13 October 2021

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11.30am via Zoom on Wednesday, 13 October 2021.

Business as below:

Yours faithfully

Peter J. Fitzgerald

General Manager

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.      Receipt of Apologies

2.      Confirmation of Minutes

3.      Declarations of Interest

4.      Address by invited speakers

5.      Reports:

          -        Development Applications

          -        Planning Proposals

6.      Closed Session Reports

 

 13 October 2021

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications – Public Meeting

LPP034/21... Section 8.3 Review Application for 535 Merrylands Road, Merrylands....... 9

LPP035/21... Modification to Development Application for 1-7 Elvina Street, Greystanes 403

Development Applications – Electronic Determination

LPP036/21... Development Application for 7/70-72 Railway Parade, Granville............ 549

LPP037/21... Development Application for 203-211 Merrylands Road, Merrylands..... 829

LPP038/21... Development Application for 43 - 55 Karrabah Road, Auburn............... 1075

LPP039/21... Modification Application for 331 Blaxcell Street, South Granville.......... 1119

 

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP034/21

Section 8.3 Review Application for 535 Merrylands Road, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    REV2021/0003  

 

 

1.      On 28 July 2021, Council received a Section 8.3 Review application (REV2021/0003) of DA2020/0301 refusal for the demolition of existing structures and removal of trees and construction of a 90-bed residential aged care facility, including at grade car parking and associated site improvements. The application is made pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 20 August 2021 and 3 September 2021. In response, one (1) submission was received.

3.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 (HLEP) and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

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

5.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal contravenes 2 development standards by more than 10%, and as the original development application (DA2020/0301) was determined by the Panel, and as such the review of the subject Section 8.3 Review application is required to be determined by the Panel.

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally identified as Lot 15 Sec B DP2815, and known as 535 Merrylands Road, Merrylands.  The property has a site area of approximately 7,746m² with a frontage of 33.61m to Merrylands Road. The site has a gradual fall from the front to the rear of approximately 2.1m.

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Merrylands Road and adjoins Leeton Street Park to the rear of the site. An existing open grassed channel transverse the subject site along the western boundary. The property is currently occupied by a vacant dwelling house and vegetation. The site has been substantially vacant since 2009 or earlier.

The subject allotment and properties adjoining the site directly to the east and part west are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The immediate locality is characterised by low to medium density housing.

Figure 1 – Aerial image of subject site outlined in yellow

Figure 2 – Zoning Map. Subject site indicated in purple outline

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site. Source: Google Maps

Figure 4 – View of the western boundary of subject site from Yoogali Street.

Figure 5 – View of existing grass channel along the western boundary of the subject site.

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a Section 8.3 Review application of DA2020/0303 refusal for the demolition of existing structures and removal of trees and construction of a 90-bed residential aged care facility, including at grade car parking and associated site improvements, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Key features of the proposed development are as follows:

Demolition:

·        Demolition of all existing structures on site and removal of 25 trees.

Construction / site works:

·        Construction of a 2 storey residential aged care facility comprising 90 beds/suites as follows:

-        Ground Floor: 42 suites, reception/lobby, common dining rooms, outdoor landscaped courtyard/gardens, nurse stations, kitchen, staff rooms, offices, linen room, cleaner’s rooms, waste rooms, and mechanical plant room.

-        Level 1: 48 suites, dining rooms with terraces, sitting rooms, office, nurse stations, physio, and cleaner’s rooms.

·        Site preparation, stormwater works, landscaping works and construction of civil infrastructure works including a culvert system.

On-site car parking:

·        At-grade carpark accommodating 39 car parking spaces as follows:

-        22 resident/visitor car parking spaces (including 4 accessible parking spaces); and

-        17 staff car parking spaces.

·        Allocation has also been made for emergency vehicles and loading dock.

Staff:

·        The proposed residential aged care facility is staffed and supervised 24 hours a day.

·        A maximum of 30 staff at any one time will be working at the proposed residential aged care facility.

Key amendments of the subject proposal from the development proposed under DA2020/0301 are as follows:

·        Reduction of the ceiling height of Level 1 and 2 from 3.2m to 3.1m.

·        Overall reduction in height of the building from:

-        10.3m-11.6m to 10.1m-11.4m (as calculated in accordance with HLEP 2013).

-        9.3m to 9.1m (as calculated in accordance with SEPP (HSPD) 2004).

·        Additional landscaping added to improve the interface of the building with the ground plane.

Figure 6 – Site Plan showing the proposed development at the subject site and relationship with adjoining properties.

Background

On 28 November 2018, a preliminary pre-lodgement meeting for a proposed residential aged care facility was held with the applicant and Council staff on site.

On 7 May 2019, a pre-lodgement meeting was held for a proposed 114 bed residential aged care facility with at-grade car park, and associated site works (PDA/847).

On 12 May 2021, Development Application DA2020/0301 for demolition of existing structures and removal of trees and construction of a 90-bed residential aged care facility, including at grade car parking and associated site improvements (State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004) at 535 Merrylands Road, Merrylands; was refused by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel, for the following reasons:

a)      The Clause 4.6 variation requests to vary the Height development standard, pursuant to Clause 40(4)(a) & (c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004 are not considered to be well founded.

b)      The site is identified as flood prone land in Council’s mapping, impacted by High Flood Risk area and flood way. The proposal is for the purposes of a residential aged care which is identified as an unsuitable land use within the medium/high flood risk area in Table 8 Land Use Categories for Development upon Flood Prone Land - Section 8 - Flood Prone Land in Part A of Holroyd DCP 2013. Having regard to the flood affectation of the site, the subject site is not suitable for the proposed residential age care facility, and does not warrant support, having regard to the particular vulnerabilities of the likely occupants of the facility.

c)      The proposal is not in the public interest.

Application History

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by City Plan dated 19 March 2021, and a Section 8.2 Review of Determination DA2020/0301 Statement, prepared by City Plan dated 14 July 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 subject site is identified as being impacted by the 1% AEP storm event, and portions of the site is identified as High Hazard Flood and Floodway. To ensure safety of aged care residents, the building has been designed with finished floor levels set above the PMF flood level for safe refuge (FFL 35.00m AHD).

The building is to be constructed to withstand the anticipated hydrostatic forces, flooding and overland flow.

Flood modelling carried out further indicates that the proposed development will have negligible overall difference in flood depth and flood velocity (pre to post) immediately upstream or downstream during the 1% AEP flood event. Additionally, pier construction and flood storage as provided within the site below the 1 in 100 year flood levels have been increased to ensure that there is no significant increase in flood levels and no exacerbation of the flooding on neighbouring and downstream properties.

A culvert system has also been designed through the site to collect and drain the traversing overland flow from Merrylands Road and direct towards the reserve (Leeton St Park).

The proposal has been accompanied by detailed stormwater plans, Overland Flow ‘Flood’ Assessment (Ref No. 200439_Flood, Rev C, prepared by Quantum Engineers, dated 13/04/2021), and Stormwater Report (Rev 04, prepared by Henry & Hyams, dated April 2021), and Independent Peer Review of Flood Risk Management Report (prepared by Molino Stewart Pty Ltd, dated 8 July 2021).

A flood warning system and Flood Evacuation Strategy have been proposed as part of the reports to minimise the risk of flood to occupants. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the accompanying plans and reports and outlined that the justification provided in Section 9.3 of the Overland Flow ‘Flood’ Assessment and the Independent Peer Review of Flood Risk Management Report is considered satisfactory.

The independent flood report importantly indicated that:

·        The FFLs of the building ensure safe refuge for staff and residents within the building. The emergency response in the event of a flood is for all staff and residents to remain within the building as shown in Figure 7 below. There is no direct threat to the occupants from flooding if they remain in the building because the ground floor level of the building is above the PMF level and flood waters cannot enter the building.

·        The facility is designed and equipped with sufficient food and medical supplies to operate for at least 3 days in isolation due to potential external disruptions other than flooding, and a minimum of 2 registered nurses are on site 24 hours a day.

Figure 7 – On-site Evacuation Route (Extract from Overland Flow Flood Assessment, prepared by Quantum Engineers, Rev C, dated 13 April 2021)

·        Early stage off-site evacuation can take place when there is a known specified event, prior to the PMF flood event occurring. The evacuation point is located further east of the site, towards the frontage of No. 469 Merrylands Road, Merrylands, which is identified as an area located outside the PMF flood extents – Refer to Figure 8 below. Early stage off-site evacuation is only recommended when there is advance warning/notice of an anticipated flood event, with sufficient time to safely evacuate residents that are considered vulnerable to stay on site during the flood events. Those residents would be evacuated from the facility until such time flood waters has receded.

·        The building has been designed with additional features summarised above to manage the flood risks to occupants and the emergency response is for all residents and staff to remain on site within the confines of the building during a flood event.

Figure 8 – Off-site Evacuation Route (Extract from Overland Flow Flood Assessment, prepared by Quantum Engineers, Rev C, dated 13 April 2021)

In this regard, Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of recommended conditions requiring the above stated drainage, civil and flood management works on site to ensure safety and protection from flood.

Environment and Health

The development is on land that will be impacted by road noise and vibration as identified by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic, dated 20 February 2020; and submitted plans, and advised the proposal is acceptable with respect to road noise, subject to compliance with conditions.

However, Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that the submitted Acoustic Report has not undertaken an assessment of noise from mechanical plant to ensure appropriate plant selection and room design prior to construction. This matter has been resolved via the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Tree Management

Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and considers the proposed tree removal, planting and landscape works acceptable, subject to compliance with recommended conditions.

Waste Management

Council’s Waste Management Officer has reviewed the proposed development and advises that the proposal is generally satisfactory subject to safe manoeuvring of an 8.8m medium rigid waste vehicle for on-site collection.

External Referrals

The subject Section 8.3 Review application was not required to be referred to any external government authorities for comment as revisions to the proposed development are only associated with the height of the building, landscaping enhancements, and window changes to the Merrylands Road façade; and as such not considered to impact upon the external referrals received from Transport for NSW, Endeavour Energy and NSW Police, as part of the DA2020/0301.

Details of comments received from external referral bodies as part of DA2020/0301 which remain applicable to the subject Section 8.3 Review application (REV2021/0003) are provided below:

Transport for NSW

The proposed development was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in accordance with Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for concurrence.

Correspondence from TfNSW dated 25 August 2020 outlined that no objections are raised by TfNSW subject to Council being satisfied with the proposed access arrangements in terms of safety and efficiency and the inclusion of the following requirements in any determination issued:

1.      The proposed development will generate additional pedestrian movements in the area. Pedestrian safety is to be considered in the vicinity.

2.      The layout of the proposed car parking areas associated with the subject development (including driveways, grades, turn paths, sight distance requirements in relation to landscaping and/or fencing, aisle widths, aisle lengths, and parking bay dimensions) should be in accordance with AS2890.1-2004, AS2890.6-2009 and AS2890.2-2018 for heavy vehicle usage. Parking restrictions may be required to maintain the required sight distances at the driveway.

Endeavour Energy

The proposed development was referred to Endeavour Energy in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Correspondence from Endeavour Energy dated 10 June 2020 raised no objections respect to the proposal subject to the imposition of recommended conditions.

NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police for comment regarding CPTED. Response dated 10 June 2020 indicates that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

PLANNING COMMENTS

Section 8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (The EP&A Act)

The application has been assessed against the relevant matters for consideration pursuant to Section 8.3 of the EP&A Act subject to the following:

Grounds of refusal

The grounds of refusal for the original application are reviewed and addressed below:

a)      The Clause 4.6 variation requests to vary the Height development standard, pursuant to Clause 40(4)(a) & (c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004 are not considered to be well founded.

Applicant’s response:

To address the first reason for refusal, the proposal has been amended in the following ways:

·        Reduction of the ceiling height of Level 1 and 2 from 3.2m to 3.1m.

·        Additional landscaping added to improve the interface of the building with the ground plane.

This has resulted in an overall reduction in the height of the building from 9.3m to 9.1m.

Whilst building height has been raised as a reason for refusal in its own right, given that it is a two-storey building we have assumed that the Panel's underlying concern may have related more to the height variation being as a consequence of the need to raise its floor level to the flood planning level. We have dealt with the issue of flooding in the next section of this request. On the basis that we believe that flooding has been appropriately addressed, building height should be considered on its own merits.

The original Development Application included two Clause 4.6 variations to development standards:

a)      Clause 40(4)(a) of the Seniors SEPP: Building Height - maximum 8m.

b)      Clause 40(4)(c) of the Seniors SEPP: Building Height - maximum single storey in height in the rear 25% area of the site.

The applicant has now produced amended plans which have reduced the ceiling heights of the proposal from 3.2m to 3.1m. This reduces the overall building height from 9.3m to 9.1m.

