9 September 2020

An Electronic meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held via Zoom on Wednesday, 9 September 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

 

 9 September 2020

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

LPP045/20... Delegations for Modification Applications....................................................... 5

LPP046/20... Development Application for 95-97 Dahlia Street, Greystanes................. 31

LPP047/20... Development Application for 26 Mary Street, Auburn............................... 373

LPP048/20... Development Application for 3 & 5 Haig Street, Wentworthville............. 443

 

 9 September 2020

 

Item No: LPP045/20

Delegations for Modification Applications

Responsible Division:                    General Manager

Officer:                                              General Counsel

File Number:                                    2041456  

 

 

The purpose of this report is to:

(1)     Inform the Panel of delegations granted by Council following its consideration of the recent direction issued under s.9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of the power to determine applications to modify a development consent; and

(2)     Confirm arrangements for the control and direction of Land and Environment Court appeals arising from determinations of the Panel. 

Delegation to Determine Applications to Modify a Development Consent

On 5 September 2018, Council resolved to delegate to the General Manager the authority to determine, in the place of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel, s4.55(1), s.4.55(1A), s4.55(2) and s4.56 (2) modification applications, except where the modification involves (i) a variation to a development standard, or (ii) a substantial departure from the SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide, or (iii) a condition of consent that was specifically imposed by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (in addition to the draft conditions). Subsequent to Council’s resolution, communications between Council’s Executive Manager Development and Building and the Panel chair took place in relation to delegation for the determination of modification applications inclusive of the following table to set parameters for when staff had the ability to determine modification applications:

Council’s General Counsel has undertaken an overhaul of delegations under s.378 of the Local Government Act 1993 for all operating areas of the Council. Implementation of the new delegations, comprising some 100 operational and financial delegations and 760 statutory based delegations, will be overseen by Council’s Corporate Services team in the near future.

In relation to the power to determine modification applications and arrangements outlined above, General Counsel raised concern as to levels of uncertainty caused by (i) there being no need to make a clause 4.6 submission to vary a development standard in respect of modification applications and hence there is some ambiguity as to whether a development standard is being varied and (ii) there is a level of subjectivity and uncertainty as to what comprises a substantial departure from the SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide.

On 30 June 2020, the Minister for Planning and Public Places issued a new direction under s.9.1 of the Act in relation to powers to determine development applications and modification applications. A copy of the direction is at Attachment 1. As the Panel is likely aware, changes with respect to the power to determine development applications as compared to the earlier s.9.1 direction issued on 23 February 2018 were minor only, with the addition of a paragraph to explain what a unique submission is in the context of contentious development whereby the receipt of 10 or more unique submissions triggers consent authority functions for the Panel. Noting Council’s resolution of 20 November 2019 to rescind the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Policy and the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Procedure, and to continue to rely on the current provisions of the relevant Ministerial Directions for the operation of Local Planning Panels, no further consideration of the development application determination powers is necessary by the Council or the Panel.

The new s.9.1 direction, along with ambiguities of existing delegation arrangements and Council’s overall review of delegations made it timely to revisit delegations for modification applications and to set new, certain, parameters that are consistent with the Minister’s direction. Doing so will also assist reducing or eliminating prospective challenges to consents on a ground that the determining authority did not have delegation to determine the application.

In respect of applications to modify a consent, the direction prescribes that local planning panels are to determine applications under s.4.55(2) of the Act that:

·        propose amendments to a condition of development consent recommended in the council assessment report but which was amended by the panel, or

·        propose amendments to a condition of development consent that was not included in the council assessment report but which was added by the panel, or

·        meet the criteria for development applications set out in the schedules to the direction relating to conflict of interest, contentious development or departure from development standards.

The direction further notes that council should make arrangements for the determination of all other modification applications under s.4.55(2), as well as sections 4.55(1) and 4.55(1A) of the Act, by Council staff and that arrangements should also be made for the determination of applications under s.4.56 by either the local planning panel or council staff.

At its meeting on 5 August 2020, Council considered a report on delegations for the determination of modification applications (Attachment 2) and resolved as follows:

 

1.      Delegate power to the General Manager to determine all applications to modify a development consent under s.4.55(1) and s.4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2.      Note s.4.55(2) applications which must be determined by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel pursuant to the direction issued under s.9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces on 30 June 2020.

3.      Delegate power to the General Manager to determine all applications to modify a development consent under s.4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 other than those applications which must be determined by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel pursuant to the s.9.1 direction.

4.      Delegate power to the General Manager to determine all applications to modify a development consent under s.4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 other than those applications which would be determined by the Panel if the application was treated as a s.4.55(2) application, in which case the Panel is to be the consent authority.

5.      Note s.4.55(2) applications which must be determined by the Sydney Central City Planning Panel pursuant to clause 123BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and the Instruction on Functions Exercisable by Council on Behalf of Sydney District or Regional Planning Panels – Applications to Modify Development Consents published on the NSW planning portal on 30 June 2020.

