Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

9 June 2021

Item No: LPP023/21

Development Application for 3-5 Haig Street, Wentworthville

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: DA2020/0792

Application lodged	13 January 2021
Applicant	E Miletic
Owner	Mr R Kota
Application No.	DA2020/0792
Description of Land	3-5 Haig Street, Wentworthville Lots 111 & 112 in DP 7383
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 1 storey, part 2 storey, 62 place child care centre above basement parking and associated site works
Site Area	1,347m²
Zoning	R2 – Low Density Residential
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site does not contain a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area.
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: Max. 0.5:1 Proposed: 0.36:1 Height of Building Permissible: Max. 9m Proposed: Max. 7.6m
Issues	Fence height Landscaped Area Submissions

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA2020/0792 was lodged on 13 January 2021 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 1 storey, part 2 storey, 68 place child care centre above basement parking and associated site works.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties, published online on Council’s website, and a site notice was placed at the property for a period of 14 days between 3 February 2021 and 17 February 2021. In response, a total of 18 unique submissions (including 1 petition containing 42 signatures) were received.

3. Council through its assessment identified a number of concerns with the proposal relating to the provision of indoor play space for children, vehicular access and basement design, stormwater, and protection of the neighbouring tree. These matters have been appropriately addressed by the reduction of children placements from 68 to 62, and the submission of amended plans and revised arboricultural impact report. The amended plans and additional information were provided to Council on 31 March 2021 and did not warrant re-notification.

4. The proposed development seeks the following notable variations:

Control

Required

Provided

% variation

Fence Height:

Max. 2.4m above retaining wall.

(HDCP 2013)

Max. 2.4m

Northern boundary fence = 2.8m

16.67%

Landscaping: 25% and minimum 2m dimensions

(HDCP 2013)

Min. 336.75m²

209.9m² landscaped area provided with min. 2m dimension.

37.7%

5. The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as the matter is considered to be contentious.

6. It is recommended that the application be approved as deferred commencement consent subject to conditions provided in the Draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 1.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 3-5 Haig Street, Wentworthville which has a total site area of 1,347m², and a frontage of 30.24m to Haig Street. The site has a significant cross fall of approximately 4.6m (10.4%) from the front/south to rear/north, and 2m (6.5%) from the eastern to western side boundaries.

The property is currently occupied by detached dwelling houses. The site adjoins a two storey dwelling house and detached secondary dwelling to the east, and detached dwelling houses directly to the north and west. The immediate area is characterised by low density residential housing.

The subject site and surrounding properties are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

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

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site indicated in yellow outline (NearMaps)

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site. Left: 5 Haig St, Wentworthville. Right: 3 Haig St, Wentworthville.

Figure 4 – Street view of 1 Haig St, Wentworthville, directly adjoining the subject site to the east.

Figure 5 – Street view of 7 Haig St, Wentworthville, directly adjoining the subject site to the west.

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposed development involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey 62 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 9 trees (including 1 street tree).

· Construction of a two-storey childcare facility accommodating 62 children.

· Construction of a basement level car parking area including 2 fire stairs, one lift and accommodating 20 car parking spaces allocated as follows:

- Staff: 4 spaces.

- Visitors: 16 spaces (inclusive of 1 accessible car parking space).

· Lot consolidation of existing 2 allotments into 1 allotment.

· The facility proposes to accommodate 62 children, as follows:

o 8 children – 0-2 yrs

o 10 children – 2-3 yrs

o 44 children – 3-5 yrs

· The proposed centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays), with staff ‘shoulder times’ of 6.30am to 6.30pm. The centre will employ 8 staff.

· The ground floor level contains 3 bathrooms (including 1 accessible bathroom), multiple storage areas, reception area, kitchen, laundry, prams/scooter storage, bin room, 1 cot room, bottle preparation/craft bench area, indoor and outdoor play areas and a lift/stairs.

· The first floor level contains an office, bathroom, staff room, kitchen, storage and a lift/stairs.

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

Background

On 9 September 2020, DA2020/0145 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 56 place child care centre with at-grade car parking, at 3-5 Haig St Wentworthville; was refused by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel, for the following reasons:

· Streetscape presentation of at-grade car park within the front setback area,

· Excessive cut and fill, and requirement of excessive fence heights above retaining walls,

· Inadequate information with respect to plans showing secondary dwelling at 1 Haig St, impacts of proposed works to trees on neighbouring properties, waste arrangements, operational plan of management and owner’s consent from adjoining property for the proposed stormwater easement.

The subject development application proposes a design which incorporates a basement car park which has removed the dominance of the car parking area from the front setback area, to be compatible with the established local character. The proposal also involves minimal cut and fill to accommodate the building platforms and provides acoustic fencing along the boundaries of an acceptable height to minimise privacy and noise impacts on neighbouring properties.