The Clause 4.6 Variation for Clause 40(4)(a) has been updated to reflect the amended height of the building. It is noted that the percentage of the variation for the building height standard has been reduced from 16.25% to 13.75% with this reduced building height. The height in the rear 25% of the site remains the same given that the proposed two storey form has not changed.

As outlined in the Clause 4.6 variations, the proposed contravention does not create any significant impact on the amenity and solar access of the surrounding properties, and the minor impact is now less than was proposed with the original plans.

Planner’s comment:

The subject Section 8.3 Review Application is supported by two written requests prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Holroyd LEP 2013, to vary Clause 40 Development Standards – Minimum sizes and building height, subclauses (a) and (c); contained in SEPP (HSPD) 2004.

A detailed assessment of the variations sought to both Clause 40(a) and 40(c) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004 is provided under Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2013 of this report below.

b)      The site is identified as flood prone land in Council’s mapping, impacted by High Flood Risk area and flood way. The proposal is for the purposes of a residential aged care which is identified as an unsuitable land use within the medium/high flood risk area in Table 8 Land Use Categories for Development upon Flood Prone Land - Section 8 - Flood Prone Land in Part A of Holroyd DCP 2013. Having regard to the flood affectation of the site, the subject site is not suitable for the proposed residential age care facility, and does not warrant support, having regard to the particular vulnerabilities of the likely occupants of the facility.

 

 

Applicant’s response:

The subject site is identified as being impacted by the 1% AEP storm event, and a portion of the site is identified as High Hazard Flood and Floodway.

The original Development Application included detailed stormwater plans, Overland Flow ‘Flood’ Assessment (Ref No. 200439_Flood, Rev C, prepared by Quantum Engineers, dated 13/04/2021), and Stormwater Report (Rev 04, prepared by Henry & Hyams, dated April 2021), all of which supported the development in its current form. It is noted that the minor adjustment to the height of the building does not have an impact on any of these reports.

In response to the flooding constraints of the site, the building has been designed with finished floor levels set above the PMF flood level for safe refuge (FFL 35.00m AHD) and will be constructed to withstand the anticipated hydrostatic forces, flooding and overland flow.

The above reports including flood modelling which indicates that the proposed development will have negligible overall difference in flood depth and flood velocity (pre to post) immediately upstream or downstream during the 1% AEP flood event. Additionally, pier construction and flood storage will be provided within the site below the 1 in 100 year flood levels has been increased to ensure that there is no significant increase in flood levels and no exacerbation of the flooding on neighbouring and downstream properties.

A culvert system has also been designed through the site to collect and drain the traversing overland flow from Merrylands Road and direct towards the reserve (Leeton St Park).

A further flooding report has now been commissioned on this development – Independent Peer Review of Flood Risk Management Report (prepared by Molino Stewart Pty Ltd, dated 8 July 2021).

The report prepared by Molino Stewart provides an independent review to the flood risk management aspects of this development. It is noted that Steven Molino (who undertook the review) is an expert in Peer Review assessments.

The key conclusions from the independent review conducted by Molino Stewart are:

·        The modelling by Quantum Engineers appears to correctly characterise flood behaviour pre and post development for the 1% AEP flood and the PMF.

·        The proposed design will:

-                 Better direct flood flows across the site.

-                 Prevent property onsite from being damaged by the 1% AEP flood.

-                 Prevent people on site having any significant risk of coming into contact with floodwaters in the 1% AEP flood.

-                 Not increase flood levels on private land off site and on public land confine the increases in flood levels to within the creek banks.

-                 Keep the building contents and occupants from coming into direct contact with any floodwater up to the PMF.

-                 Be able to be designed and built to resist the hydrostatic, hydrodynamic and debris impact forces of floods up to the PMF.

·        There is a very small residual risk that people may come into contact with floodwaters if they are outside of the building when it is flooding.

·        Even in the PMF the building will be isolated by flooding for no more than a couple of hours.

·        The residents of the facility will have no imperative, motivation or ability to independently leave the premises during a flood.

·        The facility must be designed to operate for at least three days in isolation due to potential external disruptions other than flooding.

·        That residual risk is best managed by having a flood emergency response plan which requires sheltering within the building whenever there is significant flooding on site.

·        The development as proposed is compatible with the on-site risks and does not pose an unacceptable risk to people or property.

·        There is no reason why the Development Application should be rejected on the grounds of flooding.

This demonstrates that the professional opinion of two consultant engineers and Council's development engineer has concluded that the proposed flood risk has been managed within the design and management of the building and that the impact of flooding on the future residents has been adequately addressed.

It is unclear on what basis the Panel formed a contrary view to the technical experts in this regard, and we suggest that it is appropriate for the Panel to review that decision taking into account this technical advice.

Planner’s comment:

An independent review of flood risk management aspects of the proposed development has been carried out by Molino Stewart Pty Ltd, dated 8 July 2021. The Report assesses the flood affectation of the subject site and the risks that flooding poses to the proposed development and its occupants, how expected risks are to be managed, and whether that should be acceptable for the proposed residential aged facility at the subject site.

As detailed in the body of the report above, Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the accompanying plans and reports and raised no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of recommended conditions in relation to drainage, civil and flood management works on site to ensure safety and protection from flood.

c)      The proposal is not in the public interest.

Applicant’s response:

As indicated above, flooding has been addressed satisfactorily and does not present a significant risk to the residents who would live on this site. Therefore, the benefits of providing additional seniors housing supply, care facilities and employment generating uses in a highly accessible and well serviced area outweigh any disadvantage and as such the proposed development will be in the public interest.

Planner’s comment:

The proposal has been designed to minimise adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties, and adequately address safety concerns to future occupants of the development relating to flooding. In view of the foregoing analysis, it is considered that the development, if carried out in accordance with recommended conditions contained in the Draft Notice of Determination, would be in the public interest.

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

(a)      Water Management Act 2000

Correspondence dated 15 September 2020 received from Natural Resources Access Regulator (Water NSW) outlined that the existing open grassed channel located along the western boundary of the subject site is not identified as a watercourse, and as such a controlled activity approval is not required to be obtained from Natural Resources Access Regulator for the proposed works. In this regard, the proposed development is not identified as ‘Integrated Development’ pursuant to Section 91(2) of the Water Management Act 2000.

State Environmental Planning Policies

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 aims to provide access to affordable housing for older people, people with disability and those on low income. The proposed development has been assessed and found to generally comply with the provisions of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

A comprehensive assessment against the provisions of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 has been undertaken, and is provided at Attachment 2. The following table sets out the SEPP (HSPD) 2004 non-compliances, which are considered supportable as discussed in detail below:

 

(b)     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.

 

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

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

Clause 45 - Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

The proposed development occurs within 5 metres of existing overhead electricity power lines. The proposed development was referred to Endeavour Energy in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No objections were raised by Endeavour Energy with respect to the proposal.

Clause 101 – Frontage to classified road

The application is subject to clause 101 of the ISEPP as the site has frontage to a classified road being Merrylands Road. The proposed development was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in accordance with Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for concurrence.

Correspondence from TfNSW dated 25 August 2020 outlined that no objections are raised by TfNSW subject to Council being satisfied with the proposed access arrangements in terms of safety and efficiency and the inclusion of recommended requirements, should approval be granted.

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

The site has frontage to a classified road being Merrylands Road, and the application is accompanied by an Acoustic Impact Assessment. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report and advised that appropriate measures are recommended to ensure acceptable noise levels are maintained for bedrooms from road noise.

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

The subject site adjoins land reserved for public open space purposes, being Leeton Street Park, to the rear of the site. The proposal development is not considered to pose adverse impacts on Leeton Street Park.

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Council’s Tree Management Officer has reviewed the proposal outlined that the vegetation removal is considered acceptable. Please refer to the DCP compliance table for further discussion.

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 provision of the Holroyd LEP 2013 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development exceeds the maximum LEP building height and FSR permitted for the site.

(a)       Permissibility:-

The proposed development is defined as a ‘seniors housing’, which is not listed as a permitted land use with consent on R2 zoned land pursuant to HLEP 2013.

The proposed development is made pursuant to SEPP (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004. In accordance with Clause 4(1)(a)(i) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004, the Policy applies to land that is zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if development for the purposes of dwelling houses is permitted on the land.

Dwelling houses are a land use permitted with consent at the subject site pursuant to HLEP 2013.

In this regard, seniors housing in the form of residential care facilities are permitted at the subject site in accordance with Clause 4(1)(a)(i) of SEPP (HSDP) 2004.

(b)       LEP Building Height & Floor Space Ratio development standards

The maximum Building Height and Floor Space Ratio development standards applicable to development at the subject site as follows:

 

 

In accordance with Clause 5(3) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004, this Policy prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other environmental planning instrument.

Notwithstanding, a comprehensive assessment and compliance table of the proposal against the relevant planning controls and development standards applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013 is attached to this report in Attachment 3.

 

(c)       Clause 4.6 – Variations sought to maximum Building Height

Clause 4.6 allows the consent authority to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. The consent authority may grant the exception as the Secretary’s concurrence can be assumed where clause 4.6 is adopted as per the Department of Planning Circular PS 18-003, dated 21 February 2018.

Variations Sought

The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 Variation Requests to SEPP (HSPD) 2004 Development Standards is contained at Attachments 11 & 12.

The applicant has submitted 2 written requests to vary Clause 40 Development Standards – Minimum sizes and building height, subclauses (a) and (c); contained in SEPP (HSPD) 2004:

Clause 40(4) Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted

If the development is proposed in a residential zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted –

(a)     The height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8 metres or less, and

Note – Development consent for development for the purposes of seniors housing cannot be refused on the ground of the height of the housing if all of the proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height. See clauses 48 (a), 49 (a) and 50 (a).

(b)     A building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.

Based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

The 3 preconditions which must be satisfied before the application can proceed are as follows:

1.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the zone?

2.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the development standard which is not met?

3.      a)      Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? and;

          b)      Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and therefore is the applicant’s written justification well founded?

Assessment of Variation sought to Clause 40(4)(a) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004:

Clause 40(4)(a) The height of all buildings in the proposed development must be 8 metres or less

Extent of variation sought

It is noted that SEPP (HSPD) 2004 defines ‘height’ as follows:

height in relation to a building, means the distance measured vertically from any point on the ceiling of the topmost floor of the building to the ground level immediately below that point.

The maximum building height of the proposed development is 9.1m. The majority of the building which exceeds the 8m height limit comprises of the ceiling of Level 1. The extent of variation sought is detailed in Figures 9 & 10 below.

Figure 9 – Building height plane showing extent of 8m height variation sought in blue

 

Figure 10 – Section plans showing extent of 8m height variation sought in red

1.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the zone?

Zone R2   Low Density Residential

1   Objectives of zone

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

·        To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

·        To allow residents to carry out a range of activities from their homes while maintaining neighbourhood amenity.

 

Applicant’s justification:

Planner’s comment:

The proposal is for the purposes of a residential aged care facility, which is consistent with the R2 zone objectives as it provides for the housing needs of the community, specifically the ageing population of the locality. The residential aged care facility also includes on-site services which provides residents with access to carry out a range of activities in their home setting.

2.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the development standard which is not met?

Applicant’s justification:

The Applicant has referred to De Stoop v Ku ring gai Council [2010] NSWLEC 1019 and Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1486; to derive the assumed intent/purpose (objectives) of the height standard in Clause 40(4)(a) as follows:

·    To ensure that the development is compatible, by virtue of its bulk and scale, with the existing and desired future character of the area;

·    To not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining developments.

Justification provided by the Applicant based on the above assumed objective of the height standard is as follows:

 

Bulk and scale

Consistent with the heights of the adjoining development, the proposed RACF will be two storeys. The height contravention is a result of the flood hazard of the land which required a minimum FFL of RL 35000 to ensure that it is compatible with the raised flood planning levels. As such, the built form is consistent with and appropriate to the desired future character of the site, ensuring compatibility with the streetscape by virtue of its scale and high-quality design which reduces building bulk when viewed from the public domain.

To assist in breaking up the façade, lightweight perforated screens are proposed between the buildings to appear as links and are setback from the building line to reduce the extent of building mass along the site’s elevations.

The overall bulk and scale of the building remains similar to a height compliant development, only with the emphasis on the vertical plane rather than the horizontal plane. A height compliant scheme with the same compliant FSR (of 0.75:1) would take up more site area and reduce the extent of setbacks and associated landscaping (which in the non-compliant scheme) assists in reducing the apparent bulk and scale of the building.

Views

Views from surrounding properties will not be largely affected as a consequence of the contravention of the development standard. Views in the surrounding area are generally limited to street level views, sky and some canopy trees.

Overshadowing

It is somewhat difficult to assess overshadowing when dealing with a ceiling height control rather than a ‘top of building height’, since the roof type and pitch can vary and generate different shadow outcomes above the same ceiling height.

