Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting
8 September 2021
Minutes of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held via Electronic Determination on Wednesday 08 September 2021.
Michael Leavey (Chairperson), David Furlong, Dennis Loether and Allan Ezzy AM APM JP.
The meeting opened at 11:34am.
David Furlong advised in relation to item LPP032/21 that he sits on the Catholic Archdiocese Property Committee. The Archdiocese owns the St Joachim’s Catholic Church and School. David declared that this is a non-significant and non-pecuniary interest and does not compromise or influence his decision-making ability.
There were no other declarations of interest.
|
ITEM LPP031/21 - Review Application for 14 Civic AVENUE, Pendle Hill |
|
PANEL DECISION: That Section 8.3 Review REV2021/0002 of S4.55(2) Modification Application No. MOD2020/0309 to approved mixed use development including reconfiguration of basement car park, residential units and commercial space, and alterations to façade treatment on land at 14 Civic Avenue PENDLE HILL NSW 2145 be granted approval subject to the conditions attached to the assessment report and the following amendment to conditions: 1. Amend condition 42 to include the following: 42b. Prior to the lodgement of the Construction Certificate, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant* must prepare an acoustic report to the satisfaction of Council’s Executive Manager Development and Building that confirms the amended plans meet the requirements of Clause 87 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65, particularly in relation to cross ventilation.
*Note: Suitably qualified Acoustic Consultant means a consultant who possesses the qualifications to render them eligible for membership of the Australian Acoustics Society, Institution of Engineers Australia or the Association of Australian Acoustic Consultants at the grade of member.
2. Amend condition 149 to read as follows:
149. Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant* must prepare an acoustic verification report to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifier that confirms the following:
(a) All recommendations contained in the DA acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics, Report Number 13222D0/13631, Revision 5, dated 11 August 2014 have been implemented. (b) The project specific noise criteria established in the DA acoustic report and any other noise and vibration criteria specified in this consent are being complied with. (c) Compliance with the requirements of Clause 87 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and any recommendations arising from the acoustic report referred to in Condition 42b.
*Note: Suitably qualified Acoustic Consultant means a consultant who possesses the qualifications to render them eligible for membership of the Australian Acoustics Society, Institution of Engineers Australia or the Association of Australian Acoustic Consultants at the grade of member.
(Reason: To protect residential amenity).
For: Michael Leavey (Chairperson), David Furlong, Dennis Loether and Allan Ezzy AM APM JP.
Against: Nil.
Reasons for Decision:
1. The Panel is satisfied that the development, as modified, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.
2. The Panel noted that the additional information sought by the previous Panel had been assessed by the council and was considered to be satisfactory.
3. The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and also consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.
4. The Panel is satisfied that the development as modified will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality, also noting that there were no written submissions in response to the public notification and advertising of the application.
5. While supporting the application, the Panel notes with concern the history of this application and unauthorised works that have been carried out and notes that compliance issues are a separate matter for Council.
The Panel noted that a Clause 4.6 variation request in relation to the building height had been submitted with the Section 4.55 Modification, was considered by Council staff to be well-founded and the Panel found that assessment to be satisfactory. |
|
ITEM LPP032/21 - Development Application for 39 Church Street, Lidcombe |
|
That Development Application No. DA2020/0608 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a ten (10) storey mixed use building comprising 58 residential units and ground floor commercial tenancies over basement car parking on land at 39 Church Street LIDCOMBE NSW 2141 be refused for the following reasons: 1. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation, while minor, is not supported having regard to the visual impact and inadequate setbacks of the proposal and fails to establish why compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.
2. The proposal is of an inappropriate scale and with inappropriate setbacks having regard to the adjoining heritage items.
3. The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining heritage items and any future redevelopment opportunities on those sites.
4. The proposal would result in unacceptable streetscape impacts having regard to the adjoining heritage items and the development potential of surrounding land.
5. The proposal provides inadequate side setbacks having regard to the Apartment Design Guide requirements and borrows amenity and setbacks from adjoining sites, with potential to impact on any future redevelopment of the adjoining heritage items.
For: Michael Leavey (Chairperson), David Furlong, Dennis Loether and Allan Ezzy AM APM JP.
Against: Nil. |
|
ITEM LPP033/21 - Development Application for 15 Mary Street and 13 Harrow Road Auburn |
|
1. That the variation to the maximum 38 metre building height development standard, as contained in Clause 4.3 of the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 be approved, as the Applicant’s Clause 4.6 request has adequately addressed the matters at Clause 4.6(3) and the development will be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.
2. That Development Application No. DA2021/0328 for the demolition of existing structures and provision of communal open space at 13 Harrow Road and alterations and addition to the approved mixed use development at 15 Mary Street (DA-92/2019) including ground floor access to 13 Harrow Road, provision of communal open space on level 5 podium, removal of rooftop communal open space and construction of a 3 bedroom unit, and changes to corridor windows on levels 6 to 11 at 15 Mary Street and 13 Harrow Road, AUBURN NSW 2144 be approved subject to the conditions attached to the assessment report.
For: Michael Leavey (Chairperson), David Furlong, Dennis Loether and Allan Ezzy AM APM JP.
Against: Nil.
Reasons for Decision:
1. The Panel generally concurs with the Planning Officer’s report and assessment therein.
2. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone and will provide improvements to the already approved high density residential development on the site that contributes to the provision of housing and economic growth in the Auburn Town Centre.
3. The proposal is generally consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.
4. Subject to the recommended conditions of development consent, the proposal will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality.
5. Taking into account the reasons above, approval of the application will be in the public interest. |
The meeting terminated at 1:02pm.
Signed:
Michael
Leavey
Chairperson