Plans submitted has included and considered impacts on the secondary dwelling at 1 Haig St. Impacts on adjoining trees and waste arrangements has also been addressed as part of the proposal. Owner’s consent from required downstream properties is imposed as a deferred commencement condition for the creation of a drainage easement for legal disposal of stormwater to Council’s system.

History

Date	Action
13 January 2021	Development Application DA2020/0792 was lodged with Council.
13 January 2021	The application was referred to Council’s internal departments for review.
3 February 2021 to 17 February 2021	The application was publicly notified to adjoining and opposite owners, published online, and a site notice was placed at the property for 14 days. In response, a total of 18 unique submissions (including 1 petition containing 42 signatures) were received.
9 March 2021	Application was deferred with respect to indoor play area provisions, vehicular access, engineering, tree protection and waste room matters.
31 March 2021	Amended plans and revised arboricultural impact report was received by Council, which forms part of the final assessment for consideration by the Panel.
9 June 2021	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 December 2020, and response letter dated 30 March 2021, 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 Engineering section for comment who has advised that the development is supported, although deferred commencement consent is required to enable an easement to be created for stormwater disposal and to address minor basement parking manoeuvring matters.

Environment and Health

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

Tree Management Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development is supported subject to the imposition of conditions relating to tree removal and protection of the neighbouring tree at 7 Haig Street, Wentworthville, and recommended amendments to the planting schedule.

Children’s Services

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

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that ongoing waste management and waste storage room arrangements are satisfactory.

External Referrals

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

PLANNING COMMENTS

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
Is the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?	Yes No
Does information available to you indicate that an activity listed below has ever been approved, or occurred at the site? acid/alkali plant and formulation, agricultural/horticultural activities, airports, asbestos production and disposal, chemicals manufacture and formulation, defence works, drum re-conditioning works, dry cleaning establishments, electrical manufacturing (transformers), electroplating and heat treatment premises, engine works, explosive industry, gas works, iron and steel works, landfill sites, metal treatment, mining and extractive industries, oil production and storage, paint formulation and manufacture, pesticide manufacture and formulation, power stations, railway yards, scrap yards, service stations, sheep and cattle dips, smelting and refining, tanning and associated trades, waste storage and treatment, wood preservation	Yes No
Is the site listed on Council’s Contaminated Land database?	Yes No
Is the site subject to EPA clean-up order or other EPA restrictions?	Yes No
Has the site been the subject of known pollution incidents or illegal dumping?	Yes No
Does the site adjoin any contaminated land/previously contaminated land?	Yes No
Has the appropriate level of investigation been carried out in respect of contamination matters for Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable to accommodate the proposed development or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development?	Yes No
A Preliminary Site Investigation report prepared by EI Australia, dated 6 March 2020 was submitted with the application. The report did not reveal any potential matters of concern with regard to contamination and concludes that the site is suitable for its intended use, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the report, which are to be imposed as conditions of consent. Council’s Environmental Health team has also reviewed the report and determined that the site is suitable for such a development given that the report provides that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

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

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

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Attachment 9.

The following table indicates that the development provides compliant indoor and outdoor play area for proposed 62 children in accordance with SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017:

Control

Required

Provided

Indoor unencumbered space

(regulation 107 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)

3.25m² x 62 = 201.5m²

217.6m²

Outdoor unencumbered space

(regulation 108 SEPP 2017 and part 4.9 the Guideline)

7m² x 62 = 434m²

451.4m²

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

The proposal includes removal of 8 existing trees within the site and 1 street tree. 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 11 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

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 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.

centre-based child care facility means—

(a) a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides any one or more of the following—

i. long day care,

ii. occasional child care,

iii. out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

iv. preschool care, or

(b) an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)),

The relevant matters to be considered under the Holroyd LEP 2013 are summarised below:

Development Standard

Yes

N/A

Response

4.3 Height of buildings

Max. 9 metres

The maximum height of the proposed building is 7.6m.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Max. 0.5:1

(Max. GFA of 673.5m²)

Provided FSR: 0.36:1 (485.6m²)

Ground Floor = 406.6m²

First Floor = 79m²

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Attachment 10 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 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 (Draft CLEP)

The Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 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))

The Holroyd DCP 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the 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 Attachment 11 which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site.