No action or decision of the Panel is required in relation to the new delegations to determine modification applications. Council staff will ensure modification applications are referred to the Panel for determination in line with the Minister’s direction and the Council’s resolution.

Arrangements for Court Appeals Where the Panel Was the Consent Authority

Section 8.15(4) of the Act relevantly provides that if an appeal to the Land and Environment Court is filed against a determination or decision of a local planning panel, the Council for the area concerned is to be the respondent to the appeal but is subject to the control and direction of the Panel in connection with the conduct of the appeal. The section further provides that the council is to give notice of the appeal to the Panel.

Established arrangements between Council and the Panel chair are that:

·        Council will notify the Panel chair of the receipt of an appeal and afford an opportunity for any specific directions in respect of the appeal.

·        Failing specific directions, Council will not provide the Panel with a copy of the Statement of Facts and Contentions prior to filing, but contentions raised within the Statement will reflect the Panel’s determination of the application, including applicable grounds for refusal or conditions.

·        Pending the applicant proposing amendments to the development in an effort to overcome the contentions in the proceedings, officers of the Council can provide final instructions on whether or not to enter into a conciliated agreement or consent orders.

·        Subject to the above, as a general rule the Panel or its chair will not be approached for ongoing instructions, albeit the staff retain discretion to refer a matter to the Panel or its chair if they see fit.

·        Council will provide the panel, via an email to the Panel chair, with a precis of the outcome of conciliation conferences and judgments.

The above arrangements have served Council well in terms of the running of appeals and consequently it is not recommended that the substance of the arrangements be altered. However, as a matter of good governance, it is proposed that the arrangements be formalised by way of a delegation from the Panel.

The recommendation seeks to formalise delegations for the conduct of court appeals in respect of decisions of the Panel and for the Panel to note revised delegations to determine applications to modify a development consent.

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

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

There is no need to notify the outcome of this matter in a local newspaper or other publication.

 

Report Recommendation: 1)           The Panel note revised delegations to determine development applications arising from the s.9.1 direction made on 30 June 2020 and Council’s resolution of 5 August 2020, whereby: 1.1    Council staff have delegated authority to determine all applications under s.4.55(1) and s.4.55(1A). 1.2    The Local Planning Panel is the consent authority for applications under s.4.55(2) that involve any of the following: (a)     where the applicant or land owner are any of: (i)      the Council, (ii)     a Councillor, (iii)    a staff member principally involved in the exercise of functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, (iv)    a member of the Commonwealth or NSW parliament, (v)     the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the person of any person referred to in (ii), (iii) or (iv), (vi)    the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of a person who is a spouse or defacto partner of any person referred to in (ii), (iii) or (iv); (vii)   the spouse or defacto partner of any person referred to in (v) or (vi).           not being applications for any of the following: -        internal alterations and additions to a building that is not a heritage item; -        advertising signage; -        maintenance and restoration of a heritage item; or -        minor building structures projecting from the building facade over public land. (b)     where 10 or more unique objections were received. NB if more than one round of notification took place, the cumulative number of submissions from all rounds of notification are counted; (c)     a form of development that varies a provision of an environmental planning instrument that is a numerical development standard (irrespective that the variation does not require consideration under clause 4.6 of the Local Environmental Plan) by more than 10%; or (d)     a form of development that varies a provision of an environmental planning instrument that is a non-numerical development standard (irrespective that the variation does not require consideration under clause 4.6 of the Local Environmental Plan). 1.3    Council staff have delegated authority to determine all applications under s.4.55(2), other than those applications covered by 1.2 above. 1.4    Council staff have delegated power to determine all applications to modify a development consent under s.4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 other than those applications which would be determined by the Panel if the application was treated as a s.4.55(2) application, in which case the Panel is to be the consent authority. 2)           That pursuant to s.2.20(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), the Cumberland Local Planning Panel delegates to the General Manager, Director Environment and Planning, Executive Manager Development and Building, Coordinator Major Development Assessment and Coordinator Fast Track Development Assessment the power to provide day to day instructions and directions in respect of the conduct of appeals before the Land and Environment Court arising from determinations of the Panel including powers to determine whether or not to enter into a conciliated agreement or consent orders, noting procedures in place that: (a)     the Panel chair will be notified of the receipt of an appeal and afforded an opportunity to provide any specific directions in respect of the appeal; (b)     Failing specific directions, Council will not provide the Panel with a copy of the Statement of Facts and Contentions prior to filing, but contentions raised within the Statement will reflect the Panel’s determination of the application, including applicable grounds for refusal or conditions; (c)     as a general rule the Panel or its chair will not be approached for ongoing instructions, albeit the staff retain discretion to refer a matter to the Panel or its chair if they see fit; and (d)     The Panel chair will be provided with a precis of the outcome of conciliation conferences and judgments.

