Agenda of Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

14 July 2021

Item No: LPP028/21

Development Application for Church Street, Lidcombe

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: DA2021/0054

Application lodged	3 February 2021
Applicant	Mr S P J Brennen
Owner	The Minister for Lands (under the care and management by Council)
Application No.	DA2021/0054
Description of Land	Church Street LIDCOMBE NSW 2141, Lot 7046 DP 1065005
Proposed Development	Partial demolition of existing toilet block, reinstatement of landscaping and installation of a lockable power bollard
Site Area	93sqm
Zoning	RE1 – Public Recreation
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	Yes – The subject building is located on a site (Wyatt Park) that is a Local Heritage Item (I40)
Principal Development Standards	N/A
Issues	Nil

Summary:

1. Development Application No. DA2021/0054 was received on 3 February 2021 for the partial demolition of existing toilet block, reinstatement of landscaping and installation of lockable power bollard.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 17 March 2021 and 31 March 2021. In response, no submissions were received.

3. The subject site is located on a site that is a heritage item in the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 as Heritage Item I40. The heritage item is Wyatt Park and a Heritage Impact Statement has been submitted in support of the proposal. The proposed development will have minimal impact on the heritage item and is considered satisfactory, having regard to the provisions of Clause 5.10(4) of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

4. The development was referred to Council’s Heritage Committee for comment who has raised no objections to the proposed development.

5. The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for determination as the development is proposed on land for which Council is the land manager, resulting in a conflict of interest.

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

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is known as Wyatt Park Lidcombe and is accessed via Church Street to the west and Olympic Drive to the east. A rail corridor is located parallel to Church Street and the park is located within walking distance (approximately 400m) to Lidcombe railway station. The location of Wyatt Park is identified in Figure 1 below.

Wyatt Park contains numerous sporting facilities that serve the wider residents of the Local Government Area and Western Sydney. The Wyatt Park Management Plan recognises that the ‘majority of the park currently operates below capacity’ with a number of dated and dilapidated facilities scattered throughout the park including a defunct skate bowl, the Wyatt Park Youth Centre (WPYC) building, the Cumberland Basketball Centre (CBC) building, netball courts and a dilapidated toilet block.

The subject of this DA is a toilet block located on the southern side of Lidcombe Oval. The building is two storeys in height, contains toilets and a change room and is in a poor dilapidated state. The subject site is shown in context with the surrounding land uses in Figure 1. The building proposed to be demolished is hi-lighted in ‘red’ in Figure 2 below.

Figure 1 – Land use map showing the location of the subject site

Figure 2 – Map showing the location of the amenities block within Wyatt Park (source: Wyatt Park Plan of Management, Revision 6, 13 April 2021)

Figure 3 – View of the amenities block building (south elevation) from within Wyatt Park

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the demolition of a disused amenities block located within Wyatt Park. The amenities block is located on the southern side of Lidcombe Oval and as shown in Figure 3 is in a dilapidated state. Specifically, the proposal will involve the removal of the following items:

- Amenities block building.

- Two concrete slabs to the north west of the building.

- Remnant steps to the west of the building.

- Fencing to the north east of the building.

- Reinstatement of turf and landscaping to the area.

The slab and the electrical infrastructure of the amenities block is proposed to be retained for future use as defined in Council’s Wyatt Park Plan of Management (refer to ‘Referrals’ section of this report).

Figure 4 – Demolition plan

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Graham Bakewell dated November 2020 and was received by Council on 3 February 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

Landscape Officer

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

The Wyatt Park Plan of Management (the plan) dated 13 April 2021 was adopted by Council on 5 May 2021 and provides a clear direction and framework for the future use and management of the park. The plan identifies an intention to provide a kiosk or food truck on the hard stand area where the amenities block currently stands (Refer to Management Action B6 of the plan, page 73). Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no issue to the demolition of the amenities block subject to the retention of the ground slab and the associated electricity infrastructure. The slab of the building and existing electricity infrastructure can be adapted with little effort for use as a kiosk or a food truck in the future as envisaged by the plan.

Tree Management Officer

It is noted that there are several trees in close proximity to the amenities block. The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to the imposition of standard tree protection conditions in any consent.

Heritage Committee

The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Committee for comment who have raised no objections to the proposal. It is noted that the amenities block building is not identified as a local heritage item in Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and is a small dilapidated structure that possesses no heritage value.

External Referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any external agencies 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)

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.