The assessment provided in Attachment 11 indicates that there is a minor non-compliance with the HDCP 2013 with regard to the rear fence height and landscaped area, which are discussed below as acceptable:

PART B – RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1	GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONTROLS
1.2	Fences In situations where the boundary fence is proposed on top of a retaining wall, the height of the fence shall not exceed a maximum of 2.4m as measured from the lower adjacent ground level.	1.8m high acoustic fencing is proposed along the northern/rear boundary. The overall northern boundary fence height is 2.8m (1.8m high lapped and capped timber + 1m high clear polycarbonate over at 45° angle back). The non-compliance to the maximum 2.4m fence height is sought for the northern/rear boundary fence and is a result of the angled awning of the acoustic fencing required to minimise the projection of noise from the outdoor play areas to neighbouring properties. In this regard, as the acoustic fence is 1.8m and the departure is a direct result of the angled awning only, the minor variation of 0.4m is considered acceptable.
1.5	Landscape Area Min. 25% = 336.75m²	Total landscaped area with min. 2m dimensions provided is 209.9m² (15.6%). Total landscaped area provided = 309.8m² (23%) Total landscaped area non-compliance of 26.95m². Variation to the required landscaped area and minimum dimensions is deemed acceptable as the total landscaped area provided on site represents a shortfall of 26.95m², and the proposed acoustic fencing is located within the site boundaries reducing the required 2m dimensions for landscaping, and the outdoor play areas contain retaining walls, and various decked 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.

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 (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 3 February 2021 and 17 February 2021. In response, Council received a total of 18 unique submissions (including 1 petition containing 42 signatures) in respect of the proposal, with nil disclosing a political donation or gift.

The additional information and amended plans did not warrant re-notification of the application.