 

1.      Section 9.1 direction  

2.      Report to Council of 5 August 2020   

 

Attachment 1

Section 9.1 direction

 9 September 2020

Attachment 2

Report to Council of 5 August 2020

 9 September 2020

 9 September 2020

 

Item No: LPP046/20

Development Application for 95-97 Dahlia Street, Greystanes

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Acting Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0207  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0207 was received on 5 May 2020 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 71 place centre-based childcare facility over basement car parking.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties, online on Council’s website and a site notice was placed at the property for a period of 14 days between 13 May 2020 and 27 May 2020.

3.      The application was renotified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a second period of 14 days between 1 June 2020 to 15 June 2020 as Council received notice that notification letters were not received in an appropriate timeframe and that the notification sign erected for the first notification period was not erected adequately. In response, Council received a total of 55 submissions during both notification periods.

4.      Council through its assessment identified a number of concerns with the proposal relating to flood mitigation measures, the provision of outdoor play space for children and extent of fill proposed to within the overland flow path. These matters have been appropriately addressed by the imposition of conditions of consent requiring the submission of an updated flood study report, removal of fill within the overland flow path, and the reduction in children placements from 71 to 66.

5.      There are non-compliances with the proposed development having considered the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline (the Guideline) 2017, and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

6.      The proposed development seeks the following notable variations:

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

8.      It is recommended that the application be approved as a deferred commencement consent for a maximum of 66 children (due to the available unencumbered outdoor space/play area) subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination held at Attachment 1.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 95-97 Dahlia Street Greystanes and is legally described as Lots 16 and 17 in DP 236780. The site is a corner allotment with a primary frontage to Dahlia Street of 35.41m, secondary street frontage to Alpha Road of 31.905m, a splay of 3.84m and a total site area of 1,157.2m².

The sites are currently each occupied by a detached single storey rendered dwelling house and various awnings. There is one large tree within the front setback (south-western corner) of No. 97 Dahlia Street.

Directly opposite the site to the south is Alpha Road Park. The sites directly to the east, west and north of the site are detached dwelling houses. The immediate area is characterised by low density housing, and a small group of commercial shops at the corner of Dahlia Street and Hibiscus Street. The subject site and all immediate adjoining properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential, with the exception of Alpha Road Park and commercial shops which are zoned RE1- Public Recreation and B1- Neighbourhood Centre respectively.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site indicated in purple outline.

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject sites indicated by green marker/purple outline

Figure 3 – 95 Dahlia Street Greystanes

 

Figure 4 – 97 Dahlia Street Greystanes

Description of The Proposed Development

The proposed development, as amended, involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 66 place centre-based childcare facility over basement car parking.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Demolition of two single storey dwellings and all existing structures, and removal of one large tree located in the south-western corner.

·        Construction of a two-storey childcare facility accommodating 66 children.

·        Construction of a basement level car parking area including bin room, laundry room, two storage rooms, stairs, one lift and accommodating 25 car parking spaces allocated as follows:

-        Staff: 6 spaces

-        Visitors: 19 spaces (inclusive of 2 accessible car parking spaces)

-        1 turning bay

·        Lot consolidation of existing 2 allotments into 1 allotment.

·        The facility proposes to accommodate 71 children, as follows:

o   16 children – 0-2 yrs

o   25 children – 2-3 yrs

o   30 children – 3-5 yrs

Note: The number of children is subject to reduction of a maximum of 66 children to correspond with proposed unencumbered outdoor space/play area.

·        The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday (Excluding public holidays) and will employ 12 staff.

·        The ground floor level contains 3 bathrooms (including 1 accessible bathroom), multiple storage areas, an office, 2 cot rooms, bottle preparation/craft bench area, indoor and outdoor play areas and a lift/stairs.

·        The first floor level contains an office, accessible bathroom, staff room, meeting room, kitchen, balcony fronting Dahlia Street and a lift/stairs.

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

History

 

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners Pty Ltd dated 16 July 2019 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

 

Council has undertaken a site inspection of the subject sites 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 Engineering section for comment who has advised that the development is supportable with respect to overland flood mitigation and stormwater drainage subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of consent, which includes updated details to be provided within the submitted flood report and removal of fill within the flood affected area of the site.

 

Tree Management Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions requiring an amended landscape plan, and conditions relating to the removal of the existing large tree within the front south-western corner of the site (Corner of Alpha Road and Dahlia Street).

 

Waste Management Officer

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supportable subject to conditions requiring amended plans to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application, to demonstrate that the bin storage room can accommodate the bin tug, and that there are no obstructions (i.e. Door width, shared zones, bollards) manoeuvring the bins to Council’s collection point.

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

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

 

Children’s Services

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services section for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to compliance with the provisions of Education and Care Services National Regulations and Law, subject to conditions.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred externally to Endeavour Energy who raised no objections.

Planning Comments

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

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

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

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

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

It is noted that State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments And Child Care Facilities) 2017 commenced on 1 September 2017. The SEPP applies to any proposals for new schools or child care centres or proposed alterations and additions to existing centres. The relevant provisions of the SEPP have been considered in the assessment of the Application.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix A, which indicates that there are non-compliances with the SEPP 2017 with regard to the number of children proposed and outdoor unencumbered space as stated below:

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

The subject site does not directly adjoin land zoned or reserved for public open space. However, the subject site is located adjacent to a Council Reserve known as Alpha Road Park. The proposal does result in any adverse impacts to land at Alpha Road Park.