Matter for Consideration	Yes/No
Does the application involve re-development of the site or a change of land use?	Yes No
In the development going to be used for a sensitive land use (e.g.: residential, educational, recreational, childcare or hospital)?	Yes N/A
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
Details of contamination investigations carried out at the site: Council’s contamination mapping does not indicate the subject site is contaminated in any way nor is it identified as being potentially contaminated. A site inspection reveals the site does not have any obvious history of a previous land use that may have the potential to cause contamination and there is no specific evidence that indicates the site is contaminated. Notwithstanding, a standard condition of consent has been recommended to manage any unexpected finds encountered during the proposed works.

(b) 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 site is adjacent to an existing rail corridor and the development has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 85(1). The development is not likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, given the distance of the works to the corridor and the fact that the works are minor in nature. Further, the development does not involve the placing of a metal finish, will not involve the use of a crane in airspace above the rail corridor and is not located within 5 metres of an exposed overhead electricity powerline that is used for the purpose of railways or rail infrastructure facilities.

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

The proposed development does not involve any excavation works to a depth of 2 metres and the provisions of Clause 86 are therefore not applicable.

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

The proposed development is not for the purpose of residential accommodation, a place of public worship, a hospital or an educational establishment or centre-based child care facility and the provisions of Clause 87 are therefore not applicable.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as Wyatt Park has frontage to Olympic Drive which is a classified road. Council is satisfied that consent to the development can be granted with respect to this clause noting that vehicles and machinery can gain access to the site via an alternative roadway being Church Street to the west. As such, the proposed demolition will not have a significantly adverse impact on the ongoing operation of Olympic Drive.

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 (ALEP)

The provision of the ALEP is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the ALEP and the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation land use zone.

(a) Permissibility:-

The proposed development involves demolition works which is permissible pursuant to Part 2, Clause 2.7 of the ALEP.

The relevant matters to be considered under ALEP and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.

Figure 5 – Auburn LEP 2010 Compliance Table

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

DISCUSSION

2.7 Development requires development consent

Yes

Development consent is sought by this DA

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes

A Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Graham Bakewell was submitted in support of the application concluding that the proposed ‘demolition complies with the objectives of the LEP, will have a positive impact on the heritage item and is therefore compatible’

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Committee for comment as the building to be removed is located within a local heritage item (Wyatt Park, item no. I40) and is within close proximity to local heritage items (Stand of Eucalyptus microcorys fronting Olympic Drive, item no. I41). No objections were raised.

It is further noted that the building proposed to be removed is not a heritage item. It is simply located within a site that is identified as a local heritage item under the ALEP. Given its proximity to the nearby heritage listed trees fronting Olympic Drive, it is considered that the development would pose no significantly detrimental heritage impact. This is supported by comment provided by Council’s Tree Management Officer.

Based on the above assessment, the proposed development is not considered to pose a significantly detrimental impact on the heritage significance of Wyatt Park and the nearby heritage listed trees and is therefore consistent with the provisions of this clause.

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 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 (ADCP) provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposed development complies with the relevant provisions and controls of the ADCP and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.

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

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 Wyatt Park Plan of Management identifies the amenities block as being in ‘poor’ condition. It was apparent during an inspection of the site that the building is in a poor visual state and may pose a danger to users of Wyatt Park if left in its current dilapidated condition. The proposed demolition of the building would address this concern and permit this part of the park to be upgraded for use (as envisioned by the plan) which will have economic and social benefits for the local area and the community.

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 the ADCP, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 17 March 2021 and 31 March 2021. No submissions were generated in respect of the proposal.

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 does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Contributions Plan.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Conclusion:

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, SEPP (infrastructure) 2007, SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval subject to conditions.

Report Recommendation:

That Development Application No. DA2021/0054 for partial demolition of existing toilet block, reinstatement of landscaping and installation of a lockable power bollard on land at Church Street LIDCOMBE NSW 2141 be approved subject to attached conditions.

