed as being satisfactory for the locality.

D - Landscaping Issues

Issues	Planners Comment
1.      There is significant use of concrete and hard surfaces and very little landscaping left.	Council does not have any specific controls addressing boarding houses. Notwithstanding this, it is identified that when applying certain controls of the Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan such as site coverage and deep soil zones being Parts 2.2 and 3.2, variations are identified. As specified within the assessment report two of the variations are capable of being reduced. The reduction may be addressed as a by condition of consent.
2.      The outdoor open space is too small for a dwelling house. The private open space should have a minimum area of 50 square metres.	Clause 29(2)(d)(i) of State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009 requires the private open space area to be at least 20 square metres in size. While the clause cannot be applied, it is identified that if the provision was used to assess the private open space area, it would comply with the stated provision. In this regard, the private open space has an area of 21.5 square metres and considered to be adequate in terms of dimensions and useability.
3.      The tree in the rear yard should be retained to comply with the Auburn Development Control Plan Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy provisions - 3.0 and 3.5 (Protection of Existing Trees).	This is a Liquid Amber tree which is a deciduous species. It is not a native species to the area and while mature, Councils Tree Management Officer has previously advised as part of the pre lodgement application that the tree may be removed given its age. There are no objections to the removal of the tree.

E – Privacy

Issues	Planners Comment
1.      Removing the 70 year old tree at the rear of 1 Ostend Street would have an impact on privacy for 2 Mons Street. The windows on the top floor are looking into the neighbour’s property including the dwelling house at 2 Mons Street.	There are no significant privacy issues to address as suggested within the submission. There is one first storey window and room facing west that is setback 12 metres from the western boundary fence. There are two windows facing north with both windows incorporating screening devices. The number of windows is no different to that of a two storey dwelling house and the development takes the form of a two storey dwelling house to be consistent with the streetscape. The applicant is proposing a boarding house to the north at 3 Ostend Street. While there are windows of that development facing south, it is identified that opposing windows are setback 4.8 metres from one another and windows are to be fitted with screening devices. It is considered that a privacy issue as identified within the submission is not supported.
2.      I need to use the spa bath in my rear yard. The removal of the tree will impact on my privacy to use my spa bath.	A boarding house at 1 Ostend Street will have no impact onto nearby residents in terms of overlooking. The degree of privacy between residents is assessed as being satisfactory.

F - Stormwater Drainage

Issue	Planners Comment
The development will create plumbing issues including blocked drains.	Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the stormwater drainage plan as being satisfactory subject to conditions.

G - Standard of application

Issue	Planners comment
Council must undertake an independent survey of the site in terms of traffic and crime as many of the applicant’s result are disputed. Council must request the RMS be sought to undertake a traffic survey and Police records must be sought on crime in the area.	The quality of the information provided in the development application is satisfactory and appropriate for suitable assessment. There is no requirement to refer the matter to Roads and Maritime Services and the application has been referred to Police for comment and no objections are raised.

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

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

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

The development requires the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 7.11 Contributions Plans. A figure of $31,231.70 is calculated for the twelve boarding rooms to be constructed. The figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following planning instruments:-

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 55 “Remediation of Land”.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Building Sustainability Index BASIX” 2004.

·        State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009.

·        Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

·        Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 “Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy” 2010.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposal is generally consistent with all the statutory controls and most of the non statutory controls applying to the land. 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 Number 2019/0504 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising 12 rooms and at-grade car parking on land at 1 Ostend Street Lidcombe be approved subject to attached conditions. 2.        Persons who have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Appendix A (BASIX Assessment)  

3.      Appendix B (Auburn Local Environment Plan 2010)  

4.      Appendix C (Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy)  

5.      Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams  

6.      Stormwater Plans  

7.      Landscape Plan  

8.      Submissions Received  

9.      Petitions Received  

10.    Plan of Management   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Appendix A (BASIX Assessment)

 12 August 2020

 

Attachment 3

Appendix B (Auburn Local Environment Plan 2010)

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Appendix C (Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy)

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 5

Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 6

Stormwater Plans

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

Attachment 7

Landscape Plan

 12 August 2020

Attachment 8

Submissions Received

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 9

Petitions Received

 12 August 2020

Attachment 10

Plan of Management

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 12 August 2020

 

Item No: LPP043/20

Development Appliaction for 3 Ostend Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2019/0502  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2019/0502 was received on the 19 December 2019 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of 12 rooms and at-grade car parking.

