11 December 2024
A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11.30am via Zoom on Wednesday, 11 December 2024.
Business as below:
Yours faithfully
Peter J. Fitzgerald
General Manager
ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Receipt of Apologies
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Address by invited speakers
4. Reports:
- Development Applications
5. Closed Session Reports
11 December 2024
CONTENTS
Report No. Name of Report Page No.
Development Applications
ELPP038/24 Development Application - 8 Bradman Street, Greystanes........ 3
ELPP039/24 Development Application - 96 Chiswick Road, Auburn
................... (CLOSED SESSION).......................................................... 177
ELPP040/24 Modification Application - 28-30 Queen Street, Auburn
................... (CLOSED SESSION).......................................................... 329
11 December 2024
Item No: ELPP038/24
Development Application - 8 Bradman Street, Greystanes
Directorate: Environment and Planning
Responsible Officer: Executive Manager City Planning and Development
Application lodged |
12 September 2024. |
Applicant |
Bonsai Group Australia Pty Ltd. |
Owner |
Bonsai Group Australia Pty Ltd. |
Application No. |
DA2024/0473. |
Description of Land |
8 Bradman Street GREYSTANES. Lot 7 in DP 1308880. |
Proposed Development |
Subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title) including associated tree removal, earthworks and civil works. |
Site Area |
4,666.0 square metres. |
Zoning |
R2 Low Density Residential. |
Disclosure of political donations and gifts |
Nil disclosure. |
Cost of works |
$520,047.00. |
Heritage |
Not applicable. |
Principal Development Standards |
Minimum Lot Size Permissible: 450 square metres. Proposed:450.48 square metres to 1000.84 square metres. |
Issues |
Submissions |
Summary:
1. Development Application 2024/0473 was lodged on the 12 September 2024 for the Subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title) including associated tree removal, earthworks and civil works.
2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 26 September 2024 and 10 October 2024. In response, 37 submissions were received, 4 of which were in support.
3. The variations are as follows:
Control |
Required |
Provided |
% variation |
Sub-part 2.17, O1.
Part F1-4 Bradman Street, Greystanes (Proposed Development and Subdivision) Chapter Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP 2021). |
Facilitate the conventional subdivision of Lot 5, DP 20650, Lot 6B DP 413844, Part Lot 16 and Lot 17, DP 238362 into 12 lots. |
Stage 1 approved 6 lots – Approved under DA2022/0414.
Stage 2 proposes 8 lots. |
16.66%. |
Sub-part 2.3, C2.
Part G7 - Tree Management & Landscaping Chapter Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP 2021). |
88 replacement trees required.
|
16 trees proposed (as recommended by Council), plus contribution to biodiversity offset scheme. |
81.81%. |
4. The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is considered to be a contentious development as more than 10 unique submissions by way of objection have been received.
5. The application is recommended approval subject to the conditions as recommended in the Council’s assessment report.
Report:
Subject Site and Surrounding Area
The subject development is legally described as Lot 7 in DP 1308880 and is known as 8 Bradman Street, Greystanes.
The site area is 4,666 square metres (By DP) with a frontage width of 15.3m to Bradman Street and a depth of 72.83m. The land has a moderate to steep slope with a fall of approximately 13.35m from the north-eastern boundary towards the south-western boundary. The site is land located within the Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland.
The lot is cleared of any structures however, the site contains significant landscaping with dense planting of trees requiring clearing and removal to facilitate the new residential subdivision.
The existing developments adjoining the site include one and two storey detached dwellings and a dual occupancy development immediately to the east, a complex of townhouses/villas directly to the west and single and two storey dwellings to the north and immediately south of the site are 6 x recently subdivided residential allotments yet to be developed. Immediately north of the site abuts two small portions of community land currently owned by Cumberland City Council.
The location of the site is shown below edged in purple.
Figure 1 - Locality Plan of subject site (Source: IntraMaps)
Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site
Figure 3 – Street view and inside view of subject site
Description of The Development
Council has received a development application for the subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title) including associated tree removal, earthworks and civil works.
A detailed breakdown of the proposal is outlined below:
· The subdivision of super lot 7 into 8 lots and a road under Community Title as follows:
Lot |
Site Area |
Street frontage |
Lot 7 |
451.86 sq m |
13.6m |
Lot 8 |
452.46 sq m |
14.91m |
Lot 9 |
450.95 sq m |
8.01m |
Lot 10 |
450.48 sq m |
6.26m |
Lot 11 |
451.23 sq m |
11.05m |
Lot 12 |
451.32 sq m |
15.62m |
Lot 13 |
1000.84 sq m |
36.89m |
Lot 14 |
450.77 sq m |
15.29m |
· Removal of 50 trees and retention of 3.