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

Council’s Tree Management officer has recommended the removal of one (1) large tree located within the front south-western corner of the site. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions including the removal of 1 large tree. In addition, the proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

Regional Environmental Plans (Deemed State Environmental Planning Policies)

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

 

The subject site is identified as being located within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposed development raises no issues as no impact on the catchment is envisaged.

Local Environmental Plans

(a)     Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013

The proposed development is defined as a ‘centre based child care facility’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Centre based child care facilities are a permissible land use with consent under the R2 – Low Density Residential zoning applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Appendix B which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013.

The provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments (EP & A Act Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii))

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

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 Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP.

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

(c)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

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

The proposed development is generally compliant with the relevant provisions, subject to the imposition of conditions. Parts A, B & I of HDCP 2013 apply to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report at Appendix C which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site.

The assessment provided in Appendix C indicates that there are some minor non-compliances with the HDCP 2013 with regard to landscaped area, cut and fill and the maximum number of children for a childcare facility within R2 – Low Density Residential zoned land, which are discussed in the following section:

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 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 (Council Website)            Mail             Sign              Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 May 2020 and 27 May 2020.

The application was renotified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a second period of 14 days between 1 June 2020 to 15 June 2020 as Council received notice that notification letters were not received in an appropriate timeframe and that the notification sign erected for the first notification period was not erected adequately. In response, Council received a total of 55 submissions during both notification periods, with nil submission disclosing a political donation or gift.

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

Figure 5 – Submissions summary table

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

The public interest is served by permitting the orderly and economic development of land, in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding environment and has regard to the reasonable amenity expectations of surrounding land users.

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development, if carried out subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Notice of Determination, would not result in adverse impacts in the locality, contrary to the public interest.

Section 7.12 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 subject DA was lodged after 15 January 2020. Therefore, the Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2020 applies to the proposal.

Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan 2020 states that a 1% contribution applies for development with a cost of works of $200,000 or more, under section 7.12. The development application has a cost of works valued at $2,619,502.00, therefore a contribution of $26,195.00 is payable.

It is recommended that conditions be imposed on any consent requiring the payment of these contributions prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the development.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, and is considered to be satisfactory for approval via a deferred commencement consent, subject to a reduction in the number of children to 66 (to comply with the outdoor unencumbered space) and the recommended draft conditions.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2020/0207 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 66 place centre-based childcare facility over basement car parking be approved as a deferred commencement consent subject to attached conditions, provided at Attachment 1. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Landscape Plans  

4.      Flood Study Report  

5.      Noise Impact Assesment  

6.      Noise Management Plan  

7.      Parking & Traffic Impact Assessment  

8.      Appendix A - SEPP (Edu & Child Care) 2017  

9.      Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013  

10.    Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013  

11.    Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017  

12.    Submissions Received   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 9 September 2020

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 9 September 2020

Attachment 3

Landscape Plans

 9 September 2020

Attachment 4

Flood Study Report

 9 September 2020

Attachment 5

Noise Impact Assesment

 9 September 2020

Attachment 6

Noise Management Plan

 9 September 2020

Attachment 7

Parking & Traffic Impact Assessment

 9 September 2020

Attachment 8

Appendix A - SEPP (Edu & Child Care) 2017

 9 September 2020

Attachment 9

Appendix B - Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

 9 September 2020

Attachment 10

Appendix C - Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

 9 September 2020

Attachment 11

Appendix D - Child Care Planning Guideline 2017

 9 September 2020

Attachment 12

Submissions Received

 9 September 2020

 9 September 2020

 

Item No: LPP047/20

Development Application for 26 Mary Street, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Acting Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0210  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0210 was received on 8 April 2020 for internal alterations to existing building at the front of the site for use as a methadone clinic.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 13 May 2020 and 27 May 2020. The application was re-notified for a period of 14 days between 10 June 2020 to 24 June 2020 to expand the area of notification. In response to the exhibition periods, a total of 27 unique submissions were received.

3.      The subject site is located within an R2 Residential low density zone and is located in close proximity to a variety of residential uses, schools, aged care facilities.

4.      The application seeks a variation to the following control:

 

 

5.      On 26 June 2020, a letter was sent advising the applicant to withdraw the application as Council was unlikely to support the development. No response to withdraw the application was received by Council.

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

7.      The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons provided in the Draft Notice of Determination at attachment ‘1’ of this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site comprises two lots identified as Lot B DP 73573 and Lot C DP 73573 and is known as 26 Mary Street Auburn. The site has an area of approximately 620sqm and a frontage to Mary Street of 17.068m. It is rectangular in shape with a northern orientation.

A site inspection of the premises carried out on 22 May 2020 confirmed that the site is currently occupied by a vacant single storey dwelling house which previously operated as a medical centre. This building faces Mary Street and is identified as Lot B. Lot C which is located to the rear of Lot B contains a single storey building which currently operates as a physiotherapy practice.