2.      The development application was notified between Tuesday 10 March and Tuesday 7 April 2020. In response, there were 54 submissions to the development including one petition containing 19 signatures.

3.      The applicant modified the development on June 4 2020 to address certain issues concerning the car park raised by Council’s engineers.

4.      The variations to the development are:

 

5.      The development application is recommended for deferred commencement consent subject to the conditions as provided in the attached schedule.

6.      The development application is referred to the Panel for determination as the development is considered to be contentious.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is legally described as Lot 160 in DP 8683 and is known as 3 Ostend Street Lidcombe. The site has a frontage of 15.24 metres to Ostend Street, is 40.235 metres deep and occupies an area of 613.4 square metres.

The site is situated one allotment north of the intersection of Ostend Street with Nicholas Street.

The levels of the land are:-

•        North east corner - 17.95 metres AHD.

•        North west corner - 16.87 metres AHD.

•        South east corner - 17.06 metres AHD.

•        South west corner - 16.2 metres AHD.

This provides a fall to the rear of between 860 mm and 1,080 mm with the lowest level being at the rear south west corner.

A single storey dwelling house and a small tree is situated on the site.

The site is not affected by flooding or overland flow and there are no heritage listed items close to the site.

The site is within a residential area of Lidcombe where single storey and two storey dwelling houses predominating.

A public park and playing fields is situated close by on land situated on the southern side of Nicholas Street which is land zoned as RE1 (Public Recreation). The land is known as Phillips Park which is managed by Council.

The location of the site is shown below.

Photos of the site are provided below.

Description of the Proposed Development

Development Application Number 2019/0502 is proposing the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of eleven rooms with at grade car parking for five (5) vehicles, on site landscaping and storm water engineering works. The development has the following components.

Demolition work

The existing dwelling house on site will be demolished. The plans are showing a tree at the rear and two palm trees at the front being removed to facilitate the development.

Ground Floor

The ground floor of the building is provided with the following features:-

·        A ground floor comprising of three (3) boarding rooms, a common room and a corridor.

·        A car park for five (5) vehicles with vehicle access from Ostend Street and a turning bay to allow for vehicles to be turned around and leave in forward motion.

First floor

The first floor comprises of seven (7) boarding rooms including an internal corridor.

A cantilevered section is provided at the rear which requires two columns for support.

Room numbered 04 facing the front is provided with a balcony overlooking the street.

Total number of rooms

There are ten (10) rooms in total with two (2) of the rooms being provided for single people and eight (8) of the rooms being provided for couples. As such, this would provide short term accommodation for eighteen (18) boarders.

History

Following a pre lodgement meeting on 7 November 2019 and the issue of pre lodgement notes on 14 November 2019, the applicant lodged the development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house comprising of 12 rooms and at-grade car parking on 19 December 2019 for determination.

The development application was notified for a period of twenty eight (28) days between 10 March and 7 April 2020. In response, there were 54 unique submissions to the development including one petition containing 19 signatures.

The applicant modified the development on 4 June 2020 to improve the functionality of the car park and to address certain car park and manoeuvring issues raised by Council engineers.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners and dated 16 December 2019.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is generally satisfactory subject to conditions. Deferred commencement consent is recommended as matters concerning a rear easement is required to be addressed.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Landscape

As part of the pre lodgement application, Councils Tree Management Officer provided advice concerning the removal of any tree on site. No objections are raised to the removal of trees being a Camphor Laurel and three palm trees. The development application did not require referral to Council’s Tree Management.

External Referrals

Auburn Area Police Command

The development application was referred to the Crime Prevention Officer for assessment. In this regard, the Auburn Area Police Command provided comments on March 20 2020 that addresses the following matters.

·    Lighting.

·    Use of Closed circuit television cameras on site.

·    Signage.

·    Landscaping.

·    Fire and safety measures.

·    House rules.

·    Site management.

Appropriate conditions addressing the relevant matters are to be incorporated into any consent that may be issued.

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

The requirement at clause 7 of SEPP No. 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 (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application however, it is determined that there are no provisions that will need to apply to the development.

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

The development application includes the removal of a Camphor Laurel tree within the rear yard plus another small tree / shrub and two palm trees at the front of the site. The removal of the stated trees are acceptable and no detailed Arborist assessment is required.

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

The BASIX Certificate shows that the development achieves a score of 40 and 51 for water and energy which is a pass mark for both components. Generally, the BASIX Certificate is satisfactory for approval as part of any development consent that is issued.