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

Figure 6 – Submissions summary table

	Concern	Comment
1	Residential amenity of the existing established residential streetscape. The commercial building is excessive and out of character in a residential context.	It is noted that the proposed development is for a purpose built childcare centre. The proposal incorporates a skillion and flat roof design, appropriate building setbacks, and materials which is consistent with contemporary-style housing development in the surrounding area, and as such not considered out of character with its immediate streetscape.
2	Traffic impact/congestion to Haig Street, and surrounding road network, and pedestrian movement. There would be potentially over 300 and possibly more extra vehicle movements per day in the early morning, throughout the day, late afternoon and early evening. The traffic survey included in the proposal was undertaken during a quieter period of the year with schools closed for holidays and people on holidays from work thus not providing a true and accurate record.	Under the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the required parking rate for child care centres is 1 space per 4 children and 1 space per 2 staff, which equates to total of 20 spaces required for 62 children. This rate has been provided on site, which takes into account staff and visitor parking demands. The proposed parking arrangement and swept path have been reviewed by Council’s Engineer and considered satisfactory, subject to deferred commencement conditions to address manoeuvring within the basement. The Traffic Report accompanying the application has been carried out based on surveys during peak times AM and PM between 6.30am – 10.00am and 2.30pm – 6.30pm on Thursday 19 December 2019. Council noted the additional traffic to be generated by the proposal and the findings from the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment Report. Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the proposed development is a low trip generator and can be accommodated in the locality without affecting performance of existing street, delays or queues of nearby intersections, and complies with Council’s parking requirements.
3	Loss of privacy/overlooking to neighbouring properties	The first floor comprises of staff facilities being the office, kitchen and staff room. The rear/north facing windows are 1.5m high sill windows and do not pose adverse overlooking concerns, noting the substantial 27.896m first floor setback provided to the rear boundary. The eastern first floor window also has a 1.5m sill height and setback 4.16m and does not pose visual privacy concerns to neighbouring properties. 1.8m high acoustic fencing is proposed along the northern, eastern and western boundaries. In addition, 2.4m high (east), 2.8m high (north), and 2.1m high (west) acoustic fencing is proposed within the site adjacent to the outdoor play areas. The acoustic fencing is considered to adequately maintain privacy between properties.
4	The proposed child care is not suitable for the street and area, and there is no demand for the proposal. There is already a child care centre being constructed at 54 Bridge Road, Westmead, in close proximity to the subject site. There is an oversupply of child care centres in the area.	A childcare centre is permissible with consent on the site and there is no limit on the number of childcare centres within any given locality. The development application has been assessed as generally compliant with the relevant controls as demonstrated within this report and associated attachments.
5	The proposed child care centre is for 68 children placements and exceeds the maximum 45 children placements prescribed in HDCP 2013.	The subject site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under HLEP 2013. The development application (as amended) proposes 62 children. The maximum number of children control contained in HDCP 2013 is not applicable as it has been overridden by the SEPP.
6	The proposal appears extremely high in elevation and imposes on nearby properties. Childcare centres are required to be single storey. The proposal is two storey in height.	The proposal is two storey in height above basement car parking and has a maximum building height of 7.6m, which complies with the maximum 9m building height standard prescribed by HLEP 2013. Childcare centres are permitted to be a maximum of two storey in height. The first floor level of the child care centre contains staff facilities.
7	Noise impacts of the child care centre on the private open space areas and living areas of neighbouring properties.	The subject proposal is accompanied by an Acoustic Report which assesses the noise generated from the proposed development. The submitted acoustic report recommends acoustic fencing to minimise noise impact and demonstrates that the proposed centre can be accommodated on the site without noise nuisance to adjoining neighbours. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the acoustic report and found it to be acceptable, subject to conditions.
8	Parents are more likely to park on the street and will not use the basement car park.	An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be enforced by way of conditions to encourage the use of the basement parking facility. All pickup and drop-off are expected to take place within the basement, noting that basement parking enables parents to walk children directly into the child care centre.
9	Evacuation issues associated with the assembly of staff and children in a small area close to the road. Nuisance of emergency evacuation procedures on neighbouring properties.	An evacuation and emergency plan has been submitted with the application that identifies procedures for evacuation and emergency in accordance with Regulations 97 and 168 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations.
10	Property devaluation.	There is no evidence which suggests that the proposal will reduce property values. This is not a matter for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
11	Proposal will impact on health conditions of residents.	The proposal has been designed to ensure residential amenity is maintained to neighbouring properties. Appropriate conditions are imposed to mitigate environmental impacts of the proposal the demolition and construction phase.
12	Flow of stormwater onto neighbouring properties. Overland flow swale for the OSD water and stormwater impact.	The proposed development’s drainage system is designed to retain stormwater run-off from site through an underground on-site stormwater detention system to be constructed at the site. This will assist in ensuring that stormwater run-off is managed appropriately without resulting in any ponding within the site and not impacting the children and the adjoining neighbours. The engineering plans have been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer who are satisfied that the proposed stormwater system is in accordance with the requirements listed in the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013. It is noted that no swale is proposed within the site boundaries.
13	Construction related impacts.	Council imposes standard conditions of consent requiring any development to be constructed to have minimal impacts on adjoining properties. In any case where construction is not in accordance with the conditions of consent or the approved plans, concerns shall be raised with Council’s Compliance Team for further investigation and action. In addition, conditions are imposed requiring a dilapidation report to be prepared for any adjoining or nearby properties that may be subject to potential damage as a result of any works being undertaken on the development site. The dilapidation report provides a record of the state of neighbouring properties prior to any works commencing and is designed to assist all parties should damage occur as a result of development works
14	Signage.	It is advised that signage is not proposed under the subject application as indicated within the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects.
15	Plans show works at No. 7 Haig Street without neighbours’ consent.	A 1.25m wide drainage easement is proposed through No. 7 Haig Street to connect to Council’s existing pipe, to permit the disposal of stormwater to Jordan Street. Deferred commencement conditions are imposed requiring written owner’s consent from No. 7 Haig Street for the proposed drainage easement, prior to the development consent being operational.
16	The design of the outdoor and indoor play areas does not receive adequate amenity for children.	All indoor and outdoor play spaces are provided with good access to direct sunlight and natural ventilation.
17	Proposed landscaping not accessible for maintenance.	Council's Tree Management Officer has recommended the plantings and trees shown on the landscape plan located between the northern, western and eastern acoustic fencing to be replaced with Acmena smithii "minor", as these shrubs are capable of growing and surviving within the constraints of the two fences and can form a hedge in the order of 2.5-3m in height. Having regard to the planting species selected, maintenance of the landscaped area can be carried out within the site. Conditions are also imposed requiring a fully automated commercial grade irrigation system to be installed to planting areas.
18	Excessive basement footprint.	Whilst basement parking shall not be located outside the building footprint for single dwellings and dual occupancies, this provision does not apply to child care centres. The basement provides a 1m setback to the eastern, northern and western boundaries. Conditions are imposed requiring a dilapidation report to be prepared for any adjoining or nearby properties that may be subject to potential damage as a result of any works being undertaken on the development site. The dilapidation report provides a record of the state of neighbouring properties prior to any works commencing and is designed to assist all parties should damage occur as a result of development works.
19	The centre cannot accommodate the proposed 68 children having regard to the size of the kitchen and laundry facilities provided.	The proposed development provides adequate facilities within the centre with respect to laundry, kitchen and waste, to accommodate and service the proposed 62 children placements.
20	Plans do not include and consider the existing secondary dwelling at No. 1 Haig Street.	Plans submitted identify the existing secondary dwelling at No. 1 Haig St and impacts to this residence has been taken into consideration in the assessment of the proposed development.
21	Parking of emergency vehicles and garbage trucks.	There is no requirement to provide parking for emergency vehicles on site. The development provides adequate car parking on site in accordance with the applicable planning instruments that apply to the development.
22	Asbestos impact	The Preliminary Site Assessment conducted by EI Australia Pty Ltd has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Section and considered to be satisfactory, subject to the imposition of condition requiring submission of Hazardous Material Survey prior to demolition.
23	Children safety	The proposal provides suitable safe and secure fencing to all outdoor areas which is considered satisfactory.
24	Baby cot room does not have a window and is non-compliant with the BCA.	The baby cot room does not contain a window. Conditions are imposed requiring compliance with the National Construction Code and this matter can be addressed as part of the Construction Certificate application.