· Earthworks (including retaining walls and cut and fill).
· Civil works (stormwater, sewer, power and water).
· Construction of a private road (under Community Title).
Lot 13 is proposed as a super lot for future further subdivision. The final arrangement is pending the outcome of a potential planning proposal and acquisition of 44A and 44C Benaud Street, Greystanes.
History
PL2019/42/1 was concluded on 1 November 2019 for the subdivision of two lots into twelve lots, creating road and drainage and site works including demolition.
PL2021/0051 - a meeting was held between council officers and the applicant on the 27 July 2021 for the proposed subdivision and dual occupancy development. Specifically, the proposal for discussion related to the Torrens subdivision of two lots into 12 lots, indicative building footprints for dual occupancy on each lot and further Torrens title subdivision of each finished dual occupancy, removal of trees and vegetation and extension of Bradman Street to accommodate access to the lots.
DA2022/0403 was approved on the 31 October 2022 for the demolition of existing structures under delegated authority.
DA2022/0414 was approved on the 13 September 2023 for Torrens title subdivision of land into 7 residential lots under delegated authority.
MOD2023/0452 was approved for a Section 4.55(1A) modification to alter the scope of tree removal associated with the approved Torrens title subdivision under delegated authority.
DA2023/0722 for the demolition of existing ancillary structures, tree removal and Torrens title subdivision of one allotment (previously known as Super Lot 7) into eight (8) lots including construction of the Bradman Street road extension and dedication of land/road to Council. This application was withdrawn on 9 April 2024 prior to determination.
PL2024/0027 a meeting was held between Council officers and the applicant on the 23 May 2024 for tree removal and subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 allotments including road subdivision under Community Title.
Applicants Supporting Statement
The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by ABC Planning dated September 2024 and was received by Council on 10 September 2024 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 Engineering
The development application was referred to Council’s Senior Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.
Environmental Health
The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.
Tree Management
The development application was referred to Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory 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 proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.
Planning Systems
The development application was referred to Council’s Planning System Team for comment, particularly in relation to the future change of classification of 44A and 44C Benaud Street, Greystanes (Lot 162 DP746431 and Lot 17 DP 231034).
Council’s Senior Strategic Planner notes that the application states that Council owned lots at 44A and 44C Benaud Street, Greystanes (Lot 162 DP746431 and Lot 17 DP 231034) would need to be reclassified from ‘Community to Operational land’ first to enable the amalgamation with the super lots to develop the land in accordance with Part F1 of Cumberland DCP 2021 requirements.
The Planning Proposal process may take at least 15 to 18 months or more from the lodgement stage. The applicant will need to liaise with the Planning Systems Team to initiate a scoping proposal and a proponent-initiated Planning Proposal.
In this regard, there is no objection to the intent to retain proposed lot 13 as a ‘Superlot’.
External Referrals
Endeavour Energy
The application was referred to the Endeavour Energy pursuant to Section 2.48 of the SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. As per the correspondence dated 24 September 2024, the development is determined as being acceptable subject to conditions as per the previous advice provided by Endeavour Energy under CNR-54784 and CNR-64850.
Sydney Water
The application was referred to Sydney Water pursuant to Section 78 of the Sydney Water Act 1994. Sydney Water has provided correspondence, and conditions dated 11 October 2024, the development is determined as being acceptable subject to conditions.
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:
State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) |
Relevant Clause(s) |
Compliance with Requirements |
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021.
|
Chapter 2 -Vegetation in non Rural Areas. |
The development application includes the removal of 50 trees and will impact on the clearing or impact on vegetation as shown on the biodiversity values mapping tool as shown below:
Figure 4 - Biodiversity Values Map and Threshold Tool.
The application has been accompanied by the following reports:
Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) Stage 2 prepared by Eco Coast Ecology, Version 3.0, dated 10/09/24 and; Arborist report - Stage 2 prepared by Charles Manche, dated 3/09/24.
The Biodiversity report indicates that the proposed clearing of vegetation is 0.29ha and exceeds the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) and therefore triggers the biodiversity offset scheme. The BDAR recommends that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) be prepared prior to the release of a Construction Certificate/Subdivision Works Certificate and offset credits for up to 0.7 Ha of clearing should be obtained. A condition has been imposed for the biodiversity offset credits and payments into the biodiversity conservation fund be made for the clearing of vegetation onsite.