The assessment of the certificate is at Appendix (A) attached to the report.

(e)     State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing”

The relevant objectives and provisions of the ARHSEPP 2009 have been considered in the assessment of the development application and the proposal is considered as being consistent with the boarding house provisions under Division 3 of the plan. It is identified that the development site is not within an accessible area as defined by the State Environmental Policy. In this regard, the site is located 1.06 km from the Lidcombe Railway Station (Direct) or 1.37 km by road taking the shortest distance and the site is within zone R2 Low Density Residential.

Under Clause 27 of the State Policy, Clause 29, 30 and 30A do not apply to developments on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area. As such, Council’s local planning controls will apply. A comprehensive assessment has been undertaken and is provided in the compliance table below.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

The site is located within the area within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 is applicable to the development application. The development application raises no issues as to consistency with the requirements and objectives of the policy or the associated Development Control Plan.

Local Environmental Plans

The Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development site. It is identified that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. 

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a boarding house which is permitted with consent within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The relevant matters to be considered under the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 are summarised below. A comprehensive assessment is attached at Appendix C.

 

 

 

(b)     Clause 4.6 Variation to a development standard

A Clause 4.6 variation is not required for the development that is proposed.

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

(a)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 (Draft CLEP) has been prepared by Cumberland City 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 current planning controls for the subject site, as contained within the ALEP 2010, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

Auburn Development Control Plan 2010

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy Chapter) is relevant to the development application. However, there are no specific provisions addressing boarding houses. The relevant provisions can be used to guide the assessment of the development but generally, a merit assessment will need to be made where appropriate. A comprehensive assessment is provided at Appendix D attached to the report.

The following table highlights the variations identified which relates primarily to site coverage and deep soil zones.

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from Part 2.2 (Subpart D1) and Part 3.2 (Subpart D1 and D2) relating to site coverage and deep soil zone. The three are connected and the cause of the variations are related to the need to provide a car park on site to service a boarding house.

Should there be no car park, the applicant would be able to comply with all three provisions. In terms of the variations, the following is relevant to the application:-

·        An onsite car park is required to support the development which forms part of the servicing of the site. This essential requirement along with manoeuvring areas will consume crucial land area. As such, it is not feasible to meet the 65% site coverage requirement or the provisions under Part 3.2.

·        The development takes the form of a two storey dwelling house with the building being consistent with the streetscape setting.

·        The front setback area comprises landscaping and deep soil zone which is consistent with the streetscape.

Notwithstanding the above, it is identified that it is possible to reduce two of the variations to more acceptable levels. In this regard, a small area 1 metre wide along the northern side of the property between the building and fence line is identified as being unused space. It would be possible to provide a pebble type finish along this area which would reduce site coverage by 12 square metres and result in the following:

·        Reducing the site coverage variation under Part 2.2 (Subpart D1) to 523 square metres or 85.2% (Down from 534.8 square metres or 87.2%).

·        Increasing the amount of deep soil zone on site (Must be 900 mm wide) under Part 3.2 (Subpart D1) from 13.5% to 15.4% being an increase of 12 square metres.

An appropriate condition is included in the condition set for amended plans to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for final approval.

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 other than what has been discussed within 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))

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan, the development application was notified for a continuous period of twenty eight (28) days between 10 March and 7 April 2020. In response, there were 54 unique submissions to the development including one petition containing 19 signatures respectively. The submissions and objections are addressed below.

Further to the above, the applicant modified the development on 4 June 2020 to address a rear car park issue related to vehicle manoeuvrability. To address this, two rooms on the ground floor were removed. As such, the intensity of use was reduced which in turn has a reduced impact to the adjoining area.

A - Permissibility and relationship to the locality

 

B - Traffic and Parking issues

 