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.

Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020.

In accordance with the Contribution Plan a total contribution of $25,556.00 would be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, pursuant to Section 7.12 of the EP&A Act.

Conditions are imposed in the Draft Notice of Determination 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.

Conclusion:

The Application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, Education and Care Services National Regulations, 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 deferred commencement approval, subject to conditions.

Report Recommendation:

1. That Development Application No. DA2020/0792 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 1 storey, part 2 storey, 62 place child care centre above basement parking and associated site works on land at 3-5 Haig Street, Wentworthville; be approved as 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.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination

2. Architectural Plans

3. Landscape Plan

4. Stormwater Engineering Plans

5. Acoustic Report & Noise Management Plan

6. Traffic Report

7. Operational Plan of Management

8. Previous Architectural Plans Refused under DA2020-0145-1

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

10. Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

11. Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013

12. Child Care Planning Guideline 2017

13. Submissions Received

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

9 June 2021

Item No: LPP024/21

Modification Application for 14 Civic Avenue, Pendle Hill

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: MOD2020/0309

Application lodged	14 September 2020
Applicant	NR Pendle Pty Ltd
Owner	NR Pendle Pty Ltd
Application No.	MOD2020/0309
Description of Land	14 Civic Avenue PENDLE HILL NSW 2145, Lot 100 DP 1027238
Proposed Development	Section 4.55(2) application for various modifications to approved mixed use development including reconfiguration of basement car park, residential units and commercial space, and alterations to façade treatment
Site Area	4,173.00 m²
Zoning	B2- Local Centre
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	The subject site is not heritage listed, is not located in the vicinity of any heritage items and is not located within or in the vicinity of Heritage Conservation Area.
Principal Development Standards	FSR Permissible: 2:1 Approved:1.39:1 Proposed:1.63:1	Height of Building Permissible: 17m Approved: 22.1m (maximum height of RL 59.25) Proposed: 22m (maximum height of RL 59.10)
Issues	- Unauthorised works (No Construction Certificate obtained for completed works on site with the exclusion of demolition, bulk excavation, shoring and piling) - Building height - Building depth and separation - Apartment layout - Basement design - Traffic, parking and access - Submission

Summary:

1. Modification Application No. MOD2020/0309 was received on 14 September 2020 for various modifications to an approved mixed use development including reconfiguration of basement car park, residential units and commercial space, and alterations to façade treatment

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 30 October 2020 and 20 November 2020. In response, one (1) submission was received.

3. The assessment of the application identified issues including proximity of the as-built balconies and On-Site Detention System to Sydney Trains electrical assets, exceedance in building height, ground floor and basement reconfiguration, stormwater, traffic and parking. As such the application was deferred on 20 January 2021 seeking additional information. Amended plans and information were provided to Council on 26 February 2021 and 31 March 2021. The amended plans did not warrant re-notification as they are submitted to address issues raised by Council and Sydney Trains.

Note: The building works (subject of this modification) have already been completed without consent and this application is seeking to regularise the unauthorised works. Further, it is noted that no Construction Certificate was obtained for completed works on site with the exclusion of demolition, bulk excavation, shoring and piling.

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

5. The proposal seeks the following non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

Control	Required	Approved	Proposed	% Variation
Building Height	i) Max. 17m ii) (HLEP 2013)	iii) 22.1m	- 22m to top of lift core	29.4%
Building Depth (ADG)	iv) 12-18m	v) 19.4m (along the northern portion- Units 01 & 02)	vi) 22m vii) (along the northern portion- Units 01 & 02)	22.2%
Building Separation (Between habitable rooms and balconies) (ADG)	viii) Min. 9m - 5 storeys and above	8m	Level 4: 6m from COS	33.3%
Apartment layout (ADG)	ix) 8m – open plan layouts	8m	10m	25%
Basement setback (HDCP)	3 metres (basement)	Min 1.25m, max 6m (along southern boundary)	0.45m along southern boundary	85%

Note: Only new non-compliances have been discussed within the body of the report which are proposed under the subject modification application. The original consent with the approved architectural plans is attached at Attachment 4.

6. The original development application DA2014/111/1 was determined by the former Holroyd City Council at its meeting on 18 March 2015. The application is being reported to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel (CLPP) for determination as it is a development that contravenes a development standard by more than 10%.

7. The application is recommended for retrospective approval subject to the conditions in the draft notice of determination in Attachment 1.

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as 14 Civic Avenue Pendle Hill, and is legally described as Lot 82, 100 in DP 1027238. The site is located on the northern side of Civic Avenue within the B2 Local Centre zone.

The site is an irregular allotment with a narrow frontage to Civic Avenue of 15.9m with access to the site being through an access handle along the western boundary and a frontage of 35.445m to Bentley Lane along the eastern boundary. The site has a total area of 4,173m²and has a slope of approximately 4m from north western boundary to the south eastern boundary.