The properties at 541-543 Merrylands Road and 7 Yoogali Street will receive minor overshadowing to part of their primary open space between 9am and 10:30am on 21 June. However, they will not receive any additional overshadowing as a result of the proposal after 10:30am.

Three properties at 529 Merrylands Road will receive additional overshadowing between 1:30pm and 3pm. However, they will not receive any additional overshadowing between 9am and 1:30pm as a result of the proposal.

All properties along the north-eastern and north-western property boundary will receive in excess of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. As detailed in the overshadowing diagrams, the majority of the shadows will fall on the site itself throughout the day.

Privacy

Where the proposed contraventions occur, there is a proposed setback of 6 metres to the site’s eastern property boundary and 13.87 metres to the site’s western property boundary. The proposed setbacks, together with the considered design of the proposed development ensures there would not be an unreasonable impact in terms of privacy as a result of the scheme.

Visual Impact

The areas of contravention will not have a visual impact as the two storey development is consistent with surrounding development heights. As discussed above, the height contravention is located away from the front setback to limit the building’s visual presence onto the streetscape. The additional height, as a result of raised flood planning levels, does not cause the building to appear overly dominant or bulky. Design features including setbacks, articulation, materials and associated landscaping, make the proposed development compatible with the existing and future character of the area.

Planner’s comment:

Clause 40(4) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004 does not contain objectives which specify the intent of the prescribed height standards.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the derived assumed intent/purpose (objectives) of the height standard in Clause 40(4)(a), for the following reasons:

·        The immediate area is characterised by single and two-storey low to medium density housing developments. It is expected that future development at the subject site and in the immediate vicinity of the site would be a maximum of 2 storey/9m in height, having regard to the HLEP 2013 building height standard applicable to the site and adjoining properties.

·        The subject site is identified to as a High Flood Risk area and is located within the flood way. The proposed development has been designed with elevated finished floor levels of RL 35.00 to achieve the required flood planning level of the site and ensure the safety of the aged care facility residents.

·        The proposed development is 2 storeys in height, and setback a minimum distance of 6m from the eastern boundary. The finished floor level of the ground floor of the proposed development is set approximately level with the top of the 1.8m high common boundary fence of dwellings at 529 Merrylands Road. Blocks A, B, C, D & E comprise of elevated floor levels, and are setback a minimum distance of 6m from the eastern boundary for both the ground and first floor levels. Visual privacy is adequately maintained between properties, noting that the design of the east facing suite windows of Blocks A-E (inclusive) comprise of solid elements with translucent corner windows, which restrict direct overlooking to neighbouring properties.

·        Greater setbacks are provided from the proposed development to the western boundary, as a result of the location of the at-grade car park along this boundary. The proposed building provides a minimum setback of 13m, increasing to 20m and 30.5m to western boundary.

·        The two storey height and massing of the building across the site with recessed elements between blocks, adequate setbacks to site boundaries, and perimeter landscaping, is considered to present an appropriate built form when viewed from neighbouring properties and public domain.

·        Suite windows facing both the eastern and western boundary have been designed to provide adequate amenity for future occupants whilst ensuring privacy is maintained between neighbouring properties.

·        The ground floor landscape garden/courtyard is setback min. 6m from the common boundary. The garden/courtyard is raised approx. 2-2.3m above the existing ground levels and considered to result is visual privacy and overlooking impacts to neighbouring properties’ private open space areas.

·        Landscaping is proposed along the eastern boundary which comprises of a mix of tree plantings with a mature height of 1-10m. This is considered to address overlooking concerns from the proposed development.

·        In addition, the 6m setback provided from the terrace, and the existing 1.8m high eastern boundary fence is considered to obscure direct sight lines to the rear yard of the neighbouring dwellings. The mature perimeter landscaping proposed along the eastern boundary will also ensure that privacy is maintained between properties having regard to the elevated floor levels of the courtyard.

In this regard, the Clause 4.6 variation sought is considered acceptable as the design of the proposal is compatible with both the existing and future desired character of the locality and does not result in adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

3.      a) Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? And;

Applicant’s justification:

Bulk and scale

As identified below, the roof will appear as an angled, rounded iron mansard which will reduce the visual impact of bulk and scale as well as softening the appearance of the building through a rounded finish. The contrast between building materials and the lightweight nature of the iron roof serves to visually reduce the bulk and scale of the proposed development. The proposed building respects and harmonises with the surrounding residential area by setting back with a less obvious roof profile and this rounding “steps in” the roof from the remainder of the building envelope to reduce the bulk of the building when viewed from the adjoining residential dwellings to the east and west.

Views

The proposed development will be setback from the adjoining boundaries by at least 6 metres to the eastern boundary and 13.87 metres to the western boundary.

The closest adjoining dwellings to the area of contravention are located at 7 Yoogali Street and 529 Merrylands Road. The dwelling at 7 Yoogali Street is orientated north/south, with principal views towards the north and south. The proposal, located due east of this dwelling, will not impact views currently enjoyed from this dwelling, given their principal views are north/south.

The adjoining dwellings at 529 Merrylands Road are two-storey and single storey and orientated east/west with their rear gardens adjoining the site. The site’s eastern common property boundary between the proposed development and the adjoining dwellings comprises a solid metal fence which currently limits views from the existing dwellings across the subject site.

Overshadowing

Team 2 Architects have prepared detailed shadow diagrams for the proposal. These demonstrate the proposed seniors housing development above the 8m height standard within the R2 zoned land would protect the amenity of neighbouring properties in relation to sunlight, despite the noncompliance with the height standard.

Privacy

The substantial setbacks, together with landscaping to the boundaries, will ensure the proposal does not result in sightlines causing a loss of privacy to these adjoining dwellings on the eastern and western boundary of the site.

Visual Impact

The proposed development as a whole will be visually consistent in terms of design and materials in that is represents fine grain urban form with large, landscaped setbacks to the site’s boundaries, responding to the existing lower residential character of the adjoining properties. The development provides considerable separation between the proposed building and the adjoining low-density residential development.

As demonstrated in Table 1 above, the objectives of the building height development standard are achieved notwithstanding the proposed variation.

In accordance with the decision in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, Initial Action Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd (2018) 233 LGERA 170; [2018] NSWCA 245 and RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130, therefore, compliance with the building height development standard is demonstrated to be unreasonable or unnecessary and the requirements of Clause 4.6(3)(a) have been met on this way alone.

Planner’s comment:

Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The building is raised higher in response to the conditions of the site and to achieve minimum finished floor levels required to ensure safety and protection of residents and property during a flood event. The height breach is limited to a maximum building height of 9.1m (RL41000 to the ceiling of the building) and 11.406m (RL43306 to the uppermost ridge of roof). The proposal is 2 storeys in height which is consistent with the existing and desired future character of development within the immediate area. A rounded roof design, and a mix of materials and finishes has been incorporated to the external facades, together with recessed links in between blocks, to alleviate the appearance of visual bulk when viewed from neighbouring properties and the existing streetscape.

Furthermore, additional height sought does not result in adverse amenity impacts with respect to visual privacy and solar access on neighbouring properties. Given the proposal has been designed to respond to the constraints of the site, strict compliance with the SEPP (HSPD) 2004 maximum 8m height standard is considered unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance.

 

3.      b) Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and therefore is the applicant’s written justification well founded?

Applicant’s justification:

A compliant development would result in a lesser built form, but in this case, the part of the building that contravenes the standard does not cause any adverse impacts to surrounding residential properties and is appropriately setback. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposal does not result in any unreasonable environmental impacts and it is considered there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

Some additional specific environmental grounds to justify the contravention of the standard are summarised as follows:

·        The proposed height of buildings was derived from careful consideration of the site’s constraints and opportunities and in discussion with Council.

·        Compliance with the building height standard under the Seniors SEPP would restrict the development to one storey in height and result in a poorer social outcome due to loss of aged beds being delivered;

·        A minimum finished floor level (FFL) of RL 35000 is required for the proposed development to ensure that it is compatible with the raised flood planning levels of the land. The requirements of the FFL directly contribute to the extent of height contravention that is proposed;

·        There is no increase in the intensity of development on the site. The proposal provides considerably less GFA than allowed under the SEPP (approximately 3,389m² of GFA);

·        The design of the proposal incorporates generous setbacks and extensive landscape planting to complement the built form and assist in reducing the scale of the development when viewed from the adjoining property boundaries. This will ensure the proposal results in minimal amenity impact and is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of bulk and scale;

·        The contravention of the standard allows for a development that is consistent with the existing and desired future character of the area;

·        The additional height will not have a detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area;

·        There are no adverse environmental impacts such as unacceptable additional overshadowing or overlooking as a result of the contravention of the standard;

·        The proposal would result in a better planning outcome than if compliance were to be achieved, as it allows for the co-ordinated redevelopment of the site; and

·        The proposal will facilitate development to provide a modern, purpose built RACF to assist in providing seniors housing within the Cumberland local government area.

Planner’s comment:

Given that the proposed development has been designed to respond to the site and does not result in adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring sites, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the assumed objectives of the building height standard and development within the R2 zone, and as such warrants support of the departure. In this regard, the exception is considered to be well founded and is supported by Council.

Conclusion:

The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 subclause (3). Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because the additional height of the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height standard, and the objectives for development within the R2 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the view of Council Officers that justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the exception to the maximum 8m building height development standard is supported.

Assessment of Variation sought to Clause 40(4)(c) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004:

Clause 40(4)(c) A building located in the rear 25% area of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height.

Extent of variation sought

It is noted that SEPP (HSPD) 2004 does not contain a definition for ‘storey’. The Standard Instrument defines ‘storey’ as follows:

storey means a space within a building that is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above, or if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above, but does not include—

(a)     a space that contains only a lift shaft, stairway or meter room, or

(b)     a mezzanine, or

(c)     an attic.

Block J of the proposal is located within the rear 25% of the subject site and is 2 storeys in height. Extent of variation sought shown in Figures 11 & 12 below.

Figure 11 – Applicant’s diagram showing extent of variation sought in red

 

Figure 12 – Applicant’s diagram showing extent of variation sought in blue

1.  Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the zone?

Applicant’s justification:

Planner’s comment:

The proposal is for the purposes of a residential aged care facility, which is consistent with the R2 zone objectives as it provides for the housing needs of the community, specifically the ageing population of the locality. The residential aged care facility also includes on-site services which provides residents with access to carry out a range of activities in their home setting.

2.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the development standard which is not met?

Applicant’s justification:

The Applicant has referred to Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2017] NSWLEC 1486 and Manderrah Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1196; to derive the assumed intent/purpose (objectives) of the height standard in Clause 40(4)(c) as follows:

·    To ensure that the development is compatible by virtue of its bulk and scale to be consistent with the existing and future character of the rear of the site; and

·    To not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining developments at the rear of the site.

Justification provided by the Applicant based on the above assumed objective of the height standard is as follows:

Bulk and scale

The rear of the site is defined, in this case, as development at the northern end of the site (refer Figure 4). At present there is no development to the immediate north and northwest of the site as the land comprises Leeton Street Park, an area of public open space zoned RE1 Public Recreation. To the northeast of the site, two-storey town houses are located at 5 Mark Street and single storey dwellings are located at 529 Merrylands Road. Beyond Leeton Street Park to the northwest, single storey and two-storey dwellings are situated along Yoogali Street.

In relation to the existing future character, as detailed in Figure 6, there is no consistent rear setback provided in the immediate locality, with rear setbacks varying between 2 metres and 5.1 metres along the site's eastern extent and 2.3 metres and 3.5 metres along the site's western extent.

The proposed development provides a rear setback of 9.1 metres at first floor level, providing a significantly larger setback when compared to the existing setback conditions of adjacent residential development.

Physical separation to existing development at the rear of the site will be retained by virtue of the significant setbacks provided to the site's eastern boundary (approximately 16.5 metres) and western boundary (20.01 metres).

Consideration has been provided to the RE1 Public Recreation zone at the rear of the site and an extensive, high quality landscaping treatment incorporating a variety of canopy trees, palms and climbers is proposed which will complement the existing landscaped setting at the rear of the site

 

Privacy

The proposed development is setback approximately 16.5 metres from the site's eastern property boundary at first and second floor level and over 20 metres from the site's western property boundary at first floor level to ensure privacy levels will be maintained for the adjoining residential properties at 5 Mark Street, 529 Merrylands Road and 7 and 8 Yoogali Street. To further assist in maintaining privacy levels, large canopy trees (including spotted gum, cabbage gum, swamp mahogany and river she-oak) expected to reach mature heights of 20 metres are proposed along the site's northern and eastern site boundaries.

Overshadowing

Team 2 Architects have prepared detailed shadow diagrams for the proposal. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the area of contravention at the rear of the site will not result in any overshadowing impacts to adjoining dwellings. All properties along the north-eastern and north-western property boundary will receive in excess of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The majority of the shadows will fall on the site itself throughout the day.