Issues	Planners Comment
1.There have been multiple accidents on corner of Ostend Street and Nicholas Street including one where a pedestrian was hit by a vehicle.	There is no evidence available to suggest that the development will contribute to an increase in vehicle accidents at the street corner.
2. The streets are congested with vehicles and there is nowhere to park a car. Further, the site is too close to Parramatta Road, the M4 Motorway which intensifies traffic congestion. There will be too many cars coming in and out of the development making it dangerous for residents. The street will become congested and there is inadequate car parking provided for the development.	The site provides for the required number of car parking spaces to service the development. Further, the site is situated at least 600 metres from Parramatta Road and the M4 Motorway and thus traffic congestion and or noise from Parramatta Road or the M4 is not an issue for this development.
3. The motorcycle parking area is too close to the fence that will cause noise pollution.	There is a motorbike parking bay situated at the north west corner of the site which is within an area furthest from dwelling houses. Given the location of the motorcycle parking bays, noise pollution from any occasional use of a motorcycle within the site would not present as a significant issues and would be no different from that used from a typical residential dwelling house.
4. The waiting bay at the front of the site is problematic and there are issues with vehicle turning within the site. Vehicles cannot enter and leave in forward direction. Vehicles entering car space Number 1 will clip the corner of the building causing the building to rock off its foundation.	The applicant has modified the ground floor which improves vehicle manoeuvrability within the site. Given a reduction in the initial intensity of use, the issues raised by the objector are valid, however, the matters have been addressed. The car park layout is satisfactory by Council’s Development Engineers.
5. There is no traffic and parking impact assessment report for the proposed development.	A detailed traffic assessment has been prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning (Ref-19-194-2) and dated December 2019 and submitted with the development application. The report addresses traffic issues for the site and surrounds in a satisfactory manner.
6. There is inadequate car parking for the development for 19 residents living on site. People will need to park their cars on the street which will limit car parking for other residents. This will create traffic congestion which in turn will lead to another serious accident.	The development provides for adequate car parking to service the development and the car park layout is satisfactory. The development is provided with an adequate level of servicing for the boarders. Even with two boarding houses side by side, there is no evidence to suggest that traffic conditions at the corner will deteriorate to such a level that will result in the traffic congestion and parking congestion envisaged by the writer. The locality is not afflicted with high level of traffic congestion.
7. The location of the bike parking rack is unsuitable and bikes will be stolen.	The proposed bikes bays are to be situated within the rear yard of the site close to the north west corner. There is no evidence to suggest that theft will be an issue for the site.
8. The irregular bus service is not suitable for the lodgers of the boarding house and the site is not within an accessible area for public transport. The site does not meet the day to day needs as required by the State Government for affordable rental housing for public transport services.	The location of the site relative to the Lidcombe Railway Station and town centre is noted. As stated earlier within the report, Clause 29, 30 and 30A of State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing will not apply to the development due to how Clause 27 of the same State Policy is written. As such, Council controls will apply to the development. As assessment of the development application using the relevant controls identifies that the development is suitable for the site and an adequate provision of services is provided or capable of being provided for the site.
9. Motorbikes will need to be driven across a car spot for disabled people which will be dangerous.	As part of the modification undertaken to the car park, access to the motor bike parking area is improved. The position of the motor bike parking bay and means of access is satisfactory.

C - Social issues

 