During a site inspection it was observed that the proposed works have already been completed without consent and this application is seeking to regularise the unauthorised works.

The site adjoins the T1 and T5 rail line at its north-eastern boundary. Civic Park, Council’s car park and Pendle Creek are located west of the site. Further to the east along Bentley Lane are one to two storey shop top housing development.

The site is located approximately 100m north-west of the Pendle Hill Railway Station. The southern adjoining property contains a part 3 & 4 storey mixed use development at 2-12 Civic Avenue Pendle Hill. Further to the south, is a recently constructed 5 storey mixed use development.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of subject

Figure 2 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 – subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a modification application for alterations and additions to an approved mixed use development incorporating the following works:

Basement Level

· Basement reconfiguration resulting in an increased basement footprint along southern boundary to accommodate 79 x total car spaces (including 65 x residential spaces, and 14 x residential visitor spaces).

· Relocation of stairs and lifts to a central core.

Ground Floor

· Deletion of open spaces between commercial areas.

· Modify layout of commercial/retail tenancies with a total commercial floor area of 420m² and changes to opaque glazing on north east façade.

· Relocation of resident’s gym, services, bin, storage and amenities central to the ground floor.

· Provision of additional residential common room with size of 353m².

· Relocation of residential lobbies central to the ground floor.

· Provision of residential storage areas.

· 36 x residential bicycle spaces located central to the ground floor, and 10 x commercial/visitor bicycle spaces adjoining Bentley Lane.

· Provision of 21 x commercial parking spaces within existing at grade parking area.

Level 1 – Level 3

· Deletion of a 1 bedroom unit from Level 1 – Level 3, resulting in 16 x units per floor.

· Minor reconfiguration of internal layout of units, including larger bedrooms, larger window areas and ensuites within 2 bedroom units with reduced setbacks to northern boundary/railway corridor.

Level 4

· Additional unit at Level 4 resulting in a total of 10 x units at this level.

· Minor reduction of the communal open space area at the southern portion of the fourth floor.

· Increased building setback to the southern boundary.

· Minor changes to location of services rooms.

Level 5

· Additional unit at Level 5 resulting in a total of 8 x units at this level.

· Reduction in balcony area of northern Units 01 & 02, and relocation of balcony for northern Unit 01.

· Reconfiguration of north-eastern facing units as a result of modified unit mix.

· Minor changes to location of services rooms.

· Addition of fire resistant glazing upon level 5 void area.

Roof/Level 6

· Deletion of part of rooftop communal open space area.

· Changes to façade treatments

A comparison of the originally approved development and the proposed modified development is stipulated in the following table.

Figure 8 – Physical comparison

Feature	Approved	Modified
Maximum Building Height	22.1m – Max RL 59.25 (lift overrun)	22m – Max RL 59.10 (lift overrun)
GFA	5,790m²	6,785.3m² (Increased GFA of 995.3m²)
Floor Space Ratio	1.39:1	1.63:1
Commercial Tenancies	5 x retail/commercial tenancies with an area of 390m²	4 x retail/commercial tenancies with an area of 420m²
Unit Mix	12 x 1 bedroom units 45 x 2 bedroom units 9 x 3 bedroom units Total 66 units	12 x 1 bedroom units 49 x 2 bedroom units 5 x 3 bedroom units Total 66 units
Car Parking Spaces	95 car spaces (as amended by previous S4.55 application) comprising: Residential spaces = 61 Visitor spaces = 14 Commercial spaces = 20; and a designated car wash Total car spaces = 95 and a car wash bay	100 car spaces comprising: Residential spaces = 65 Residential Visitor spaces = 14 Total Residential = 79 *Commercial spaces = 21; and a designated car wash Total car spaces = 100 and a designated car wash
Vehicular access	Via Civic Avenue	Via Civic Avenue
Basement (along southern boundary)	Min setback = 1m Max setback = 6m	.45m setback proposed.
Communal Space	Ground Floor = 759m² (including the Gym/common room) Roof top – 641m² Total area – 1,400m²	Ground Floor = 995.4m² (including the Gym/common room and common terrace) Roof top (Level 4) – 576.4m² Total area – 1,571.8m²

Figure 9: Proposed Elevations

Figure 10: Approved Elevations

Figure 11: Proposed 3D Height Plane

Figure 12: Approved 3D Height Plane

Figure 13: 3D Perspective View

History

· Development Application 2014/111/1 was approved by the former Holroyd City Council at its meeting on 18 March 2015 for the Demolition of existing structures; construction of a part 4 & 6 storey mixed use development accommodating 66 residential units; 390m² of commercial spaces (5 units) over basement parking accommodating 99 carparking spaces and associated strata subdivision thereof.

· Operational consent was issued by Council on 27 May 2016.