Auburn Town Centre is located to the north east and Auburn Railway station is situated approximately 400m away. The existing developments adjoining the site include a medical facility (Westside Hearing Clinic) to the west, a commercial use (Islamic Science Culture & Art Association) to the east and a dwelling house to the south. Other uses in close proximity to the site include a high density mixed use residential/commercial development on the opposing side of Mary Street, a school (Trinity Catholic College), a Nursing Home, a private hospital and low density residential uses.

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site (Google maps)

 

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for alterations and additions to an existing building for use as a methadone clinic known as the Auburn Medical Referral Centre (AMRC).

Demolition and construction

Internal walls and doors are proposed to be removed and new internal walls are to be constructed to delineate rooms including two (2) consulting rooms, a staff area, a waiting area, a pathology, a dispensing room and station, a staff toilet and a patient toilet.

A disabled access ramp is to be constructed at the rear of the building providing disabled pedestrian access from the proposed car park area.

Details of use

The AMRC previously operated out of 20 Mary Street Auburn which is located within the Auburn Town Centre. The use of this site was the subject of a DA approval (DA1988/345) issued on 7 November 1988. This site contained provision for six (6) onsite parking spaces. The proposed relocation to 26 Mary Street Auburn is situated outside the boundaries of the Town Centre.

The AMRC will administer and prescribe various restricted drugs for opiate treatment including Methadone Syrup, Biodone, Buprenorphine, Subutex and Suboxone. The clinic currently has over 215 patients who will be serviced at the new site. A pathology service is also proposed at the new site.

Hours of operation are as follows:

-     Monday to Friday – 7.30am to 1.00pm and 4.00pm to 6.00pm; and

-     Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays – 9.00am to 12.00pm.

There will be six (6) staff members with a maximum of four (4) onsite at any one time. Staff members include private ‘medical prescribers’ who operate independent of each other onsite and nurses who operate the dosing clinic. There will be a maximum of 5-6 patients at the centre at any given time and the duration of patient visits is 15 minutes to 1 hour.

Parking provision

Two (2) onsite parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the building with one space to be allocated to the proposed use and the other to the existing use (Physiotherapy Clinic) located at the rear of the site on Lot C. Access to the proposed spaces is provided via an existing driveway that extends along the western side setback.

Loading and unloading

The applicant intends to utilise the rear car parking area for the loading and unloading of goods to service the clinic.

History

On 28 November 1962, Council granted permission for the land (Lot B) to be used for the purpose of ‘professional rooms’.

On 28 July 1993, a development application (DA1993/132) was approved for ‘Use of the existing building as a youth resource centre involving counselling/assessment and referral of clients’.

On 18 February 2003 a development application (DA665/2002) was approved for a carport on the site. Information submitted with this application suggests the building was intended to be used as a dwelling.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Barker Ryan Stewart dated 19 March 2020 and was received by Council on 8 April 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 was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is unsatisfactory with regard to the provision of onsite car parking. The matters of concern raised by Council’s Development Engineer is summarised below.

 

-     Insufficient number of onsite parking spaces

i)          The proposal does not provide the minimum required number of onsite parking spaces in accordance with Auburn Development Control Plans 2010 – Parking and Loading which specifies at least three (3) onsite spaces per consulting room are required. The development proposes two (2) onsite parking spaces, one of which is to be used by the existing use (physiotherapy) at the rear of the site on Lot C.

-     Design of parking area

ii)        The proposed parking layout does not comply with the Australian Standard AS2890.1 with regard to vehicle manoeuvrability.

iii)            

Environment and Health

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory subject to an assessment of the submitted Acoustic Report and Operational Management Plan. It was therefore recommended that the development be supported subject to conditions should consent be granted.

 

Waste Management

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is not supported on the basis that ongoing waste arrangements need to be provided on the architectural plans. This may be resolved by condition should consent be granted.

 

External Referrals

 

NSW Police

 

The development application was referred to NSW Police for comment who raised concerns in relation to the proximity of the clinic to adjoining uses including the ‘paediatric audiology clinic where mothers and children are frequently in attendance’ and Trinity Catholic College which is within walking distance. Concern was raised regarding the ‘demographic of crime within the area, generally due to the people attending the location for the purpose of obtaining methadone. Most of these people have historical and current drug related issues and it is common for people with such problems to engage in other forms of criminal and anti-social activity’.

 

Despite these concerns, the proposal was deemed acceptable subject to a number of recommendations relating to signage, lighting, security and occupational health and safety.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

The provision of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the R2 Residential Low Density zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘Medical Centre’ (specifically, a Methadone Clinic) and is permissible in the R2 Residential Low Density zone with consent.

Medical centre means premises that are used for the purpose of providing health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, counselling or alternative therapies) to out-patients only, where such services are principally provided by health care professionals. It may include the ancillary provision of other health services.

