Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting

 14 June 2023

Minutes of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel Meeting held via Electronic Determination on Wednesday 14 June 2023.

Present:

Michael Leavey (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Furlong and Irene Simms.

In Attendance:

Nighat Aamir, Esra Calim, Harley Pearman, Sazzad Sarker, Bhavisha Sheth, Rachelle Succar, Olivia Yana and Calum Thomson.

 

 

 

The meeting opened at 11:31am.

Declarations Of Interest:

There were no declarations of interest.

 

ITEM LPP015/23 - Development Application for 469, 471 & 471A Merrylands Road, Merrylands

Panel Decision:

1.         That the Clause 4.6 variation request to vary the height of the building as contained within Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 be supported.

 

2.         That Development Application No. DA2022/0425 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building comprising of 26 units over basement car parking with strata title subdivision on land at 469 Merrylands Road Merrylands be approved as a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to conditions as recommended in Council’s Assessment Report.

 

3.         Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.

 

Reasons for Approval

1.    That the Panel is satisfied that the applicant’s written request to contravene the Development Standard relating to height as contained within Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6 (3) and the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings Standard.

 

2.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone and is a development that will provide for the housing needs of the community and maintains the amenity of surrounding development.

 

3.    The proposal is consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

4.    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 are not of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application.

 

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

 

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

 

For:                Michael Leavey (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Furlong and Irene Simms.

 

Against:        Nil.

 

ITEM LPP016/23 - Development Application for 29 Salisbury Road, Guildford NSW 2161

Panel Decision:

That Development Application No. DA2023/0174 for the demolition of a garage on land at 29 Salisbury Road Guildford NSW  2161 be approved subject to conditions as recommended in Council’s Assessment Report.

 

Reasons for Approval

 

1.    The proposal is consistent with the relevant planning controls applying to the site.

 

2.    Subject to the recommended conditions of development consent, the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the heritage values of the land or on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the locality.

 

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

For:                Michael Leavey (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Furlong and Irene Simms.

 

Against:        Nil.

 

ITEM LPP017/23 - Development Application for 38-42 Winnima Circuit, Pemulwuy

Panel Decision:

That Development Application No. DA2022/0277 for the construction of two x 4 storey residential flat buildings with rooftop terraces comprising of 44 apartments over basement parking and associated works on land at 38-42 Winnima Circuit, Pemulwuy be refused for the reasons listed below.

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 6.4 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 relating to Essential Services. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that adequate arrangements for stormwater drainage have been made available for the proposed development.

 

2.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 6.7 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 relating to stormwater drainage. In this regard, the proposed stormwater drainage system is unacceptable and unsatisfactory to support the proposed development.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(i)

 

3.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of the Cumberland Development Control Plan at Chapter G4 (Stormwater Drainage) provisions of the Cumberland Development Control addressing stormwater drainage, connections and stormwater management. As such, the means for stormwater drainage is unsatisfactory.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(iii).

 

4.     Insufficient information has been submitted with the development application to allow a proper and thorough assessment of the likely stormwater impacts of the proposed development across the site and onto adjoining areas.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s4.15(1)(b) and S4.15(1)(c)).

 

5.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 28 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as it does not comply with requirement 4A-2 of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) in relation to the internal amenity of apartment 1.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(i)

 

 

 

6.     In the circumstances of the case and the public interest, approval of the development application is not in the public interest.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s4.15(1)(e)).

 

For:                Michael Leavey (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Furlong and Irene Simms.

 

Against:        Nil.

 

ITEM LPP018/23 - Development Application for 1 Octavia Street, Toongabbie

Panel decision:

 

That Development Application No. DA2022/0786 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey shop top housing development comprising of a medical centre, physiotherapy, radiology, pharmacy and four (4) residential units with at-grade and basement car parking on land at 1 Octavia Street Toongabbie be refused for the reasons listed below.

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 28 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as it does not comply with the following requirements of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG):

 

a)     Minimum area for Communal Open Space;

b)     Minimum area for Deep Soil Zones;

c)     Visual privacy and Building Separation;

d)     Improper segregation between residential and commercial uses;

e)     Acoustic privacy;

f)      Waste management.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(i)

 

2.     The proposed development is inconsistent with Part 2.3 - Development Controls and Division 10 – Health Services Facility of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 as it does not satisfy the permissibility of the proposed pharmacy which is defined as a commercial premises. In accordance with Clause 2.60, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the development is not a prohibited land use.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(i)

 

 

 

3.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the following Clauses of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021:

 

a)     Clause 4.3 – Height of Building, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 4.3 of LEP as the proposal will result in breach of the maximum Building Height.

 

b)     Clause 4.4- Floor Space Ratio, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 4.4 of LEP as the proposal will result in breach of the maximum Floor Space ratio.

 

c)     Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards, where the written justification has not provided sufficient grounds for the proposed breach to the height of Building Standard.

 

d)     Clause 6.4 – Essential Services. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 6.4 as it fails to demonstrate that adequate arrangements for suitable vehicular access and stormwater drainage have been made available for the proposed development.

e)    Clause 6.7 – Stormwater Management. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 6.7 as it fails to demonstrate that effective stormwater management has been provided for the proposed development.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(i)

 

4.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021:

 

a)     Part A3 Site Amalgamation and Isolated Site & Part F2-13, Toongabbie Town Centre:

-        The narrow width of the site results in an in proportionate built form being    unsympathetic to the streetscape and the desired future character of the locality.

-        The proposal fails to satisfactorily address the Cumberland DCP requirements relating to site amalgamation, and in this regard, a merit consideration of the proposed development located on a site with a non-compliant frontage is unable to be undertaken.

-        The proposal fails to comply with the maximum number of storeys. As such, the development with the excessive height fails to achieve an appropriate built form for the site, in terms of bulk and scale.

 

 

b)     Part B3 – Residential Flat Buildings

-        The proposal fails to provide compliant side and rear setbacks to enable adequate provision for landscaping and deep soil planting.

 

c)     Part G3 - Traffic, Parking, Transport and Access

-        The proposal fails to provide adequate off-street car-parking.

-        The proposal fails to provide compliant parking spaces.

-        The proposal fails to provide adequate landscape buffer between the at grade parking and the side boundary to minimise its visual and environmental impact. 

-        The proposal fails to provide safe and well-designed parking and manoeuvring areas and loading/unlading facilities in accordance with the applicable provisions of Australian Standard (AS 2890).

d)     Part G4 – Stormwater and Drainage

-        The proposed development fails to comply with the provisions of the Cumberland Development Control addressing flooding, stormwater drainage, OSD construction, and stormwater management. As such, the means for stormwater drainage and flooding is unsatisfactory.

e)        Part G8 Waste Management

-        The proposed development fails to provide adequate bin storage area and waste management to service the entire building.

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979s4.15(1)(a)(iii).

 

5.     Insufficient information has been submitted with the development application to allow a proper and thorough assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development or the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed development especially in relation to lot width, height of building, floor space ratio, building separation, acoustic, parking, flooding and stormwater drainage.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s4.15(1)(b) and S4.15(1)(c)).

 

6.     Approval of the development application is not in the public interest.

 

(Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s4.15(1)(e)).

For:                Michael Leavey (Chairperson), Lindsay Fletcher, David Furlong and Irene Simms.

 

Against:        Nil.

The meeting terminated at 11:46am.

Signed:


 Michael Leavey, Chairperson