Issues	Planners comment
1.The number of people staying within the boarding house will increase and there will be increases in anti-social behaviour such as noise. The noise from people and vehicles will disrupt the residents. The development will result in an increase in noise from the community gathering area which is located against our fence.	A Plan of Management is incorporated into the development application that addresses anti-social behaviour. A plan of management would need to be incorporated into any consent issued. An acoustic report has been prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics (Dated 16/12/2019) and submitted with the development application. The report addresses noise emissions in a satisfactory manner and makes suitable recommendations for reducing noise impacts within the development site. A community gathering area is not proposed. The development features an internal common room and a common outdoor area along the northern side of the site. There is no evidence to suggest that the areas will be subjected to gatherings which in turn will generate noise for local residents.
2. The development will cause hygiene and disease issues because people will be preparing food together. It will be difficult to stop diseases. Additionally, the threat of COVID 19 spreading must not be overlooked. It is unwise to construct a boarding house because the Government has instilled self-isolation rules. Residents will add to bio hazards and spread the virus. There is talk circulating that boarding houses will be closed due to COVID 19 and approval of another boarding house is futile.	This is not relevant to the assessment of the development application and there is no evidence available to suggest that the boarding house will contribute to diseases. Council officers have not received any instruction that suggests that boarding houses will be closed and or approval of boarding houses must discontinue.
3. The nearby park must be protected from boarding house developments. There must be no boarding houses close to Phillips Park because the park is precious and sensitive to the community and local schools.	The development is permitted within consent within the R2 low density residential zone. It is identified that the development is consistent with the locality and may be supported subject to conditions.
4.  - It is not safe for the living room to be at the rear of the development. The common room should be at the front for surveillance to the street.	The development is considered to be acceptable with respect to crime and safety. There are four rooms facing Ostend Street and the development is presented towards Ostend Street. The balcony of Room Number 04 is presented towards Ostend Street to promote a sense of address. There are no safety issues arising from the location of the common room.
5. There is no boarding house manager to resolve disputes and to manage the building at night. As such, there are no checks on the development including cleanliness, numbers in each room, rubbish and noise. There will be fights and I will not be able to sleep at night due to the fights. Occupants may threaten local residents.    Boarding house resident’s act irrationally and many use drugs and illegal substances. Further, the development will house those released from jail.	Given the size of the development, a boarding house manager is not required. A Plan of Management will be in place to ensure disputes are addressed and daily matters of cleanliness, numbers, rubbish control and noise are controlled. The Plan of Management will include afterhours contacts and procedures for addressing any urgent issues (Page 11).   There is no evidence available to suggest that fights will occur between residents and occupants. There is no evidence to show the type of people being referred to will be living within the boarding house. Furthermore, a management plan is to be in place that will address any anti-social behaviour.
6. There is a high chance that residence living within the boarding house will sublet non-residents to share with them the rooms to reduce their own costs. This will increase crime around the neighbourhood.	A Plan of Management is to be approved to prevent such activities from occurring.
7. The development will result in 48 boarders in both boarding houses at any given time which will be disruptive to the residents.	There is no evidence to show that the development will be housing 48 boarders. The development is proposed to have a maximum of eighteen (18) boarders with the proposed development at 1 Ostend Street to have a maximum of eighteen (18) boarders for a total of thirty six (36) boarders.
8. The development will reduce property values within the street.	This is not a relevant matter to consider as part of the assessment process and there is no evidence to support the claim.
9. The kitchenette and bathrooms do not have windows to allow for natural light and ventilation. This will create issues of depression, lack of appetite and claustrophobia.	The applicant will be required to comply with the National Construction Codes 2019 (Building Code of Australia) in relation to light and ventilation of the bathrooms and kitchens. This may be addressed as a condition attached to any consent issued.
10. There will be significant impacts onto the demographics of the area because the lodgers are transitional people who do not assimilate easily. The residents do not have families with children and will not integrate into society.   The development will have a significant impact to the population density and stability of the street. The development is inappropriate within area where families reside and where neighbours know and care for one another. People have a sense of belonging to the area having been born within the area.	It is considered that the development will not adversely impact onto the stability of the local street. The development is permissible within the area and while certain alterations are required to the plans, it is considered that the development is capable of coexisting within the street without significant adverse impact.
11. The outdoor clothes drying area is in shadow.	The clothesline is shown adjacent to the northern fence boundary of the site. Given its height above the ground level, it will along with clothes drying on the rack will receive sunlight for much of the year.
12. A boarding house would be counter productive to the cultural heritage of the Lidcombe area and the people who settled the suburb after World War 2..	There are no impediments to the approval of a boarding house within the Lidcombe area based on existing local cultural heritage provisions. There are no local heritage issues to address. Furthermore, the local planning instruments that apply to the site do not identify any cultural heritage feature within the locality to address.
13. The threat of illegal dumping will be too great for the area including Nicholas Street and Phillips Park.	Each room will be furnished implying that illegal dumping will not be occurring.
14. Fire safety, health regulations have not been addressed and there is no mention of a community kitchen, laundry.	The applicant has submitted documents addressing the National Construction Codes 2019 (Building Code of Australia) requirements, fire safety and a Boarding House Management Plan. Furthermore:- •        Each room has its own kitchenette and toilet facility. •        A laundry is provided at the rear of the building.
15. The garbage bin store is too close to the fence and its location will cause odours to Number 5 Ostend Street.	The garbage bins will be enclosed within a storeroom. Further, its location is considered to be satisfactory given its position furthest from dwelling houses within the locality.
16. Senior residents cannot live in the boarding house so there is no need for such a development. I am too old to live next to a boarding house and there is no need for one next to me or within the area.	A boarding house is being established for occupants who require short term accommodation as a place to live. There are no impediments to the establishment of a boarding house on site based upon the objection. The age of the adjoining residents is noted but is not a means for refusal of such an application.
17. Long term residents have an expectation of the streets to be low density and oriented to families. Migrants have settled into this area during the 1950s, who have enjoyed a peaceful existence. A boarding house in this area is not conducive to this family oriented area.	This is noted but not a means for refusal of the development application. The development is assessed as being satisfactory for the locality.