The relevant matters to be considered under Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

Figure 4 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

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

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

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

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

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

The following table highlights a non-compliance with the DCP, which relates to parking provision. The variation sought is considered unsatisfactory in this instance:

Figure 5 – Auburn DCP 2010 – Parking and Loading Compliance Table

As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the onsite parking provisions of Council’s Parking and Loading DCP. Having regard to this departure, it is considered that the proposal performs unsatisfactorily from an environmental planning viewpoint for the reason discussed below:

The development will provide one (1) onsite parking space for use by the proposed methadone clinic. This results in a deficiency of five (5) spaces or 83% which is excessive. The staff and patient numbers were also considered in the assessment. The submitted details and referral advice suggest that four (4) staff, a minimum of two (2) patients being served at any one time and security personnel (as recommended by NSW Police) would be present at the clinic during operating hours.

Based on the proposed staff numbers and the number of clients, it is considered that the provision of one (1) parking space on the site would be inadequate to accommodate the proposed use.

Issue is also raised with regard to the conflict of the new disabled pedestrian ramp located at the rear of the building. It is likely given the limited area at the rear of the building that installation of the ramp will compromise vehicle manoeuvrability and result in the deletion of an onsite parking space which is not supported.

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

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

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

The proposed development 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 a significant environmental impact in the locality noting the carparking non compliance.

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. However, due to the significant departure of Council’s parking requirements, the development is considered unsuitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

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

Advertised (newspaper)                 Mail                  Sign                Not Required

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn DCP 2010, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 13 May 2020 and 27 May 2020 and was re-notified for a further 14 days between 10 June 2020 to 24 June 2020. The notification periods generated a total of 27 unique submissions in respect of the proposal. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

Figure 6 – Submissions summary table

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

In view of the foregoing analysis it is considered that the development as proposed would not be consistent with the public interest as it would result in a detrimental impact on on-street parking availability.

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

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

Comments: The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 and the Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable for the reasons outlined in this report. It is recommended that the development application be refused.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2020/0210 for Internal alterations to existing building at the front of the site for use as a medical centre (methadone clinic) on land at 26 Mary Street AUBURN  NSW  2144 be refused for the reasons listed in the attached schedule. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Submissions Recieved  

4.      Appendix A - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 9 September 2020

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 9 September 2020

Attachment 3

Submissions Recieved

 9 September 2020

Attachment 4

Appendix A - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

 9 September 2020

 9 September 2020

 

Item No: LPP048/20

Development Application for 3 & 5 Haig Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Acting Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2020/0145  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2020/0145 was received on 9 March 2020 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 56 place child care centre with at-grade car parking.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 1 April 2020 and 15 April 2020. The notification period was extended for a further 7 day period as number of objectors requested for extra time to submit their concerns due to the COVID 19 Pandemic.  In response, a total of 20 unique submissions including a petition containing 53 signatures and 2 x form letters were received, objecting to the proposal.

3.      Correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 1 June 2020 advising that the application could not be supported and inviting its withdrawal. That correspondence also set out Council’s concerns with the application in detail. The issues included site unsuitability, incompatibility with the streetscape, compliance with child care centre provisions, excessive cut and fill, height of acoustic fencing, amenity impacts, waste and engineering matters.  The applicant elected not to withdraw the application.

4.      Amended plans and additional information were provided to Council on 1 July 2020. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification.

5.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline (the Guideline) 2017, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

6.      The proposal seeks the following numerical non-compliances which are not supported:

 

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

8.      The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons provided in the Draft Notice of Determination contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 3 & 5 Haig Street, Wentworthville; and is legally described as Lot 111 and Lot 112 in DP 7383. The site is located on the northern side of Haig Street. The site is a rectangular block with a frontage of 30.48m, depth of 44.195m and a total site area of 1347m².

The subject site includes two dwelling houses with associated parking and vegetation.  Existing improvements on the site include a single-storey and double storey residential dwellings with associated structures and outbuildings along the eastern and western sides.

Adjoining developments consist of one to two storey detached dwelling houses with landscaped front setbacks. The site has a fall of approximately 4m from front to the rear.  Wentworthville Public School is located 1.2km from the site. The subject site and the adjoining properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Figure 1 -   Zoning map with the subject site. Source: Cumberland Council

Figure 2- Aerial view of the locality with the subject site. Source: IntraMaps

Figure 3 & 4- Site Photos

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposed development involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey, 56 place child care centre with at grade parking accommodating 18 car parking spaces.

Key features of the development proposal are as follows:-

·        Demolition of the existing structures

·        Construction of a two-storey child care facility accommodating 56 children.

·        At grade car parking area accommodating 18 car parking spaces, for staff and visitors (including 1 accessible space)

·        The facility will accommodate 56 children, as follows:

o   12 children – 0-2 yrs

o   44 children – 3-6 yrs

·        The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and will employ 8 staff; with staff ‘shoulder times’ of 6.30am to 6.30pm.

·        The upper ground floor level contains meeting room, waiting room, reception, main entry from at grade car parking facing Haig Street, toilets, storage and indoor and outdoor play areas.