· M2014/111/2 S4.55(1A) modification was approved on 27 May 2016 seeking alterations to the north eastern elevation façade and deletion of a basement level to facilitate Sydney Trains requirements and accommodating 95 carparking spaces.

· Construction Certificate CC2014/111/1 dated 7 November 2019 for demolition and M2014/111/2CC dated 21 November 2019 for bulk excavation, piling and shoring by a Private Certifier.

· M2014/111/3 S4.55(1A) modification was refused by Cumberland Council on 10 September 2019 seeking to modify condition No. 15 with regards to timing of S7.11 contributions payments.

· MOD2019/5258 S4.55(1) modification was approved on 29 January 2020 to remove the reference to DA2013/152/2 from condition 2 in DA2014/111/2.

· Building Information Certificate HBC2019/0087 for piling, excavation, half of slab on ground by Cumberland City Council dated 23 June 2020.

· Building Information Certificate HBC2020/0232 was lodged on 28 September 2020 for the unauthorised building works that have been undertaken without Construction Certificate. It is to be noted that the subject BIC is currently being assessed by Council and is on hold until such time the subject modification application is determined.

The history of the subject modification application is provided as below:

Date	Action
14/09/2020	The subject Development Application was lodged.
15/10/2020	The Development Application was referred to Council’s internal and external departments for review.
30/10/2020 to 20/11/2020	Application placed on public notification for 21 days. In response, one submission was received.
20/01/2021	The application was deferred seeking additional information with regard to Sydney Trains requirements, ground floor retail layout, basement reconfiguration, stormwater, traffic and parking.
26/02/2021	Amended plans and additional information were received by Council. Amended plans did not warrant re notification.
31/03/2021	Further additional information was submitted to address Sydney Trains matters with regard to summary of design changes (rail specific potential impacts) and impact assessment on the rail corridor from the design changes.
13/05/2021	Sydney Trains concurrence received.
9/06/2021	Application referred to CLPP for determination.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided an amended Statement of Environmental Effects dated 25 February 2021 prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd; and Design Verification Statement, prepared by a registered architect Robert Del Pizzo – Architex in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory having regard to stormwater management and the changes proposed to the basement reconfiguration, including parking provision, and the proposed modifications can therefore be supported, subject to recommended conditions of consent, which have been included in the recommended conditions of consent.

Building Surveyor

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory with regard to the proposed modifications and therefore can be supported subject to compliance with National Construction Code which have been included in the recommended conditions of consent. Further, a construction certificate will be required for the balance of works including but not limited to installation of fire safety system, waterproofing, internal finishing to the units, ground floor area, removal of the temporary lift, completion of the brickworks and external finishes.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Unit for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory with regard to acoustic assessment and noise attenuation measure, subject to recommended conditions of consent, which have been included in the recommended conditions of consent.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory in terms of the proposed waste collection, and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent, which have been included in the recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

The proposal was referred to Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) -Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for comment as the original application required approval under the Water Management Act 2000, however it was advised that the proposed modifications would not have any impact on the issued General Terms of Approval and therefore considered satisfactory.

Sydney Trains

The development application was referred to Sydney Trains pursuant to Clause 86 and 87 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 who provided their concurrence in their letter dated 13 May 2021.

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 4.55(2):

Requirement	Comments
Council is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and	The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as the original consent, as the proposed modifications are largely within the approved building footprint, and involve the reconfiguration of basement for car parking arrangement, amendments to the floors and the overall layout with an additional floor area at the upper levels 4 & 5 to accommodate the reconfigured units. No additional units are proposed, and the approved 4 – 6 storey form is largely retained. The proposed amendments do not deviate from the approved mixed use development on the subject site.
Council has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and	No Minister, public authority or other approval body was required to be consulted regarding the proposed modification.
Council has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and	See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.
Council has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.	See discussion on “Public Notification” in this report.
Relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) of the act have been taken into consideration	Proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable.
Council has considered the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.	The development was initially approved as it was found to be satisfactory with respect to:- • Overall bulk and scale • Provided adequate car parking, and vehicle circulation. • Compliance with the relevant planning instruments. • Would assist in promoting employment opportunities for the locality and providing residential development that is well integrated with commercial uses. • Satisfactory appearance. It is considered that the previous conclusions have not been altered and that the modified development is acceptable and a suitable form of development.

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 original development application. Council is satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the approved shop top housing development. The proposed modifications have no bearing on the original SEPP 55 matters for consideration, as assessed under approved DA2014/111.

(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 Robert Del Pizzo was submitted with the s4.55(2) application.

A comprehensive assessment against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls and SEPP 65 sets 9 design quality principles are provided at Attachment 5. The following table sets out the ADG non-compliances.