D - Landscaping Issues

Issues	Planners Comment
1. There is significant use of concrete and hard surfaces and very little landscaping left.	Council does not have any specific controls addressing boarding houses. Notwithstanding this, it is identified that when applying certain controls of the Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan such as site coverage and deep soil zones being Parts 2.2 and 3.2, variations are identified. As specified within the assessment report two of the variations are capable of being reduced. The reduction may be addressed by condition of consent.
2. The outdoor open space is too small for a dwelling house. The private open space should have a minimum area of 50 square metres.	Clause 29(2)(d)(i) of State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009 requires the private open space area to be at least 20 square metres in size. While the clause cannot be applied, it is identified that if the provision was used to assess the private open space area, it would comply with the stated provision. In this regard, the private open space has an area of 37 square metres.

E – Privacy

 

Issues	Planners Comment
1. Removing the 70 year old tree at the rear of 3 Ostend Street would have an impact on privacy for 4 Mons Street. The windows on the top floor are looking into the neighbours property including the dwelling house at 2 Mons Street. There will be a loss of privacy due to upper floor windows facing onto bedroom, bathroom and dining room windows.	The tree being a Camphor Laurel is not considered to be a tree of any intrinsic value and such a tree is not native to the locality. There are no impediments to its removal. Further, there are no significant privacy issues to address as suggested following the removal of the tree to Number 2 Mons Street. There is one window facing north situated on the first storey and this window features louvred privacy screens to reduce the effect of overlooking onto Number 5 Ostend Street to the immediate north. Privacy levels to the west are also satisfactory. In this regard the two first storey windows facing west are situated 11 and 13.4 metres from the western boundary fence and the windows also feature privacy screens for additional privacy towards the west. There are two first storey windows facing south towards the proposed boarding house at Number 1 Ostend Street. The opposing north facing windows of that development (2 in total) are provided with privacy screens. Given the distance separation of 4.8 metres between the two developments, the use of privacy screens where appropriate and with windows of 1 and 3 Ostend Street being offset from one another where required, the degree of privacy towards the south is considered to be satisfactory.
2.  I need to use the spa bath in my rear yard. The removal of the tree will impact on my privacy to use my spa bath.	A boarding house at 3 Ostend Street will have no privacy impact onto adjoining residents in terms of the use of a spa bath within their rear yard. The degree of privacy between residents is assessed as being satisfactory.

F - Stormwater Drainage

Issues	Planners Comment
1. The development will create plumbing issues including blocked drains.	Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the stormwater drainage plan as being satisfactory subject to conditions.

G - Construction issues

Issues	Planners Comment
1.Demolition and construction work will result in dust and construction hazards especially for those with respiratory issues and heart problems.	Matters concerning demolition and construction are to be addressed as conditions attached to any consent issued.

H - Standard of application

Issues	Planners Comment
1.Council must undertake an independent survey of the site in terms of traffic and crime as many of the applicant’s result are disputed. Council must request the RMS be sought to undertake a traffic survey and Police records must be sought on crime in the area.	The quality of the information provided in the development application is satisfactory and appropriate for suitable assessment. There is no requirement to refer the matter to Roads and Maritime Services and the application has been referred to Police for comment and no objections are raised.

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

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

 

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 7.11 Contributions Plans. A figure of $24,624.50 is calculated for ten boarding rooms to be constructed. The figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. The draft determination attached includes a condition requiring payment of the contribution prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following planning instruments:-

·    State Environmental Planning Policy 55 “Remediation of Land”.

·    State Environmental Planning Policy “Infrastructure” 2007.

·    State Environmental Planning Policy “Building Sustainability Index BASIX” 2004.

·    State Environmental Planning Policy “Affordable Rental Housing” 2009.

·    Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

·    Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 “Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy” 2010.

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the provisions of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposal is generally  consistent with all the statutory controls and most of the non statutory controls applying to the land. 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 as a deferred commencement consent subject to conditions.

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Appendix A (BASIX Assessment)  

3.      Appendix B (Auburn Local Environment Plan 2010)  

4.      Appendix C (Detached Dwellings and Dual Occupancy)  

5.      Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams  

6.      Stormwater Plans  

7.      Landscape Plan  

8.      Plan of Management  

9.      Submissions Received  

10.    Petition Received   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 12 August 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

Appendix A (BASIX Assessment)

 12 August 2020

 

 

Attachment 3

Appendix B (Auburn Local Environment Plan 2010)

 12 August 2020