Visual Impact

The portion of the building that contravenes the one-storey height limit will have no visual impact. The proposed development will be visually consistent in terms of design and materials. The building is located centrally on the site, with large, landscaped setbacks to the northern, eastern and western boundaries responding to the existing lower residential character of the adjoining properties at the rear of the site. Significant landscaping is proposed along the site's boundaries, with tree species which will reach a mature height of 20 metres specifically chosen to minimise any visual impacts.

Views

Views from the surrounding properties will not be affected as a consequence of the portion of the building that contravenes the one storey height limit. Views in the surrounding area are generally limited to street level views.

Planner’s comment:

Clause 40(4) of SEPP (HSPD) 2004 does not contain objectives which specify the intent of the prescribed height standards.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the derived assumed intent/purpose (objectives) of the height standard in Clause 40(4)(c), for the following reasons:

·        The established and future character of development at the site and within the immediate vicinity is considered to be 2 storeys in height having regard to the maximum 9m HLEP 2013 building height development standard applicable to R2 zoned land.

·        Existing residences adjoining the subject site comprise of varying rear setbacks due to the orientation and siting of the dwellings on their respective lots. It is noted that dwellings behind the front dwelling at 529 Merrylands Road are single storey in height with setbacks ranging from 2m-3m to each dwellings’ rear boundary (being the subject site’s eastern boundary).

·        Although all dwellings behind the building line of 529 Merrylands Road are single storey in height, the 2 storey built form of Block J at the rear of the subject site is not considered to be incompatible with the scale of both the existing and future character of the rear of the site as a 2 storey height limit is consistent with what is generally anticipated on R2 zoned land, and what would occur should the rear of the subject site be an extension of Yoogali Street comprising of residential allotments.

·        Block J provides a setback of 16.5m to the eastern boundary and is setback 20m and minimum 8m from their respective western and northern boundary with Leeton Street Park. The 2 storey height of Block J is not considered to result in adverse overlooking concerns to dwellings at 529 Merrylands Road, as a result of the setback provided the eastern boundary.

·        Block J being 2 storeys in height is also not considered to result in adverse streetscape impacts when viewed from Yoogali Street or as viewed from the public domain being Leeton Street Park.

·        The location of Block J at the subject site also does not pose overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties, despite its 2 storey height.

In this regard, the departure sought is considered to be acceptable as the second storey does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. The additional storey within the rear setback area does not result in the appearance of bulk when viewed from the existing streetscape and would not impinge on the changing streetscape that is anticipated for the immediate area. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without compromising relationships with adjoining development, the height of Block J is consistent with the objectives of height requirements and development within the R2 zone.

3.      a) Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? And;

Applicant’s justification:

Bulk and scale

In relation to the future character of the site, the Holroyd DCP requires that rear setbacks of dwelling houses and secondary dwellings at the upper storey are at least 7 metres from the rear boundary. The DCP requires side setbacks of 900mm are to be provided.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that an alternative likely future redevelopment of the subject site would result in a two storey development which provides a reduced rear setback of 7 metres. A proposed development would therefore similarly fall within the rear 25% of the site.

The location of the proposed RACF, which partially falls within the rear 25% of the site, would provide a considerably lesser built form at the rear of the site, if developed in accordance with the Holroyd DCP provisions.

When viewed from the rear of the site, the proposed development will provide a compatible built form, with the bulk of the built form reduced and setback to reduce the perceived scale and mass of the development, as well as to reduce any potential amenity impacts.

There is limited scope for redevelopment of the RE1 zoned land and therefore reasonable to assume future development at the rear of the site is unlikely to change.

Overall, there is limited scope for redevelopment at the rear of the site given the established residential character of the area and it is therefore reasonable to assume development at the rear of the site is unlikely to change. Notwithstanding this, the extent of the variation is considered to be compatible by virtue of its bulk and scale with future development at the rear of the site.

Privacy

The proposal does not cause unreasonable direct overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces to the rear of the site, specifically to 5 Mark Street, 529 Merrylands Road and 7 and 8 Yoogali Street.

Overshadowing

Team 2 Architects have prepared detailed shadow diagrams for the proposal. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the area of contravention at the rear of the site will not result in any overshadowing impacts to adjoining dwellings. All properties along the north-eastern and north-western property boundary will receive in excess of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The majority of the shadows will fall on the site itself throughout the day.

Visual Impact

The portion of the building that contravenes the one-storey height limit will have no visual impact. The proposed development will be visually consistent in terms of design and materials. The building is located centrally on the site, with large, landscaped setbacks to the northern, eastern and western boundaries responding to the existing lower residential character of the adjoining properties at the rear of the site. Significant landscaping is proposed along the site's boundaries, with tree species which will reach a mature height of 20 metres specifically chosen to minimise any visual impacts.

Views

Views from the surrounding properties will not be affected as a consequence of the portion of the building that contravenes the one storey height limit. Views in the surrounding area are generally limited to street level views.

The proposed development achieves compatibility with the existing and future character of built form and landscape in the area. Generous landscaped setbacks and the reduction of building heights near the site boundaries creates a transition in built form from the site to its surrounds.

As demonstrated in Table 1 above, the objectives of the building height development standard are achieved notwithstanding the proposed variation.

In accordance with the decision in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, Initial Action Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd (2018) 233 LGERA 170; [2018] NSWCA 245 and RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130, therefore, compliance with the building height development standard is demonstrated to be unreasonable or unnecessary and the requirements of Clause 4.6(3)(a) have been met on this way alone.

Planner’s comment:

Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed variation has been appropriately justified and can be supported in this instance. The height breach of Block J to contain 2 storeys at the rear of the site is consistent with the scale of development within the R2 zone located within the immediate vicinity of the site and does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties. It is therefore considered that strict compliance with the Development Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

3.b) Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and therefore is the applicant’s written justification well founded?

Applicant’s justification:

A compliant development would result in a lesser built form, but in this case, the part of the building that contravenes the standard does not cause any adverse impacts to surrounding residential properties and is appropriately setback. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposal does not result in any unreasonable environmental impacts and it is considered there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

Some additional specific environmental grounds to justify the contravention of the standard are summarised as follows:

·        The proposed height of buildings was derived from careful consideration of the site’s constraints and opportunities and in discussion with Council. A similar yield could have been achieved from a height compliant development however this would have taken up a significantly greater site area, to the detriment of the landscape setting, tree retention and stormwater management. A superior planning and design outcome is achieved as a result of the variation;

·        There is no increase in the intensity of development on the site. The proposal provides considerably less GFA than allowed under the SEPP (approximately 3,389m² of GFA);

·        The proposal provides an opportunity to provide significant un-built upon open space at the rear and provides amenity to the residents at the rear of the development.

·        The contravention of the standard allows for a development that is consistent with the existent and desired future character of the area;

·        The additional height will not have a detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area;

·        There are no adverse environmental impacts such as unacceptable additional overshadowing or overlooking as a result of the contravention of the standard;

·        The proposal would result in a better planning outcome than if compliance were to be achieved, as it allows for the co-ordinated redevelopment of the site; and

·        The proposal will facilitate development to provide a modern, purpose built RACF to assist in providing seniors housing within the Cumberland local government area.

Planner’s comment:

The unique circumstances of the case are considered to warrant support of the departure. Given that the proposed development responds to the site and does so without unduly compromising relationships with adjoining development, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of building height in terms of the number of storeys located within the rear setback area, and development within the R2 zone. In this regard, the exception is well founded and can be supported.

Conclusion:

Council is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6 subclause (3). Council is further satisfied that the 2 storey height of the building within the rear setback area will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the view of Council Officers that justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the exception to the maximum building height development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

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

(a)     Draft Housing Diversity State Environmental Planning Policy (Draft Housing Diversity SEPP)

The proposed Housing Diversity SEPP is a government-led action to address housing diversity and affordability, in line with the proposed NSW Housing Strategy and sets a 20 year vision for housing in NSW.

The Draft Housing Diversity SEPP will consolidate three housing-related SEPPs:

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)

The Draft Housing Diversity SEPP seeks to undertake the following:

·        introduce new definitions for build-to-rent housing, student housing and co-living;

·        amend some state-level planning provisions, particularly for boarding house and seniors housing development;

·        amend some state-level planning provisions to support social housing developments undertaken by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) on government-owned land.

The proposed Housing SEPP would make residential care facilities ‘state significant development’ when:

·        the development has a capital investment value of $30 million (in the Greater Sydney region) or $20 million (elsewhere); and

·        the residential care facility component of the proposed development has a value of at least 60 per cent of the capital investment value of the proposed development.

(b)     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.

(c)     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 HLEP 2013, are not proposed to change under the Draft CLEP. A R2 land use zone is maintained for the subject site under Draft CLEP as is a maximum building height of 9 metres, and maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

It is noted that ‘seniors housing’ is listed as a permitted land use in the R2 zone under the Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan.

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

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

A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Attachment 4.

The following table highlights non-compliances with the DCP, which relate primarily to flood affectation of the site, site coverage and the rear setback requirement.

The variations sought are considered satisfactory on merit in this instance as detailed in the following table.

 

 

 

 

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 known to be affected by flooding and overland flow and has been designed to incorporate appropriate measures to respond to the site constraints, to ensure safe refuge for occupants and protection from flood. 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 Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 20 August 2021 and 3 September 2021.

The notification generated one (1) submission in respect of the proposal with nil disclosing a political donation or gift.

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

Submission Summary table

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 contribution is payable, pursuant to Section 7.12 of the EP&A Act, calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution of $150,333.00 would be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, SEPP (HSPD) 2004, SEPP55, ISEPP, SREP 2005, Draft Environment SEPP, Draft CLEP, HLEP 2013 and the HDCP 2013 and is considered to be satisfactory for approval, subject to conditions.

Having regard to the relevant matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable for the reasons outlined in this report. It is recommended that the Section 8.3 review application be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disabilty 2004 Compliance Table  

3.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

4.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

5.      Architectural Plans  

6.      Landscape Plans  

7.      Stormwater Plans  

8.      Stormwater Report  

9.      Overland Flow Flood Assessment (including Evacuation Strategy & Plan)  

10.    Independent Peer Review of Flood Risk Management Report  

11.    Clause 4.6 Variation Request to SEPP (HSPD) 2004 Development Standards: Clause 40(4)(a) - Height of all building of proposal must be 8m or less  

12.    Clause 4.6 Variation Request to SEPP (HSPD) 2004 Development Standards: Clause 40(4)(c) - A building located in the rear 25% of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height  

13.    Minutes of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for DA2020/0301 (Reasons for Refusal)  

14.    Draft Reasons for Recommendation   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 October 2021

Attachment 2

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 3

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 4

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 5

Architectural Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 6

Landscape Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 7

Stormwater Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 8

Stormwater Report

 13 October 2021

Attachment 9

Overland Flow Flood Assessment (including Evacuation Strategy & Plan)

 13 October 2021

Attachment 10

Independent Peer Review of Flood Risk Management Report

 13 October 2021

Attachment 11

Clause 4.6 Variation Request to SEPP (HSPD) 2004 Development Standards: Clause 40(4)(a) - Height of all building of proposal must be 8m or less

 13 October 2021

Attachment 12

Clause 4.6 Variation Request to SEPP (HSPD) 2004 Development Standards: Clause 40(4)(c) - A building located in the rear 25% of the site must not exceed 1 storey in height

 13 October 2021

Attachment 13

Minutes of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel for DA2020/0301 (Reasons for Refusal)

 13 October 2021

Attachment 14

Draft Reasons for Recommendation

 13 October 2021

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP035/21

Modification to Development Application for 1-7 Elvina Street, Greystanes

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2021/0264  

 

 

1.      Modification Application No. MOD2021/0264 was received on 28 June 2021 for Section 4.56 modification application for various amendments to the approved mixed use development (pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)) including reconfiguration of basement level storage and garbage rooms and layout of residential units 1 and 2, changes to windows in western elevation and shopfront doors/glazing, and increase in overall building height and basement floor level.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between 13 August 2021 and 27 August 2021. However, renotification was required due to error in the description of the development and the application was publicly renotified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for another fourteen (14) days between 30 August 2021 and 13 September 2021. In response, ten (10) unique submissions were received.

3.      The subject application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP).

4.      The subject modification application does not include any numerical variations.

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

6.      The application is recommended for conditional approval subject to the conditions as provided in Attachment 1.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site has a legal description of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 in DP 236829 with approximate frontages of 21m to Gozo Road and 27m to Elvina Street with total area of 742.8m2. The site is a corner block situated on the southern side of Elvina Street and the eastern side of Gozo Road. An existing driveway is located at the rear of the site providing access to existing commercial premises at 9-11 Elvina Street. The site slopes downward towards the south with level difference of approximately 2.1m between Elvina Street and the existing driveway at the rear. The site is currently vacant.