Attachments

1. Draft Notice of Determination

2. Architectural Plans

3. Locality Map

4. Heritage Impact Statement

5. Appendix A - Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

6. Appendix B - Auburn Development Control Plan 2010

Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

14 July 2021

Item No: LPP029/21

Modification Application for 16-18 Stimson Street, Guildford

Responsible Division: Environment & Planning

Officer: Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number: MOD2021/0076

Application lodged	2 March 2021
Applicant	Zhinar Architects
Owner	Burnett St Pty Ltd
Application No.	MOD2021/0076
Description of Land	16 -18 Stimson Street GUILDFORD NSW 2161, Lot 100 DP 1241157
Proposed Development	Section 4.55(2) application for various modifications to the approved residential flat building including amendments to external finishes and floor levels and increase in building height
Site Area	1,782.82m²
Zoning	R4 - High Density Residential Zone
Disclosure of political donations and gifts	Nil disclosure
Heritage	No –The subject site is not Heritage Listed or located within a Heritage Conservation Area
Principal Development Standards	Floor Space ratio (FSR) Permissible: 1.2 :1 Proposed: No Change, remains as approved. Height of Building (HOB) Permissible:15m Approved: 15m Proposed:16.64m
Issues	Building Height

Summary:

1. Modification Application No. MOD2021/0076 was received on 4 March 2021 for the Section 4.55(2) application for various modifications to the approved residential flat building including amendments to external finishes and floor levels and increase in building height.

2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 21 days between 31 March 2021 and 21 April 2021. In response, two (2) submissions were received.

3. The 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), Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP), Apartment Design Guide and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

4. The application involves the following non-compliances which are considered supportable as discussed in detail in the body of this report:

Control

Required

Approved DA

Proposed

% variation

Height of buildings (HLEP2013)

15m

16.64m (lift overrun)

10.9%

5. 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%.

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

Report:

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally described as Lot 100 DP 1241157 and known as No. 16 to 18 Stimson Street, GUILDFORD NSW 2161. The site has an area of 1,782.82m2 and a frontage to Stimson Street of 23m and 13m to the Esplanade. The site is located within walking distance to the Guildford Railway Station and the local commercial town centre. The site is currently vacant and fenced off for upcoming works. The subject site and neighbouring allotments are zoned R4 – High Density Residential. The existing developments adjoining the site include 4 storey residential flat building to the east and south and a single storey detached dwelling house to the west.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a modification application for various modifications to the approved residential flat building including the following works:

· Refine the external façade of the building by further increasing the use of face brick and reducing render and removing metal cladding;

· Extend the eastern portion of the roof level to increased weather protection to balconies associated with units 28 and 29;

· Introduction of service cupboards on each level of the building;

· Relocate the planterbox location to minimize waterproofing issue to unit area;

· Lowering of the basement level by 400mm from RL 31.085 to RL 30.685 as a result of design refinement and to assist with providing sprinklers to the residential levels;

· Increasing the height of the building by 1.64m as a result of increasing the floor to floor level from 2.915mm to 3.17mm to facilitate the provision of fire sprinklers throughout the building and the lift overrun.

The following table provides a comparison of approved development and proposed modification:

	Approved	Modified
Storeys	5-storey Residential Flat Building	5-storey Residential Flat building
Maximum Building Height	48.575 RL	50.8RL

Figure 4: Approved on 16 October, 2017(Mod2014/194/2)

See Attachment 5 to view in detail

Figure 5: Proposed, Current Design (MOD2021/0076)

See Attachment 2 to view in detail

Figure 6: Shadow Diagram, Current Application

See Attachment 2 to view in detail

History

26 March 2014: A Pre-lodgement Application was held to discuss construction of a 4 storey residential flat building over one level of basement parking accommodating 30 residential units.

28 January 2015: Council approved Development Application No. 2014/194/1 as a deferred commencement approval for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building accommodating thirty (30) units above a basement parking.

26 February 2015: Council issued an operative consent for the Development Application No. 2014/194/1 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building accommodating thirty (30) units above a basement parking.

16 October 2017: A Section 96 Modification of Development Consent No. 2014/194/2 was approved for minor changes to the stamped approved architectural plans and Condition No. 2 of the consent. This altered the RL to 48.575 but the overall building height was with within the allowable 15m height restriction.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 1 March 2021 and was received by Council on 4 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 Engineer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to 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 and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

External Referrals

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

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. That is, demolition and consolidation of three (3) residential lots into one (1) lot for the construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building accommodating thirty (30) units over a basement car parking for thirty-four (34) vehicles
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. Council has considered the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.	Proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable.

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

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

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

(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, Andre Mulder, Registered Architect NSW, Registration No. 6294 was submitted with the s4.55(2) application.

Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the ADG, the proposal is generally considered compliant and therefore performs satisfactorily. A comprehensive assessment against SEPP 65 and the ADG is contained in Attachment 6.

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

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

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered under the original assessment of the development application.