The report has been reviewed by Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer and the advice provided indicated that the proposed removal/clearing of the vegetation are satisfactory to proceed subject to recommended specific conditions of consent to be imposed which include biodiversity offset credits and payments into the biodiversity conservation fund and also the installation of nesting boxes.
Further to the above, a condition will be imposed that a replacement tree be planted in the front and one in the rear of each sub-divided lot. This equates to 16 trees being planted. |
Chapter 6 - Water Catchments.
Georges River Catchment. |
It is determined that given the location of the site, a detailed assessment is not required given that there is no direct impact upon the catchment and no direct impact upon watercourses.
|
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.
|
Chapter 2 - Coastal Management. |
The subject site is not identified as a coastal wetland or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or coastal management area. |
Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land.
Part 4.6. |
Part 4.6 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application.
Comments
Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the application and has advised that the applicant has submitted a Stage 1 - Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prepared by Geotesta Pty Ltd. The PSI states the Planning Certificate indicated that the land is not significantly contaminated within the meaning of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.
As such, it is considered that the development application is satisfactory under Part 4.6 of Chapter 4 of the State Policy. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. |
Chapter 2 - Infrastructure.
|
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 is relevant to the development application as follows. |
Clause 2.48
|
Chapter 2 - Infrastructure.
Determination of development applications (Subpart (2) - Give written notice to electricity providers and take account of responses received within 21 days.
Comment
The application was referred to the Endeavour Energy pursuant to Section 2.48 of the SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. As per the correspondence dated 24 September 2024, the development is determined as being acceptable subject to conditions as per the previous advice provided by Endeavour Energy under CNR-54784 and CNR-64850. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022
|
Chapter 2 Standards for residential Development -BASIX |
A BASIX Certificate was not required for the subject application as the works only involve sub-division of the ‘super lot’. A separate application will be required for each built form application and will be subject to the requirements of SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. |
Local Environmental Plans
Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021
The provision of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.
(a) Permissibility:
The proposed works being ‘subdivision’ is permissible with consent pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Cumberland LEP 2021.
2.6 Subdivision—consent requirements
(1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided, but only with development consent.
The relevant matters to be considered under Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive LEP assessment is contained in Appendix 5.
Figure 5 - Cumberland LEP 2021 Compliance Table
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD |
COMPLIANCE |
DISCUSSION |
Clause 4.1
Minimum required 450sqm |
Yes |
The proposed lot sizes vary from 450.48 square metres to 1000.84 square metres. |
Clause 4.1AA |
Yes |
Each lot will have a minimum of 450 square metres. Refer to above comment. |
4.3 Height of Buildings max. 9m |
N/A |
No building works proposed. |
4.4 Floor Space Ratio
|
N/A |
N/A. There is no FSR prescribed for land zoned R2. No building works proposed. |
The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))
No proposed planning instruments applicable.
The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))
The Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP) is relevant to the development proposal.
The development has been assessed using the following chapters:
· Part A2 - Subdivision.
· Part B - Development in Residential Zones.
· Part F1-4 - Bradman Street Extension.
· Part G3 - Traffic, parking, transport and access.
· Part G4 - Stormwater and drainage.
· Part G5 – Sustainability, biodiversity and environmental management.
· Part G7 – Tree Management and Landscaping.
· Part G8 - Waste Management.
A comprehensive CDCP assessment is contained in Appendix 6.
The development is found to comply with the relevant provisions except for the following:
Figure 6 – Cumberland DCP 2021 - Compliance Table.
Control |
Required |
Provided |
% variation |
Sub-part 2.17, O1.
Part F1-4 Bradman Street, Greystanes (Proposed Development and Subdivision) Chapter Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP 2021). |
Facilitate the conventional subdivision of Lot 5, DP 20650, Lot 6B DP 413844, Part Lot 16 and Lot 17, DP 238362 into 12 lots. |
Stage 1 approved 6 lots – Approved under DA2022/0414.
Stage 2 proposes 8 lots. |
16.66%. |
Sub-part 2.3, C2.
Part G7 - Tree Management & Landscaping Chapter Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP 2021). |
88 replacement trees required.
|
16 trees proposed (as recommended by Council), plus contribution to biodiversity offset scheme. |
81.81%. |
As indicated in the compliance table above, the proposed development departs from the Bradman Street site specific objective (O1) and Bradman Street sub-division map and the number of replacement trees provisions of Council’s Cumberland Development Control Plan.