Council’s car parking spaces are located adjoining the front boundary of the subject site on Elvina Street comprising of 9 spaces, including 2 accessible spaces. Directly adjoining the site towards the east is a single storey commercial building with 3 separate tenancies. The remaining development adjoining the site includes single to double storey dwelling houses within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Roberta Street Park is located within the vicinity of the side towards the southeast.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site (Intramap, 2021)

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site outlined in yellow (Intramap, 2021)

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a modification application for Section 4.56 modification application for various amendments to the approved mixed use development pursuant to ARH SEPP including reconfiguration of basement level storage and garbage rooms and layout of residential units 1 and 2, changes to windows in western elevation and shopfront doors/glazing, and increase in overall building height and basement floor level.

The proposal results in the following amendments:

·        Lowering of basement FFL by 200mm.

·        Increasing overall building height by 250mm.

·        Increasing overall floor area by 11.3m².

·        Reducing commercial floor area by 20.47m².

·        Addition of a lift to basement and ground floor levels.

·        Deletion of staircases on the ground floor.

·        Relocation of Elvina Street pedestrian entry from the middle part to the eastern side of the building.

·        Relocation of residential bin room towards the western side boundary of the site.

·        Addition of an electrical room.

·        Relocation of storage areas for residential units within the basement level.

·        Reduction in the internal size of shops and modification of the shopfront glazing/doors.

·        Internal layout changes to units 1 and 2.

Figure 4 – Physical comparison

History

1.      On 15 January 2012, Council refused DA2012/315 for the demolition and erection of a mixed use development containing two retail units and 8 residential units above a basement parking level at 1-7 Elvina Street, Greystanes.  The applicant subsequently sought a review under s8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act).

2.      Class 1 appeal was lodged at the Land and Environment Court on 15 November 2013 against the refusal of the s8.3 application.

3.      On 20 December 2013, on the application of the Council, Biscoe J ordered separate determination of two questions, being whether the application was for “prohibited development”, and if not prohibited, whether clause 10(1) of the ARH SEPP applied to the development application. The Land and Environment Court subsequently established the characterisation and permissibility of the development as a mixed use with residential flat building for which the ARH SEPP is applicable.

4.      On 10 July 2015, the Land and Environment Court upheld the appeal for the proposed development, as amended, as a deferred commencement consent for the demolition and erection of a mixed use development containing two retail units and seven residential units above a basement parking level for 9 car spaces. It should be noted that the reference to demolition on the site on the description of the original consent is an error, as the subject site has always been a vacant land.

5.      Operational consent was issued on 7 July 2017. S4.54 application to extend the DA was approved on 4 March 2020 with new expiry date of 7 July 2021. Subject to the changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 COVID amendment, the expiry date of the application is 7 July 2023. 

6.      Construction certificate has been issued for the original development consent and site preparation works have commenced on the site.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by HDC Planning dated 14 May 2021 and was received by Council on 29 June 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 proposed modification within the basement level is satisfactory as it does not alter previously approved stormwater management and traffic arrangement, and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory as the acoustic impact has been sufficiently addressed, and therefore can be supported subject to 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 addressing waste management arrangement, 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 4.56 Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court:

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

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

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The matters listed within Clause 7 have been considered in the assessment of the original development application. The proposed modifications do not raise any new concerns regarding site contamination, and it has no bearing under the subject modification application.

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

The proposed modifications include internal changes that do not require reassessment under the provisions of this SEPP.

(c)     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 under the original application. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development. The proposed modifications include internal and minor materials changes that do not require reassessment under the provisions of this SEPP.

(d)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)

The proposal is subject to the provisions of Part 1 Preliminary and Part 2 (New affordable rental housing) Division 1 (In-fill affordable housing) of the ARH SEPP. An assessment of the proposed development against the provisions of the ARH SEPP was completed under the original application. No changes to approved number of car spaces on site. The proposed modifications for the internal changes do not require a reassessment of the SEPP provisions, except for clause 13 regarding floor space ratios as follows.

The maximum floor space ratio for development to which this Division applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus—

(a)     if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less—

(i)      0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher,

The original application was approved with 4 out of 7 units (57%) to be used for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) that applies to the site is: 1.1 + 0.5 = 1.5:1 (GFA of 1,114.2m²). The proposed modification application will maintain a compliant FSR of 1.17:1 (GFA of 869.69m²).

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

No tree removal is proposed under this modification application. The provision of the Vegetation SEPP does not apply.

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

BASIX Certificate 1203675M dated issued on 17 May 2021 prepared by Sustainability-Z Pty Ltd has been submitted with Council and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

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 (LEP) 2013

(a)     Permissibility:-

The zoning of the subject site under the previous Holroyd LEP 1991 is identified as zone 3(b) Neighbourhood Business zone.

The zoning of the subject site under Holroyd LEP 2013 is identified as B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

Section 4.70(1) of the EP&A Act 1979 stipulates that nothing in an environmental planning instrument prohibits, or requires a further development consent to authorise, the carrying out of development in accordance with a consent that has been granted and is in force. The proposal, as modified, continues to meet the objective of the zone in that the proposed development is of a type and scale that is compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area. The proposed modification application for various amendments to the approved mixed use development is considered acceptable.

The relevant matters to be considered under Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. The proposed modifications do not result in any new non-compliances with the LEP. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is attached to this report in Attachment 9 which demonstrates the development proposal’s compliance with the relevant planning controls that are applicable to the site under the Holroyd LEP 2013.

Figure 5 – Holroyd LEP 2013 Compliance Table

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

(a)     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

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

(b)     Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (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 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 Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Holroyd LEP 2013. The original development was assessed under Holroyd DCP 2007 and the proposed modifications including internal changes will not result in any new non-compliances with the relevant DCP controls. It is considered that the proposal, as modified, performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and is supported.

The development controls within Parts A, B and C of Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 should be used as a guide, given that the assessment against the character of the local area carried out under the ARH SEPP has considered the built form compatibility under the original consent.

An assessment and compliance table of the relevant DCP controls of which relate to the modifications proposed is contained in Attachment 10.

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 are 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 Holroyd DCP 2013, the proposal was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between 13 August 2021 and 27 August 2021. However, renotification was required due to error in the description of the development and the application was publicly renotified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for another fourteen (14) days between 30 August 2021 and 13 September 2021. The notification generated ten (10) submissions in respect of the proposal with nil disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

Figure 6 – Submissions summary table

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

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

Section 7.11 (Formerly S94) Contribution Towards Provision Or Improvement Of Amenities Or Services

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

Comments:

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan

Disclosure Of Political Donations And Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005, Draft Cumberland Local Environmental Plan, Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of its relationship to its surrounding built and natural environment, particularly having regard to impacts on adjoining properties.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.   That Modification Application No. MOD2021/0264 for Section 4.56 modification application for various amendments to the approved mixed use development (pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009) including reconfiguration of basement level storage and garbage rooms and layout of residential units 1 and 2, changes to windows in western elevation and shopfront doors/glazing, and increase in overall building height and basement floor level on land at 1-7 Elvina Street GREYSTANES  NSW  2145 be approved subject to attached conditions. 2.   Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Shadow Diagram  

4.      Stormwater Plans  

5.      Submission Received  

6.      DA2012/315 Consent  

7.      DA2012/315 Approved Plans  

8.      Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

9.      Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table  

10.    Draft Reasons of Recommendation   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 October 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 3

Shadow Diagram

 13 October 2021

Attachment 4

Stormwater Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 5

Submission Received

 13 October 2021

Attachment 6

DA2012/315 Consent

 13 October 2021

Attachment 7

DA2012/315 Approved Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 8

Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 9

Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 10

Draft Reasons of Recommendation

 13 October 2021

 

 

 

DRAFT REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

MOD2021/0264 1-7 Elvina Street Greystanes

 

 

1.    The Panel is satisfied that the development, as modified, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

 

2.    The development, as modified, is consistent with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013 and also consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

3.    The Panel has considered the matters raised in written submissions and has determined that these matters have either been adequately addressed in the design of the development or where not specifically addressed in the development are not of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application.

 

4.    Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality.

 

5.    Taking into account reasons above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP036/21

Development Application for 7/70-72 Railway Parade, Granville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2021/0126  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2021/0126 was received on 15 March 2021 for the construction of a pergola over existing balcony on a residential flat building.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 30 April 2021 and 14 May 2021. In response, no submissions were received.

3.      The subject site is located within the heritage conservation area in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as “Granville Conservation Area—Civic Precinct”, the single dwelling located at 70 Railway Parade is identified as Item I168 which is a local Heritage Item. The heritage item is a single storey Federation Cottage and has a frontage to Railway Parade.

4.      Pursuant to DA2013/11209 (2013/359) approval was granted on 10 February 2014 (by Parramatta City Council prior to amalgamation) for “Tree removal, demolition of existing outbuildings at the rear of the site and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building behind 2 existing dwelling houses including a heritage listed dwelling house, restoration of the dwellings and conversion of the dwellings to offices”. The building height of the residential flat building approved under DA2013/11209 was 13.5 meters exceeding the maximum building height by 3.5m. Unit 7 (the subject unit) is located on the third floor of the building which is predominantly located above the maximum building height of 10 meters, therefore the subject proposal for the ‘pergola’ is located partially above the maximum building height.

5.      The variations are as follows:

 

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

7.      The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal contravenes a development standard by more than 10%.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection between Railway Parade and Jamieson Street Granville, within the ‘Granville Conservation Area — Civic’. The site previously consisted of 3 adjoining Torrens title allotments containing 2 single storey dwelling houses including a house listed as a heritage item under LEP 2011, these three allotments have since been amalgamated and are now known as Lot 0, Plan 94811 or 70-72 Railway Parade Granville. The site currently contains 2 single dwellings (including 1 heritage item) facing Railway Parade and a rear development being a four storey residential flat building approved under DA/359/2013.

Unit 7 of 70-72 Railway Parade Granville is a 3 bedroom adaptable unit with 2 associated parking spaces. Unit 7 is located on the third floor (top floor) and features a 38sqm balcony which is accessible from both the open plan living area and the third bedroom.

70-72 Railway Parade Granville has an overall area of 1136.5sqm and has a frontage of 29.82m to Railway Parade, 37.625m to Jamieson Street, and 30.989m to the laneway located to the rear of the site. Unit 7 is located on the corner of Jamieson Street and the laneway which runs along the rear of the site.

Surrounding the site area mix of dwelling houses in the form of single dwellings and terrace houses and 3 three storey residential flat buildings located along the opposite side of Jamieson Street. Additionally, a 2 storey former Granville Masonic Hall located at 13 Jamieson Street, also located within the ‘Granville Conservation Area - Civic Precinct’ and is located directly across from the unnamed rear laneway. North of the site along Railway Parade is a Rail Corridor.

 

 

 

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site (Jamieson Street and rear laneway)

 

 

 

Figure 4 – Street view of Heritage Item (Railway Parade)

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a development application for the construction of an awning to be installed over an existing balcony located on the third floor to be associated with unit 7 of 70-72 Railway Parade, Granville. 

The proposed awning/pergola has a total area of 25sqm and a height of 2.75m as measured from the finished floor level of the existing balcony. The top of the awning measures 12m when measured overall from the natural ground level of the subject site, therefore exceeding the maximum building height.

The extent of the works is limited to the south western corner and is solely located on the third floor; therefore, the proposed structure does not detract or impact the heritage item located within the site.

History

A history of previous development is listed below:

·        On 10 February 2014, Parramatta City Council approved the initial development consent for tree removal, demolition existing outbuildings at the rear of the site, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building at the rear of the site and restoration of the two existing dwellings on the site (including the heritage listed dwelling) and conversion to offices under DA/359/2013.

·        On 6 February 2015, Parramatta City Council approved subdivision of the subject site into 12 strata title lot under DA/747/2014).

·        On 15 July 2016, Cumberland City Council approved a Section 96(2) modification including conversion of Unit 7 to 3 bedroom unit, addition of car space for extra unit and partial demolition works under M2016/170/A.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Aus. Wide Consulting dated December 2020 and was received by Council on 15 March 2021 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

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

Internal Referrals

Heritage Committee

The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Committee for comment, no comments were provided during assessment to indicate concerns with the proposed development.

Council notes that the extent of the works is limited to a portion of the building which is south west facing, which does not impact or detract from the heritage item and is not visible from the heritage item at any point.

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

SEPP 65 applies to the development as the structure is associated with a building that is 3 storeys or more and contains more than 4 dwellings. Integral to SEPP 65 is the Apartment Design Guide, which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development.

The proposal has been assessed and found to remain in satisfactory compliance with the Apartment Design Guide in the same manner as the original Development Application as applied under DA2013/11209 (2013/359).

Figure 5 –SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide Compliance Table

Following assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, the proposal is generally considered compliant and is satisfactory with respect to building amenity and design.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The remains complaint with SEPP infrastructure in the same manner as the original Development Application.