Part 3 - Siting the Development
3F	Visual Privacy				Yes	No	N/A
3F-1	Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy.
	Design Criteria	Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:		Level 4 (5 storey) Required setback = 9m Southern boundary: It is noted that internal layout of some of the units have been modified. However, building separation from ground floor to Level 3 generally remains as approved. The communal open space provides a setback of 6m (where a setback of 9m is required) However, this will not have any adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining development at No. 2-12 Civic Avenue noting it is maintained to a height of 3 storeys and does not have a level at the same height. Further, 1.6m high privacy screen and planter boxes have been incorporated to mitigate any potential privacy impacts on the subject adjoining property.
4B	Natural Ventilation
4B-3	Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.		The proposal has a maximum building depth of 22m measured at the northern portion of the development (Units 01 & 02). This building depth is considered acceptable noting the modified proposal provides a well-defined and well articulated corner element at the northern elevation which serve to break-up the built form when viewed from the street. With regard to residential amenity, the proposed building depth of 22m at Units 01 & 02 will not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of these units, as these are dual-aspect units that receive a high level of solar access and natural ventilation.
4D	Apartment Size and Layout
4D-2	In open plan layouts, the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.		The maximum depth of central units is 10m which is consistent with the approved development. Notwithstanding, the proposed modifications do not result in any kitchen being located further than 8m from the balcony/window openings ensuring a reasonable level of amenity to the open plan areas. Further, the proposed modifications reconfigure the central units within the development to allow for a bedroom to have direct access to the unit balconies with improved amenity and solar access.

(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 85 – Development adjacent to railway corridors

The application is subject to clause 85 of the ISEPP, because the subject site is in or adjacent to a railway corridor. The original application was referred to Sydney Trains who provided their concurrence subject to conditions. The subject modification application was also referred to Sydney Trains and concurrence was provided in their letter dated 13 May 2021.

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

The application is subject to clause 86 of the ISEPP as the proposed redevelopment of the site involves excavation to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing), on land within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor. Refer to the earlier discussion under Clause 85.

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

An acoustic report was submitted in support of the original application, which was considered satisfactory by Council’s Environmental Health Unit, subject to conditions.

The subject modification was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Unit and it has been considered satisfactory subject to imposition of condition to ensure that the proposed modifications do not alter previous conclusions about acoustic recommendations and that the proposal continue to meet the criteria as outlined in the ISEPP.

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

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

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

Tree removal on site has been approved in the original assessment. No tree removal is proposed under the subject modification application.

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

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

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

A revised BASIX certificate no. 1029483M dated 14 May 2020 was submitted by the applicant. The certificate achieves target scores and is consistent with the architectural plans.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

The provisions of the Holroyd LEP 2013 are 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 proposal is defined as ‘shop top housing’ under the provisions of Holroyd LEP 2013. Shop top housing is permitted with consent in the B2 Local Centre land zone which applies to the land. 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 Attachment 6.

Figure 6 –Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of Buildings, max : 17m	No	Approved: 22.1m Proposed: 22m Variation: 29.6% Under DA2014/111/1, the maximum building height was approved for 22.1m to the top of the lift overrun (RL 59.25m AHD), which is a variation of 30% (5.1m) to the development standard. The proposed modification seeks a maximum RL height of RL59.10 measured to the central lift overrun and equates to variation of 29.6% to the development standard. Clause 4.6 variation is not required for a s4.55 modification application. The applicant submitted justification to further contravene the building height development standard, in which the additional floor area is confined to the northern end and central portions of the development which does not present unreasonable bulk. The modifications are not considered to create unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties via overshadowing or overlooking. The proposed modifications present no significant change to the approved built form being a 4-6 storey mixed use development which is consistent with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone. It is the view of Council Officers that justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the variation to the maximum building height development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Maximum Floor Space Ratio – 2:1 Site area = 4,173m² Permitted GFA = 8,346 m²	Yes	Approved GFA = 5790 m² Provided GFA= 6785.3m² Proposed FSR = 1.63:1
6.10 Ground floor development in Zones B2 and B4 (3) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of commercial premises or to a mixed use development with a commercial premises component, or a change of use of a building to commercial premises, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the ground floor of the building: (a) will not be used for the purposes of residential accommodation, (b) will not be used for a car park or to provide ancillary car parking spaces, (c) will provide for uses and building design elements that encourage interaction between the inside of the building and the external public areas adjoining the building.	Yes	The subject application includes reconfiguration of parking within the western portion of the site. It is noted that the original approval provided 20 car spaces on the ground floor. However, the proposal now provides 21 commercial car spaces (under the subject modification). The new commercial car space is a result of the reconfiguration of the parking spaces by the deletion of the approved at-grade garbage bay and therefore is not constituted as an additional car parking. The reconfiguration of the at grade car parking spaces has been noted by Council’s Development Engineer and considered acceptable, subject to amendment in red on the plan for the provision of garbage bay adjacent to the existing car parking along the western boundary.