·        The lower ground floor level contains indoor and outdoor play areas (3-6 yrs old), office, toilets, kitchen, laundry, bin storage, store, lift and stairs.

·        Consent is not sought for signage as part of this application, rather, it is the intention for signage to be addressed under the Exempt Development provisions (as indicated in the Statement of Environmental Effects)

·        Below ground OSD system with associated OSD pits and retaining walls are proposed on site.

History

 

Date	Action
9/03/2020	Development Application 2020/0145 was lodged.
19/03/2020	The application was referred to Council’s internal and external departments for review.
1/04/2020 to 15/04/2020	The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days. The notification period was extended for a further 7 day period as number of objectors requested for extra time to submit their concerns due to COVID 19 Pandemic.  In response, a total of 20 unique submissions including a petition containing 53 signatures and 2 x form letters were received objecting to the proposal.
1/06/2020	Application was deferred due to non-compliances with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Child Care Planning Guideline 2017 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.
1/07/2020	Amended plans and additional information were received by Council. Amended plans did not warrant re notification.
15/07/2020 to 29/07/2020	The amended plans were re -referred to Council’s internal departments for review.
6/08/2020	Correspondence was sent to the applicant advising that the application could not be supported and inviting its withdrawal. That correspondence detailed Council’s concerns with the application with regard to site incompatibility, streetscape presentation, large hard stand area within the front setback, retaining walls, height of boundary fencing and amenity impacts. The applicant advised that the application would not be withdrawn.
09/09/2020	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Miletic-Mieler Development Consultants Pty Ltd dated 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 was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development is generally supportable in regards to stormwater management and on-site detention provision, should the consent have been granted. However, concern was raised regarding the submitted survey plan as it shows an existing drainage easement is within the site. In this regard, inadequate information is provided to demonstrate that the development is clear of the easement.

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that inadequate information is provided to demonstrate that the proposed new easement works will not have an adverse impact on the existing tree/s located within the neighbouring properties.

 

Waste Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has raised concern with regard to the ongoing management of waste as inadequate information has been provided to ensure that the bin storage room/s has the capacity to accommodate the bin arrangement in accordance with the waste management plan. In addition, concern was also raised with regard to the location of cot room adjacent to the proposed bin room.

Environmental Health Officer

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

Children, Youth and Families

The development application was referred to Council’s Children, Youth and Families section for comment who has raised concern in regards to compliance with the provisions of Education and Care Services National Regulations and Law, specifically with regard to supervision of the lower ground floor outdoor play area. However, this could be imposed as condition of consent, should consent be granted.

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development is supportable in regards to electricity connection and sufficient clearance to existing electricity asset, subject to conditions.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy 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:

Matters for consideration	Yes	No	N/A
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site?     acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites,  metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation.
Is the site listed on Council's Contaminated Land Database?
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site:   The site is not identified in Council’s records as being contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have caused contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. On this basis, SEPP 55 has no further application. Notwithstanding, a soil assessment report has been submitted in accordance with the Child Care Planning Guideline issued by NSW Department of Planning and Environment.    Council’s Environmental Health Unit has reviewed the proposal and considered satisfactory subject to imposition of conditions; if the application were to be approved.

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

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

It is noted that State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments And Child Care Facilities) 2017 commenced on 1 September 2017. The SEPP applies to any proposals for new schools or child care centres or proposed alterations and additions to existing centres. The relevant provisions of the SEPP have been considered in the assessment of the Application.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Attachment 5, which indicates that there are non-compliances with the SEPP 2017 with regard to site and context, pedestrian access, safety and amenity impacts and provision of shade.  Planning assessment of this application identifies concerns with the following design quality principles:

Part 2 – Design quality principles
Principle 1 – Context	The proposal does not respond appropriately to the context of the site, adjoining properties and the existing development in the vicinity in relation to context, siting, amenity and safety.
Principle 3 – Adaptive learning spaces	The facility does not provide compliant shade structures within the outdoor play areas. Children will be unable to enjoy outdoor activities during all weather conditions, including rainy and warmer weather and this is not considered acceptable.
Principle 6 – Amenity	The design of the centre proposes significant amount of cut and fill and excessive retaining walls along the boundaries. This is further exacerbated by the construction of boundary fencing ranging between 2.1 to 3.4m high which will result in amenity impacts for the children as well as occupants of neighbouring properties.
Principle 7 – Safety	The proposed facility does not provide a safe pedestrian access from the carpark into the building which will result in adverse safety impacts.