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

A revised BASIX certificate is not warranted for the proposed modification.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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

Local Environmental Plans

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013

The provision of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the HLEP 2013 and the objectives of the High Residential Density Zoning.

(a) Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘Residential Flat Building’ and is permissible in the R4 Zone with consent.

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

The relevant matters to be considered under HLEP2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Attachment 7.

(b) Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings that stipulates that the height of buildings is not to exceed 15m on the subject site.

The modified proposal seeks the following breaches to the maximum 12.5m building height standard:

Control

Development Standard

Approved DA

Proposed

% variation

Height of buildings (HLEP2013)

4.3 Height of Buildings

Maximum allowable height = 15m

15m

16.64m (lift overrun)

10.9%

(c) Variation to Building Height

It is noted that there is no statutory requirement for a Clause 4.6 variation request to be submitted for Section 4.55 modification applications. Nonetheless, the applicant has prepared a Clause 4.6 variation request for the departure sought to the building height standard (refer to Attachment 3).

Assessment of Building Height variation

Applicant’s justification:

The applicant requests that the consent authority consider the request to vary the building height standard, and grant development consent to the proposal, despite the departure from the control, for the reasons stated below.

· The overall height of the development presents as a compatible form of development to the anticipated high density residential development that are emerging in the locality, noting that the emerging character is for 5 plus storey residential developments. The lift overrun is recessed behind the main building alignment to downplay visual dominance as viewed from the public domain and adjoining residential properties.

· The proportion of the building that protrudes above the 15m height limit is largely attributed to the lift overrun and presents with a dominant 5 storey building design, reinforcing that the breach to the height standard does not result in the development representing an overdevelopment of the site but rather a suitable contextual response to the locational characteristics on the site in order to achieve a suitable ground floor outcome with sufficient amenity for the suites at this level.

· The proposed development incorporates a complying floor space ratio as per the provisions of the HLEP 2013, which will ensure that the scale of the proposed development will be appropriate and will be visually consistent with the permitted building height with the upper levels recessed and designed using a lighter design style to ensure a positive streetscape presentation.

· The additional height does not generate any additional amenity impacts given the location of the site and the surrounding site context.

· The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that no adverse visual or acoustic amenity impacts will be created by the proposed building height along site boundaries as the upper levels are substantially recessed behind the building perimeter.

· The proposed articulation of the built form will ensure that the additional building height will not be discernibly noticeable from street level.

· The proposal provides for a better planning outcome as the same density of apartments could be achieved in a building that is squashed into 5 levels of development with a bigger floor plate that would be less articulated and would be located closer to adjoining properties. Therefore, the response has been to maximise the amenity of apartments.

· The proposal has been designed to ensure that privacy impacts are mitigated against and that the proposal will not obstruct existing view corridors

· The proposal provides residential accommodation opportunities, the proposal will strongly contribute towards revitalising the subject area, as it will increase employment opportunities both during the construction phase and at the completion of the proposal.

· The proposal will provide for a number of distinct public benefits: Delivery of additional housing within close proximity to the Employment Precinct of the Guildford Town Centre.

- Creation of jobs during the construction stage;

- Amenity impacts to adjoining properties are mitigated and the distribution of additional floor space across the site will not be discernibly different to a built form that is compliant with the height control. The scale and intensity of the development is appropriate noting that the proposal complies with the maximum FSR, which demonstrate an appropriate development outcome.

As outlined above the proposal remains consistent with the underlying objectives of the control and as such compliance is considered unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances. The above discussion demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the departure from the control.

Planners Comment:

The variation sought as part of the subject application is minor. The additional height is the result of the lift overrun and to provide a compliant floor to ceiling height which was increased from 2.915m to 3.17m to facilitate the provision of fire sprinklers throughout the building as per NCC requirements and the current Apartment Design Guide (ADG) standards. As a result, the modification increases the overall height of the building by 1.64m. This is due to the lift overrun and the cumulative increase of floor to floor level from 2.915m to 3.17m.

The departures sought to the building height standard are restricted to the lift overrun and roof slab and do not include any additional habitable or additional gross floor area. The variation is not considered to create unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties via overshadowing or overlooking. The presentation of the building is also not considered to be compromised by the variation to the height control.

Council’s Building Surveyor has confirmed that the building would require a sprinkler system and raise no objection to the additional ceiling height. Therefore, the increase in building height is considered acceptable in this instance.

Furthermore, the shadow diagrams accompanying the application demonstrate that the proposal does not result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties and that the development complies with the solar access requirements under the ADG.

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.