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

The current application for the open structure is subject to clause 87 of the ISEPP as the site is in or adjacent to a rail corridor or however the proposal is not likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration as subject application is minimal in nature, being an open structure and does not impose any additional concerns or requirements to Clause 87.

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).

(b)     Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 9—Extractive Industry (No 2—1995)

Local Environmental Plans

Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011

The provision of the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011 the objectives of the B4 Zone.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The subject site is zoned as B4 Mixed Use zone under the provisions of PLEP 2011, where the approved development, defined as mixed use development, is permissible with Council consent.  It is considered that the proposed structure in association with unit 7 will not alter the use of the development on site as previously approved. Therefore, the development remains consistent with the zone and objectives of the PLEP 2011.

The relevant matters to be considered under Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2011 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.

Figure 6 – Parramatta LEP 2011 Compliance Table

(b)     Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

Clause 4.6 allows the consent authority to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. The consent authority may grant the exception as the Secretary’s concurrence can be assumed where clause 4.6 is adopted as per the Department of Planning Circular PS 18-003, dated 21 February 2018.

The Applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard for building height. Based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings P/L [2016] NSW LEC7 and Zhang and anor v Council of the City of Ryde [2016] NSWLEC 1179, a 3 part assessment framework for a variation request proposed under clause 4.6 has been considered and an assessment of the proposed variance, following the 3 part test is discussed in detail below.

The 3 preconditions which must be satisfied before the application can proceed are as follows:

1.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the zone?

Applicant’s justification:

‘The proposed works will not be a visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development as it is lower than the current surrounding second storey buildings built next to them and surrounding the street.

Planner’s comment:

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that the proposed development will provide the current and future tenants of unit 7 with useable outdoor space and is designed to support the needs of the current unit 7 occupants and future occupants.

2.      Is the proposed development consistent with the objectives of the development standard which is not met?

 

Applicant’s justification:

‘It will blend in with the surrounding buildings located across the road in 13 Jamieson Street, Granville set at above 12 metres in height, 2 Carlton Street, Granville set at 12 metres in height.’ The additional height is supported in principle through the original development proposal for the RFB by Parramatta City Council, which allows a height of 13.5m’.

Planner’s comment:

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that while the proposal exceeds the maximum building height on the allotment by 20%, the original DA sought a variation of 35% as a height of 13.5m was approved. The overall height of the proposed awning does not exceed beyond the height limit approved under DA/359/2013. Additionally, no adjoining residential property is overshadowed by the proposed awning. Council notes development across the narrow rear lane from the site, the former Masonic Lodge Building has a wall height equivalent to the height of the existing RFB on site and therefore, the proposed height of the pergola structure will have no significant visual impact on the Jamieson Street and laneway facade of the site. In terms of the Railway Parade facade, the upper level of floor 3 and unit 7 is not visible and Council does not deem the proposal to be visually obstructive or raise negative impact on the existing streetscape and the vicinity of the site.

3.      a) Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? And;

Applicant’s justification:

‘Located in B4 zone with mixed business and residential, it is located around N2, M & Highlight Blue which range from allowable height of up to 15 metres in height, it will blend in with the surrounding buildings located across the road in 13 Jamieson Street Granville set at above 12 metres in height, 2 Carlton street Granville set at 12 metres in height.’

Planner’s comment:

Council agrees with the comments made, and further notes that given the floor level of the third floor is in proximity to the maximum building height it would be unreasonable to expect an awning structure such as the proposed achieve compliance with the building height under the LEP. Compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height of building standard, notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard itself.

b) Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and therefore is the applicant’s written justification well founded?

Applicant’s justification:

The additional height is supported in principle through the original development proposal for the RFB by Parramatta City Council, which allows a height of 13.5m.

Planner’s comment:

Council concludes that the proposed awning is of an appropriate scale and has no adverse environmental or amenity impacts upon the surrounding built environment. Further, this structure will assist by contributing a more useable outdoor space which can be utilised year round.

Conclusion:

Council is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6 subclause (3).  Council is further satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the view of Council Officers that justification provided is satisfactory and having considered the application on its merit, the exception to the maximum building height development standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 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 Parramatta DCP 2011 provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The proposed development does not depart from the Parramatta DCP 2011 provisions.

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 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 Parramatta DCP 2011, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 30 April 2021 and 14 May 2021. No submissions were received in respect of the proposed development.

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 Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020. 

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The proposed development is appropriately located within the B4 zone under the relevant provisions of the Parramatta LEP 2011, however a variation in relation to the maximum building height under the Parramatta LEP 2011 is sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for current and future residents. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departure noted above, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Schedule of External Finishes  

4.      Appendix A - Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Compliance Table  

5.      Appendix B - Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Table  

6.      Supporting documents (from DA359/2013 and MOD2016/170)  

7.      Clause 4.6 Variation  

8.      Draft Reasons for Recommendation   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 October 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 3

Schedule of External Finishes

 13 October 2021

Attachment 4

Appendix A - Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 5

Appendix B - Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 Compliance Table

 13 October 2021

Attachment 6

Supporting documents (from DA359/2013 and MOD2016/170)

 13 October 2021

Attachment 7

Clause 4.6 Variation

 13 October 2021

Attachment 8

Draft Reasons for Recommendation

 13 October 2021

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP037/21

Development Application for 203-211 Merrylands Road, Merrylands

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2021/0475  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. DA2021/0475 was received on 1 September 2021 seeking consent for the demolition of existing buildings and structures associated with the Merrylands Arcade located at 203 – 211 Merrylands Road and 213 Merrylands Road, temporary use of part 28-36 McFarlane as a lay down area including the erection of temporary hoarding and fencing around the sites.

2.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 10 September 2021 and 24 September 2021. In response, three (3) submissions were received and a total of two (2) submissions were unique.

3.      The application is referred to the Cumberland Local Panel as the proposal is on land owned by Cumberland City Council.

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

Subject Sites and Surrounding Area

The sites are legally described as Lot 1 in DP 658197, Lot D in DP 344249, Lot 18G in DP 383945 and Lot 46, Section A in DP 7916, commonly known as 202 – 211 Merrylands Road, Merrylands 213 Merrylands Road, Merrylands and 28 – 36 McFarlane Street, Merrylands. The sites have a combined area of 2923.4m2 and a summary on the details of each site is as follows:

203 – 211 Merrylands Road:

The sites are rectangular in shape with a combined site area of 1239.8m2. The dimensions of the sites include a frontage to Merrylands Road of 31 metres, depths of 44.04 along the eastern boundary, 44.225 metres along the western boundary and a secondary street frontage to Main Lane equal to 31 metres. The site is known as the ‘Merrylands Arcade’ and contains a number of various commercial uses and provides a walkthrough for pedestrians from Merrylands Road toward McFarlane Street. The site is also burdened by an easement for electricity traversing through the centre of the site from the northern boundary to the southern boundary.

213 Merrylands Road:

The site directly adjoins 203 – 211 Merrylands Road to the north, is rectangular in shape, has a site area of 377.6m2 and accommodates a commercial building. The dimensions of the site include a frontage of approximately 6.83 metres to Merrylands Road, depths of 44.225 metres along the eastern and western boundaries and a secondary street frontage width of approximately 6.83 metres presenting to Main Lane.

28 – 36 McFarlane Street:

The site is rectangular in shape with a site area of 1306m2, a frontage of 35.54 metres to McFarlane Street, depths of 42.74 metres along the eastern boundary, 42.77 metres at the western boundary and a secondary street frontage of 35.54 metres fronting Main Lane. Historically, the site has been used as a public car park and recently the site has been excavated to facilitate works to the existing 6.95-metre-wide drainage easement traversing through the centre of the site undertaken as exempt works pursuant to the provisions of SEPP Infrastructure.

Zoning and Surrounding Uses:

203 – 211 and 213 Merrylands Road are zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and 28 – 36 McFarlane Street is zoned B4 Mixed Use. The sites are bounded within a predominant B4 Mixed use zone and adjoin Main Lane to the rear which is zoned SP2 (Local Road). The sites are located within the Merrylands Station and McFarlane Street Precinct boundary and surrounding development includes a variety of commercial uses predominately older single and two (2) storey commercial buildings and newer high-rise mixed-use developments. The sites are also within the vicinity of Merrylands Station and Merrylands Shopping Centre.

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject sites.

Figure 2: Land zoning map

Figure 3: Street view of Merrylands Arcade

Figure 4: Street view of 28 – 36 McFarlane Street

 

 

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of buildings and structures associated with the Merrylands Arcade located at 203 – 211 Merrylands Road and 213 Merrylands Road, temporary use part 28-36 McFarlane Street as a lay down area including the erection of temporary hoarding and fencing around the sites. The purpose of this application is for Council to pursue future land use of the sites to accommodate the Merrylands Civic Square which is subject to future development consent.

History

28 – 36 McFarlane Street has recently been excavated to facilitate works to the existing 6.95-metre-wide drainage easement. These works were undertaken pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Clauses 106, 111 and 125 which permits development by or on behalf of a public authority for stormwater to not require consent. Other than these works, there is no other notable history associated with the sites that are relevant to the subject proposal.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, Revision 1 dated 1 September 2021 and was received by Council on 1 September 2021 in support of the application.

Contact With Relevant Parties

Due to the current Public Health Orders issued by the NSW Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the assessing officer has undertaken a desk top review of the subject site(s) and surrounding properties and has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.

Internal Referrals

Environment and Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory with regard to contamination, remediation, air quality, water and general environmental protection. Therefore, the proposed can be supported subject to 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 and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

External Referrals

Endeavour Energy

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment pursuant to Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Endeavour Energy have noted the following:

·        203 – 211 Merrylands Road is burdened by an easement benefitting Endeavour Energy (indicated by red hatching in Figure 5 below) for underground mains / cables which currently has no ‘Inservice’ electricity infrastructure.

·        Along the Merrylands Road street verge/roadway there is a low voltage and 11,000 volt / 11 kilovolt high voltage underground cables (including a low voltage pillar (indicated by the blue rectangle in Figure 5 below). A low voltage pillar to the road verge from which there is a low voltage overhead ‘awning’ power lines / service conductor lines (the conductors are in troughs / ducts fixed to the awnings / shop fronts) supplying premises to the west.

·        Within Main Lane there is a low voltage underground cabling for streetlighting which also extend onto 28-36 McFarlane Street.

·        Low voltage underground cabling to the MacFarlane Street road verge/roadway.

Figure 5: Site plan provided by Endeavour Energy - G/Net master facility model

Endeavour Energy has advised that the proposal is satisfactory with regard to the above subject to conditional requirements.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP 55 the consent authority must be satisfied that the site is suitable or can be made suitable to accommodate future use. The matters listed within Clause 7 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Matters 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 Detailed Site Investigation report prepared by Douglas Partners (Project 206777.00) dated August 2021 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 the proposed demolition. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report and determined that the site is suitable for the proposal.

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

The provisions of the ISEPP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. Pursuant to Clause 45 (b)(i) the associated works are proposed to be carried out within the vicinity of an easement for electricity benefitting Endeavour Energy.

In accordance with Clause 45(2) the application was referred to Endeavour Energy who has advised that 203 – 211 Merrylands Road is burdened by an easement benefitting Endeavour Energy for the purposes underground mains/cables which currently has no ‘Inservice’ electricity infrastructure. Endeavour Energy has reviewed the proposed works in respect to the electricity easement, raising no objection to the proposal subject to conditional requirements noting compliance with the requirements of Endeavour Energy.

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

The objective of the SEPP is to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation and to preserve the amenity of the area through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the SEPP.

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

Not applicable. The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland or ‘land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or coastal management area.

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 (HLEP 2013)

The provisions of HLEP 2013 are applicable to the subject proposal. It is noted that the proposal achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of HLEP 2013.

(a)     Permissibility:-

Under HLEP 2013 the subject sites are zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and B4 Mixed Use. The proposal being demolition of the buildings and structures associated with 203 – 211 Merrylands Road and 213 Merrylands Road, temporary use of part 28-36 McFarlane as a lay down area including the erection of temporary hoarding and fencing around the sites is sub servant to future uses on the subject sites and permissible with consent.

(b)     Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

There are no applicable Clauses contained within Part 4 of HLEP 2013 relevant to the subject proposal.

 

(c)     Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

Outlined below are the applicable Clauses contained within Part 5 of HLEP 2013.

(d)     Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

Clause	Comment
Clause 6.1 - Acid sulfate soils	Subject site is not identified on HLEP 2013 Acid Sulfate Soils map.
Clause 6.2 – Earthworks	No significant earthworks are proposed as a part of this application.
Clause 6.7 – Stormwater Management	No stormwater works are proposed as a part of this application. These matters will be considered as apart any subsequent application for redevelopment of the site(s).
Clause 6.8 - Salinity	The site is subject to moderate salinity. Suitable conditions are recommended regarding salinity measures.