 

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

 

Part 3 – Matters for consideration
Control	Required	Provided
3.1 Site selection and location	For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone, consider the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context.	The proposed front setback of 20.9m is inconsistent with the existing streetscape and fails to integrate with the existing setback pattern of the immediate locality. In this regard, the above non-compliance is considered unacceptable.
3.2 Local character, streetscape and the public domain interface	·  The proposed development should contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape. ·  Should reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas.	The excessive front setback, comprising a large expanse of hard stand area/parking is considered incompatible with the established low-density residential neighbourhood character. The development proposes an unacceptable streetscape presentation.
3.3 Building, orientation, envelope and design	·  The building layout shall be designed to minimise cut and fill       ·  Setbacks to the street shall be consistent with the existing character.	As discussed earlier, the design of the centre proposes a significant amount of cut and fill and excessive retaining walls up to 2m high along the boundaries.   The front setback of 20.9m is inconsistent with the established character of the locality.
3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation	·  Provide a safe separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility. ·  Defined pedestrian crossing included within large car parking areas	The proposed facility does not provide a safe pedestrian access from the carpark into the proposed building which will result in adverse safety impacts for the children.
Part 4 – Applying the National Regulations to development proposals
4.7 Premises designed to facilitate supervision	A centre-based service must ensure that the rooms and facilities within the premises (including indoor and outdoor activity rooms and play spaces) are designed to facilitate supervision of children at all times, having regard to the need to maintain their rights and dignity.	Inadequate information is provided to demonstrate that adequate supervision of the ground floor outdoor play area will be provided, noting the layout of the play area.   However, this could be imposed as condition of consent, should consent be granted.
4.11 Shade	Outdoor play areas should:   ·    provide shade in the form of trees or built shade structures giving protection from ultraviolet radiation to at least 30 per cent of the outdoor play area.	The proposed outdoor play areas provides 2 x shade structures with a total area of 94.6sqm resulting in a shortfall of 23.9sqm (equating to a variation of 20.2%).

(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 development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment. Endeavour Energy have advised that the development is supportable in regards to electricity connection and sufficient clearance to existing electricity asset, subject to conditions.

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

The proposal includes removal of some existing trees within the subject site. However, this does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the HDCP 2013 compliance table at Attachment 7 for further comment regarding the proposed tree removal.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

The proposed development is defined as a ‘centre based child care facility’ under the provisions of Holroyd Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Centre based child care facilities are a permissible land use with consent under the R2 – Low Density Residential zoning applying to the land under Holroyd LEP 2013.

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Attachment 6 which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013.

4.3   Height of buildings 9 metres				The maximum height of the proposed building is 8.2m, as measured from natural ground level.
4.4  Floor Space Ratio  0.5:1				Site Area:  1347 m2 Maximum FSR:  0.5:1 Maximum GFA:  673.5m2 Provided: 0.36:1 or  484.2m2

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

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

(a)     Holroyd Development Control Plan (HDCP) 2013

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

A comprehensive HDCP compliance table is attached to this report at Attachment 7. A summary of the DCP non-compliances is provided in the following table. 

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

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

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

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

The proposed development fails to address the relevant matters arising from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Reg), including the submission of accurate plans and documentation demonstrating neighbouring properties and existing trees on a Survey Plan and owner’s written consent from adjoining property for the proposed stormwater easement.

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

The environmental and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment are addressed under the Holroyd Development Control Plan section of this report and are considered unsatisfactory.

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

The proposed development is considered unsuitable 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 (Council Website)            Mail             Sign              Not Required

In accordance with Part E - Public Participation of the Holroyd DCP 2013, the application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, a notice was placed in the local press and a notice placed on the site for 14 days from 1 April 2020 to 14 April 2020. The notification was extended for one (1) additional week until 22 April 2020, due to COVID 19 restrictions and request from the neighbours regarding insufficient time to submit their concerns during the notification period. In response, a total of 20 unique submissions including a petition containing 53 signatures and 2 x form letters were received objecting to the proposal.

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

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

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

Section 7.12 (Formerly S94A) Fixed Development Consent Levies

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

 

Comments:

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contribution Plan.

The calculation is based on 1% levy based on cost of works. In this regard, the fee payable is $20,153.00. This figure is subject to indexation as per the relevant plan. Notwithstanding, the application is recommended for refusal.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

 

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

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and  Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2020 and is considered to be unsatisfactory.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.      That Development Application No. DA2020/0145 for Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 56 place child care centre with at-grade car parking on land at 3 & 5 Haig Street WENTWORTHVILLE NSW  2145 be refused for the reasons listed in the attached schedule. 2.      Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Landscape Plan  

4.      Stormwater/Engineering Plans  

5.      State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments & Child Care Facilities) 2017  

6.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013  

7.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013  

8.      Child Care Planning Guideline 2017  

9.      Acoustic Report and Noise Management Plan  

10.    Traffic Report  

11.    Submissions Received   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 9 September 2020

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 9 September 2020

Attachment 3

Landscape Plan

 9 September 2020

Attachment 4

Stormwater/Engineering Plans

 9 September 2020

Attachment 5

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

 9 September 2020

Attachment 6

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

 9 September 2020

Attachment 7

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

 9 September 2020

Attachment 8

Child Care Planning Guideline 2017

 9 September 2020

Attachment 9

Acoustic Report and Noise Management Plan

 9 September 2020

Attachment 10

Traffic Report

 9 September 2020

Attachment 11

Submissions Received

 9 September 2020