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 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 proposed is subject to the provisions of Part A – General Controls of the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 (HDCP 2013). This section of HDCP 2013 provides guidance for waste management and demolition practices to minimise any adverse impact on adjoining properties and the surrounding environment. The following table below outlines including the proposals performance against the relevant controls applicable.

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))

Pursuant to Clause 92(1)(b) the consent authority must take into consideration the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-2001 in respect to applications involving demolition. The application has been supported with sufficient information regarding the types of demolished materials, location of hazardous materials, waste disposal and re-use including procedures for the safe demolition of Merrylands Arcade. The proposal is considered to meet the requirements of Australian Standard AS2601-2001. Nevertheless, conditions are recommended for compliance with the submitted documents and Australian Standard AS2601-2001.

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

This assessment demonstrates that the proposal that the proposed demolition of the buildings and structures associated with 203–211 Merrylands Road and 213 Merrylands Road, temporary use part 28-36 McFarlane Street as a lay down area including the erection of temporary hoarding and fencing around the sites does not result in any 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 proposal is consistent with the relevant and applicable statutory requirements and policies. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed is suitable for the site(s) and their surrounds.

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 Development Control Plan 2013, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 10 September 2021 and 24 September 2021. Following the notification period, Council received three (3) submissions, with a total of two (2) unique submissions. No submissions disclosed a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

·        Existing carpark located along McFarlane Street.

A submission raised a concern regarding the existing carpark located 28-36 McFarlane Street. The primary concern was the removal of the carpark and associated impact as a result of a shortage for off-street car parking.

Planners Comment:

Historically, 28-36 McFarlane Street has been used as a public car park, that has recently been fenced off and undergone excavation to facilitate works to the existing 6.95-metre-wide drainage easement traversing through the centre of the site. The subject application seeks demolition of the existing Merrylands Arcade and temporary use of this part of the site as a temporary laydown area. Following the works associated with the subject application, the site will be reinstated. It is noted that alternate public car parking is available at other locations in the Merrylands Town Centre, which is in close proximity to the subject site.

·    Pedestrian Access between Merrylands Road and McFarlane Street.

Submissions drew concern regarding future pedestrian connectivity between Merrylands Road and McFarlane Street.

Planners Comment:

The Merrylands Arcade historically provided a walkthrough for pedestrians from Merrylands Road toward McFarlane Street, which has been recently closed off by Council. The purpose of this application is to demolish the Merrylands Arcade to facilitate the Merrylands Civic Square which is proposed to provide public open space for the Merrylands Station and McFarlane Street Precinct. The Civic Square is subject to further approval and, as outlined in Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013, the controls related to the Civic Square has an emphasis on a pedestrian permeability linkage by reinforcing a pedestrian-friendly character and interface with the Stockland Mall, via linking Merrylands Road and McFarlane Street. Therefore, the future Merrylands Civic Square will assist in extending pedestrian linkages and improve pedestrian mobility between Merrylands Road and McFarlane Street.

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

The proposal has been assessed under the relevant statutory requirements and it is determined that the proposed is considered to be not contrary to the public interest.

Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020

In accordance with the Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020, the proposed works does not require any contributions payable. The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions contained within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, relevant environmental planning instruments, Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013 and Councils’ policies. The proposal is deemed satisfactory and for these reasons, it is considered that the proposal may be approved subject to conditions.

 

Report Recommendation: 1.         Pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is recommended that the Cumberland Local Planning Panel grant consent to Development Application No. DA2021/0475 for the demolition of existing buildings and structures associated with the Merrylands Arcade located at 203 – 211 Merrylands Road and 213 Merrylands Road, temporary use of part 28-36 McFarlane as a lay down area including the erection of temporary hoarding and fencing around the sites, subject to conditions.   2.         Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Demolition Drawing  

3.      Demolition Plan  

4.      Waste Management Plan  

5.      Preliminary Site Investigation  

6.      Hazardous Building Report  

7.      Requirements of Endeavour Energy  

8.      Draft Reasons for Recommendation   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 October 2021

Attachment 2

Demolition Drawing

 13 October 2021

Attachment 3

Demolition Plan

 13 October 2021

Attachment 4

Waste Management Plan

 13 October 2021

Attachment 5

Preliminary Site Investigation

 13 October 2021

Attachment 6

Hazardous Building Report

 13 October 2021

Attachment 7

Requirements of Endeavour Energy

 13 October 2021

Attachment 8

Draft Reasons for Recommendation

 13 October 2021

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP038/21

Development Application for 43 - 55 Karrabah Road, Auburn

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    DA2021/0451  

 

 

1.      Council is in receipt of a development application, lodged to Council on the 6 September 2021, seeking approval for the demolition of all structures and fences on land at 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53 and 55 Karrabah Road, Auburn.

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

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site forms Lot 6 DP 75498, Lot 1 DP 75966, Lot 1 DP 175728, Lot 1 DP 175761, Lot 1 Sec 16 DP 939788, Lot 2 Sec 16 DP 939788, Lot 3 Sec 16 DP 939788, Lot 1 DP 1094958, Lot 2 DP 1094958, Lot 1 DP 1182664 and is known as 43-55 Karrabah Road, AUBURN NSW  2144. The site has a combined area of  3,482.34m2 and a combined primary street frontage to Karrabah Road of 76.20 metres and a secondary street frontage to Beemra Street of 45.70 metres.

The site is currently occupied by dwelling houses, ranging from single storey to two-storey, with associates structures. The existing developments adjoining the site include Auburn Park, that shares the entire rear boundaries of these seven (7) sites. Located to the north and north-east of the site is land associated with Auburn Girls High School. Opposite these sites are existing dwellings. The location of these sites is conveyed on the below map:-

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site

Description of the Proposed Development

Council is in receipt of a development application to seek approval for the demolition of all structures and fences on land at 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53 and 55 Karrabah Road, Auburn.

The NSW State Government has provided funding to Cumberland City Council to carry-out the proposed demolition works. An extension to Auburn Park is one of the four amenity improvement projects under the Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program (PRUAIP), which aims to improve the amenity of the Parramatta Road corridor by revitalising public open spaces

The abovementioned seven properties are all owned by Cumberland City Council. Situated at the rear of these sites is Auburn Park. The purpose of the proposed demolition of all the buildings and associated structures on these sites is to provide additional public open space in the future. This includes more grass surfaces as an addition to Auburn Park, so that accessibility to this recreational reserve is further improved via Karrabah Road and adjoining streets. Two (2) trees on the sites are to be retained. All other trees on these seven properties are to be removed. All street trees along the Karrabah Road and Beemra Street road reserves are to be retained. The following is a site plan of the subject properties:-

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Graham Bakewell dated August 2021 and was received by Council on the 6 September 2021 in support of the application.

Contact with Relevant Parties

The assessing officer has been in regular contact with the applicant throughout the assessment process.

 

Internal Referrals

Parks and Recreation Officer

The development application was referred to Council’s Parks & Recreation Officer for comment who has advised that the proposed demolition works is satisfactory, provided that all existing services are to be decommissioned except for one (1) water meter at either 43 or 45 Karrabah Road. The installation of a fence along Beemra Street and Karrabah Road boundaries to prevent unauthorised vehicular access after demolition is also to be provided at a later stage.

Tree Management Officer

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. This includes the retention of the following trees:-

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))

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.

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

The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold as one (1) tree at the rear of 43 Karrabah Road, Auburn is to be retained. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable.

Regional Environmental Plans

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

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

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 (ALEP) 2010

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 R3 Medium Density Residential.

(a)     Permissibility:-

The proposed development involves demolition works which is permissible pursuant to Part 2, Clause 2.7 of the ALEP. There is no use associated with this application and relates to demolition only. The following is an LEP compliance table assessment:-

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	COMPLIANCE	DISCUSSION
4.3 Height of buildings	N/A	This proposal involves demolition works only.
4.4 Floor space ratio	N/A	This proposal involves demolition works only.
5.10 Heritage conservation	N/A	This site not a heritage listed item, nor is the site located in a heritage conservation area.
6.1 Acid sulphate soils	Yes	The site has a class 5 rating. No concerns are raised in terms acid sulphate soils.
6.2 Earthworks	N/A	The proposal does not involve any earthworks.
6.3 Flood planning	N/A	The site is not situated in a flood-risk area.

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. Since this proposal involves demolition works only, an ADCP compliance table analysis is not required. Relevant conditions of development consent will be imposed to ensure that demolition works are carried-out in accordance with the relevant regulations, so that Council demolition requirements under Part 2 of the ‘Waste’ chapter of the ADCP are adhered-to.

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 demolition works 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 demolition works 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 proposed demolition works is suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality.

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

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010, the development application was not required to be publicly notified.

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

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

Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020

The development does not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 7.11 Contributions Plan as the proposal does not involve any new residential and/or subdivision development.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

There was no disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts.

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 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. DA2021/0451 for the demolition of all structures and fences on land 43-55 Karrabah Road, Auburn be approved subject to attached conditions.

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Locality Map  

4.      Draft Reasons for Recommendation   

 

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 13 October 2021

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 13 October 2021

Attachment 3

Locality Map

 13 October 2021

Attachment 4

Draft Reasons for Recommendation

 13 October 2021

 13 October 2021

Item No: LPP039/21

Modification Application for 331 Blaxcell Street, South Granville

Responsible Division:                    Environment & Planning

Officer:                                              Executive Manager Development and Building

File Number:                                    MOD2021/0156  

 

 

1.      Development Application No. 290/2017 was approved by the Land and Environment Court on the 9 February 2018 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a three storey childcare centre with ancillary signage as deferred commencement consent subject to conditions. The development consent was made operational on 8 April 2019.

2.      Modification Application No. 290/2017/A was approved by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel on the 14 August 2019 being a Section 4.56 application to modify an approved childcare centre facility to provide additional general purpose rooms and a rooftop outdoor play area.

3.      Modification Application No. MOD2021/0156 was received on 28 April 2021 being a Section 4.56 application for alterations to an approved childcare centre including construction of additional roof top level, reconfiguration of the ground floor parking area, revision to internal and external areas of the upper levels and provision of an external fire stair.

4.      The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 5 May 2021 and 19 May 2021. In response, there were no submissions received.

5.      The variations are as follows:

 

6.      The application is referred to the Panel for determination as the modified development contravenes the height requirement by more than 10%.

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

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is legally described as Lots 40 and 41 Section 1 in DP 5121 and is known as 331 Blaxcell Street, South Granville. The site is located on the eastern side of Blaxcell Street, within the R4 High Density Residential zone, between Eve Street to the northwest and Markey Street to the southwest. The site has a frontage of 24.36 metres to Blaxcell Street and occupies an area of 1,340.6 square metres.

The site has a fall towards the rear of between 1.17 metres and 1.24 metres.

There is a single storey dwelling house with a detached garage on the site. A small garden shed is situated within the rear yard.

There is a mixture of housing types within the locality ranging from older style post World War 2 housing to recently constructed medium density developments. There are multi dwelling developments close by situated at 319 to 325, 335 to 339 and 334 to 336 Blaxcell Street.

The Dellwood Street Neighbourhood Shopping Centre is situated approximately 220 metres to the north.

 

The location of the site is shown below.

The aerial photo of the site is shown below.

Photos of the site are shown below.

Description of the Proposed Development

Council has received a Section 4.56 modification application to undertake changes to the approved childcare centre including reconfiguration of the ground floor parking area, revision to internal and external areas of the upper levels and provision of an external fire stair.

The proposal is not considered to be an intensification of the approved use because there is no increase in the number of children to attend the centre. The intention of the proposal is to enhance the approved design through more interactive and functional indoor and outdoor play areas without increasing the centre’s capacity. The centre will accommodate 92 children, 21 staff and 23 car spaces. In detail, the changes are:-

Ground level

·        Revision of the car park layout to provide car parking spaces for 23 vehicles including 3 accessible spaces;

·        Provision of a turning bay;

·        Relocate the access driveway and provide a new security gate;

·        Removal of internal play area and outdoor play area;

·        Relocate lift and erection of external fire stairs;

·        Provision of a staff/meeting room with amenity facility;

·        Provision of storage area; and

·        Erection of new signage on the front fence.

Level One

·        Redesign the internal play areas and outdoor play areas to accommodate a total of 60 children including a play room for 30 x 2-3 year old children and another play room for 30 x 3-6 year old 30 children;

·        Relocate the play room for 0-2 year old children to Level Two;

·        Redesign the outdoor play area;

·        Relocate lift and erection of external fire stairs; and

·        Reconfigure the internal layout to provide bathrooms/showers, offices, kitchen, and internal and external store rooms.

Level Two

·        Redesign the internal and outdoor areas to provide a new play room for 32 x 0-2 year old children

·        Reduce the amount of outdoor play area; 

·        Provision of 1 additional general purpose room;

·        Relocate lift and erection of external fire stairs; and

·        Reconfigure the internal layout to provide bathrooms/nappy change area, cot room, kitchen/bottle preparation area, and internal and external store rooms; and

·        Erection of external stairs to provide access from the lower and upper levels.

Rooftop

·        Provision of staff wellbeing room, storage room, laundry and amenity facilities for children and adults;

·        Provision of outdoor play area;

·        Erection of under covered outdoor play area; and

·        Relocate lift and erection of external fire stairs.

The table below summaries the key changes between the previous approvals and the proposed modifications under this application.

	Original application approved by LEC on 8 April 2019 DA-290/2017	S4.56 modification approved by CLPP on 14 August 2019 DA-290/2017/A	Current S4.56 modification MOD2021/0156
Land Use	Childcare centre	Childcare centre	Childcare centre
GFA / FSR Permissible 0.8:1	1,072.14 sq m / 1,343 sq m 0.798:1	1,071.71 sq m / 1,343 sq m 0.798:1	905.864 sq m / 1,343 sq m 0.675:1
HoB Max. 11m	Max. 10.9m	Max. 13.6m	Max. 13.6m
No. of storeys	3 storeys (GF, 1F, 2F)	4 storeys (GF, 1F, 2F, rooftop)	4 storeys (GF, 1F, 2F, rooftop)
Indoor Play area Require 299m2	318.25 sq m	468 sq m	320.075 sq m
Outdoor Play area Require 644m2	660.94 sq m	825.66 sq m	660.57 sq m
Car parking spaces Require 23 spaces incl. 3 accessible spaces	23 spaces Including 3 accessible spaces	23 spaces Including 3 accessible spaces	23 spaces Including 3 accessible spaces
Front setback (west)	GF: 40.32m 1F: 12.3m 2F: 19.685m	GF: 40.32m 1F: 12.3m 2F: 18.785m rooftop: 19.7m	GF: 6m 1F: 13.5m 2F: 12.4m rooftop: 21.6m
Rear setback (east)	GF: 3.509m 1F: 3.509m 2F: 9.28m	GF: 3.45m 1F: 3.5m 2F: 11.9m rooftop: 8.4m	GF: 22.1m 1F: 9.1m 2F: 10.9m rooftop: 12.8m
Layout	GF: at-grade car park, entry lobby, lift, stairs, meeting room, children WC, Adult WC, storage, children play room.   1F: children play rooms, lift, stairs, office, staff room, kitchen, storage, cots, children WC, Adult WC, undercover/outdoor play area.     2F: general purpose rooms, office, lift, stairs, laundry, storage, children WC, Adult WC, undercover/outdoor play area.	GF: at-grade car park, entry lobby, lift, stairs, meeting room, children WC, Adult WC, storage, children play room.   1F: children play rooms, lift, stairs, office, staff room, kitchen, storage, cots, children WC, Adult WC, undercover/outdoor play area, shower.     2F: general purpose rooms, office, lift, stairs, laundry, storage, children WC, Adult WC, undercover/outdoor play area     Rooftop: undercover/outdoor play area, utility area.	GF: at-grade car park, entry lobby. lift, stairs, staff/meeting room, Adult WC, storage,     1F: children play rooms, lift, stairs, office, staff room, kitchen, storage, children WC, Adult WC, undercover/outdoor play area, shower, hall.   2F: general purpose rooms, lift, stairs, storage, Adult WC/nappy change, undercover/outdoor play area, cots, kitchen/bottle preparation.   Rooftop: undercover/outdoor play area Staff room, storage, laundry, children WC/nappy change, Adult WC, lift, stairs.

History

Development application 290/2017 was approved as a deferred commencement consent by the Land and Environment Court on the 9 February 2018. The deferred commencement compliance notice (Operational consent) associated with the consent was issued on 8 April 2019.

A Section 4.56 Modification of Consent No. 290/2017/A was approved by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel on the 14 August 2019 for Section 4.56 to modify an approved Child Care centre facility to provide additional general purpose rooms and a rooftop outdoor play area.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Nauon Solutions dated March 2021 and the documents and was received by Council on 28 April 2021 in support of the application. Subsequent to Council’s request of additional information letter, the amended plans prepared by Chrofi Architects and a letter prepared by Shaw Reynolds Lawyers dated 2 September 2021 were submitted for Council’s considerations.

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 modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that there is no objection to the modification sought and no engineering conditions are required to be altered.

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.

Environment and Health

The modification application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment who has advised that the changes sought are acceptable. There are no objections to the modification sought and conditions are provided addressing matters of noise, plan of management and site operations.

Children’s Services

The modification application was referred to Council’s Children’s Services Department who have advised that there are no objections to the changes that are sought.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer 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 4.56 Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court:

 

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 concerning land contamination have been addressed during the processing of the original development application for the redevelopment of the site to become the childcare centre.

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64)

The original Development Application DA-290/2017 was approved with a wall sign attached to the front façade of the building. The proposed modification is proposed to replace the original wall sign with a new sign to be placed on the front boundary wall being a business identification sign facing Blaxcell Street which is deemed to be suitable and appropriate for the proposed use. A detailed assessment of the SEPP 64 is attached within the Appendix A.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 is applicable to the modification application. An assessment shows that the modification application is compliant with the relevant provisions of the State Policy. A detailed assessment of the modification application using the State Policy is attached within Appendix B.

Child Care Planning Guideline (August 2017) Planning and Environment

The Child Care Planning Guideline associated with the State Policy is also relevant to the modification application and this part addresses the Design Quality Principles. The modification application is found to be compliant with all the Design Quality Principles 1 to 7. A detailed assessment of the Design Quality Principles is addressed at Appendix C.

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

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

(a)     Permissibility:-

The approved use is defined as a “Centre Based Child Care Facility” under the PLEP 2011 and defined as:-

(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 childcare,

(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)),

Note.

An approved family day care venue is a place, other than a residence, where an approved family day care service (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)) is provided.

but does not include:

(c)     a building or place used for home-based childcare or school-based childcare, or

(d)     an office of a family day care service (within the meanings of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)), or

(e)     a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organized informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f)      a child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium) to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(g)     a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or providing private tutoring, or

(h)     a child-minding service that is provided by or in a health services facility, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating in the facility.

A “Centre Based Child Care Facility” is a permitted land use within the R4 High Density Residential zone that applies to the land. A business identification sign attached to the childcare centre is also permitted with consent.

The relevant matters to be considered under the PLEP 2011 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.

(b)     Clause 4.6 – Variation to Building Height

The clause will not be applicable to this application. In accordance with case law, as outlined in the Land Environment Court Case of Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] that there is power to modify a development application where the modification would result in the breach of development standards. The court took the view that development standards within an LEP did not operate to prohibit the grant of consent if they were not complied with (and no objection pursuant to SEPP No. 1 (now cl 4.6) had been lodged). Notwithstanding, the court held that despite a SEPP No. 1 Objection not being required, Section 96(3) (now known as cl 4.55(3)) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act) still requires the consent authority to take into consideration those matters referred to in Section 79C (now Cl4.15) of the Act. This case law has been applied to Clause 4.6 of the Standard instrument (on which the PLEP 2011 is derived).

 

Variation to building height

 

The maximum building height permitted on the site is 11 metres. The original development application was approved at 11 metres (three storeys) and hence the height of the childcare centre was fully compliant with the provision. Under this S4.56 modification application, the proposed additional roof top level is mainly outdoor play area with shade structures with a small enclosed area (less than 30 square metres) of enclosed area being the lift access, stairwell, staff well-being room, amenity/nappy change area, laundry and storage area. The overall building height reaches a maximum height of 13.6 metres being a maximum variation of 23.6%.

 

Generally, the rooftop play area is open to the elements and neither of the elements form a defined fourth storey to the building.

 

The applicant has addressed the objectives of Clause 4.3 as follows:

 

Applicant’s comments

 

The approved height of the building was 13.6m under the previous Section 4.56 modification and this proposal seeks to maintain this approved height. The proposed height variation is considered suitable for the site and surrounding on the following grounds:

·        The building height follows the approved height.

·        The proposal does not exceed the maximum FSR (it will reduce the approved FSR).

·        The proposal generally maintains the approved building’s footprint.

·        The building elements that trigger the variation are minor in relation to the approved building.

·        The majority of the building remains below the 11m height maximum.

·        The proposed variation is consistent with the building height objectives under the PLEP 2011.

·        The proposed variation is consistent with the R4 zoning objectives under the PLEP 2011.

·        The additional height when viewed from Blaxcell Street is minor and does not materially alter the overall streetscape.

·        Council approved the outdoor play area on the roof and this application simply seeks to enhance the overall design of the building, including the roof area.

·        The shadowing impacts are minor as demonstrated in the shadow diagrams.

·        The proposed variation does not result in an increase to privacy impacts due to the measures incorporated in the skilful design.

·        No other development standards are varied as part of this application.

 

Figure below shows the difference between the approved Section 4.56 modification (blue line) and proposed building height (red line).

Planner’s comment

 

The discussion provided by the applicant is supported. In this regard, the development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard as the height of the modified childcare centre in storeys is generally with the height of future buildings with the R4 (High Density Residential zone) within the locality.

 

The variation is limited to the playground elements being the parapet / screen, lift well, utility area, shade sail structure and stairwells. These are utilities or amenities to support the rooftop playground and do not function as an additional storey. In addition:-

·        There is no appreciable increase in shadowing to the south.

·        The proposed height is retained as approved under the previous modification to the childcare centre on site.

·        The rooftop playground has a smaller footprint than the ground, first and second floors of the childcare centre below.

·        The rooftop playground is setback away from the side boundaries of the site to minimise adverse impacts such as solar access and privacy issues.

·        The enclosed area on the rooftop area is setback 6.2 metres from the southern side boundary to minimise the bulk and scale of the rooftop area when viewed from the southern adjoining properties.

·        The degree of privacy is satisfactory to all boundaries. The window openings of the enclosed portion on the rooftop area relates to the amenity facility and storage area of the staff well-being room which will not constitute any overlooking onto the southern adjoining properties.

·        The rooftop playground does not contribute to mass, bulk and scale of the building.

·        The floor space ratio of the building is compliant with the standard applying to the site.

When considering the above, the variation sought is considered as being acceptable to the site.

 

Conclusion

 

It is the view of Council Officer that the 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.

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 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 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 Parramatta Development Control Plan provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011

(a)     Section 5.2 - Child Care Centres

The relevant objectives and requirements of the Child Care Centres Part of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 (PDCP) have been considered and a relevant assessment is provided at Appendix D.

 

The Child Care Planning Guideline will override many of the controls specified and as such, the controls now have limited applicability to any childcare centre.

 

When considering the relevant controls, it is identified that the application is not compliant with Part 5.2.3.2 - Building Height and Design. This is related to the height variation of the roof top play area and staff well-being room under Clause 4.3 of the PLEP 2011. The height matter has been comprehensively addressed above and determined as being acceptable.

 

The modification is compliant with the remaining relevant provisions of the PDCP 2011 addressing childcare centres.

 

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 modified 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 modified 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 modified 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 PDCP 2011 and Clause 119(2) and (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the modification application was publicly notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between 5 May 2021 and 19 May 2021. There was no submission received to the modification that is sought.

 

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

 

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

Section 7.12 (Formerly S94A) Fixed Development Consent Levies

 

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

 

Comments:

The modified development triggers additional cost of works which would require the payment of contributions to be amended in accordance with Parramatta Section 94A Contributions Plans (Amendment No. 5). In this regard, the new contribution amount is $19,250.00. Should the Panel support the modification application, Condition No. 5 of the development consent would need to be updated to reflect the new contribution amount.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and associated Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. A variation to Clause 4.3 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 specific to height is sought.

Having regard to the assessment of the proposal from a merit perspective, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed and provides for acceptable levels of amenity. It is considered that the proposal successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Hence the development, irrespective of the departure noted above, is consistent with the intentions of Council’s planning controls and represents a form of development contemplated by the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the land.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 and Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modification may be approved subject to conditions.

Report Recommendation: That Modification Application MOD2021/0156 being a Section 4.56 modification for alterations to an approved childcare centre including a reconfiguration of the ground floor parking area, revision to internal and external areas of the upper levels and provision of an external fire stair on land at 331 Blaxcell Street, South Granville be approved subject to attached conditions listed in the attached schedule.

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Landscape Plans  

4.      Stormwater/Engineering Plans  

5.      Plan of Management  

6.      Appendix A - Assessment Table of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 - Advertising and Signage  

7.      Appendix B - Assessment Table of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017  

8.      Appendix C - Assessment Table of Child Care Planning Guideline 2017  

9.      Appendix D - Assessment Table of Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013  

10.    Appendix E - Notice of Determination of the original Development Application DA-290/2017 and relevant copy of plans  

11.    Appendix F - Notice of Determination of the subsequent Section 4.56 Modification Application DA-290/2017/A and relevant copy of plans  

12.    Draft Reasons for Recommendation