Irrespective of these departures, it is considered that the proposal performs adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and may be supported for the reasons discussed below:
Sub-part 2.17, (O1) - Part F1-4 Bradman Street, Greystanes (Proposed Development and Subdivision)
Objectives
O1 Facilitate the conventional subdivision of Lot 5, DP 20650, Lot 6B DP 413844, Part Lot 16 and Lot 17, DP 238362 into 12 lots; and
O2 Prevent the linking of the existing sections of Bradman Street.
The proposal seeks the Subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title).
Stage 1 approved 6 residential lots, the subject application seeks 8 residential lots, a total of 14 residential lots, in lieu of 12 as envisaged by the DCP. However, the proposal broadly achieves the intentions of the site specific objectives which is to facilitate residential sub-division, extending the road and preventing the linking of the existing sections of Bradman Street.
Furthermore, the proposed lot sizes comply with the minimum subdivision lot size requirements of the Cumberland LEP 2021 which is a higher order planning instrument.
A cul-de-sac arrangement is not proposed as part of this application, this was previously proposed under DA2023/0722; however, the application was later withdrawn due to a number of non-compliances, including site frontages to the proposed lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 that were too narrow to accommodate a feasible development and consequently would have resulted in a number of non-compliances with the CDCP and would not have resulted in a good planning outcome.
Therefore, the variation to the CDCP in respect to the indicative sub-division layout is considered acceptable.
Sub-part 2.3, (C2) - Part G7 - Tree Management & Landscaping
The objectives for this control are:
Objectives
O1 Maintain the character of place that trees and vegetation provide to the Cumberland City.
O2 Reserve and protect the ecological and aesthetic value of quality landscaping in the Cumberland City.
C2 For existing trees that are approved to be removed by Council as part of a proposed development, the following tree replacement offset planting is required:
· for existing trees removed that are a height of between 4m-9m, a 1:1 replacement offset applies; and
· for existing trees removed that are a height greater than 10m, a 2:1 replacement offset applies.
The preference is for offset planting to be undertaken on the property related to the development application. Any alternate locations are to be considered on merit by Council, with reference to applicable strategies and plans.
The subject site is located within the Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland
The proposal seeks the removal of 50 trees and based on control C2 above a total of 88 replacement trees would be required. A condition has been imposed for 16 trees to be planted, the condition requires 1 tree at the front and 1 and the rear to each new lot created. There is further opportunity for more trees to be planted once an application is received for the built form.
In addition to the above, a condition has been imposed that 3 nesting boxes be placed in trees proposed for retention to offset the loss of habitat due to the proposed clearing and to ensure any fauna currently utilising site are not adversely impacted. The BDAR recommends that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) be prepared prior to the release of a Construction/Subdivision Works Certificate and offset credits for up to 0.7 Ha of clearing should be obtained. A condition has been imposed for the biodiversity offset credits and payments into the biodiversity conservation fund be made for the clearing of vegetation onsite.
Figure 7 – Trees to be removed and retained shown below:
(Source: BDAR Report - East Coast Ecology)
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 Regulation 2021 (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 (Website) |
|
Sign |
Not Required |
In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 26 September 2024 and 10 October 2024. The notification generated 37 submissions, 4 of which were in support in respect of the proposal and none disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:
Figure 7 - Submissions summary table
Issue |
Planner’s Comment |
Safety concerns with traffic. More traffic congestion.
Increase in traffic, leading to hazards and imminent danger for children and pets. |
The application was accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment that concludes “With reference to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002, the traffic assessment has concluded that the proposed development will pose no impact to the local area regarding traffic”.
Council’s Senior Development Engineer also reviewed the application and did not raise any objections subject to conditions. The proposed new sub-division will also allow for the entry and exit in a forward direction for Council’s waste trucks. |
Removal/loss of trees which support wildlife habitat.
Wildlife corridor has been disturbed. We urge all seriousness to be responsible for the preservation of what remains.
Cutting down protected species of trees, which will force displacement of native birds. Eucalyptus Caleyi, Eucalyptus Multicalis and Eucalyptus Mcmenoides of which are protected species. |
A condition has been imposed that nesting boxes in the trees that are proposed for retention to offset the loss of habitat. In addition, the applicant is required to offset the residual impacts of vegetation loss. A condition has been imposed for the biodiversity offset credits and payments into the biodiversity conservation fund be made for the clearing of vegetation onsite.
Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer has advised that the site does not contain any Eucalyptus Caleyi, Eucalyptus Multicalis and Eucalyptus Mcmenoides. |
Trees are located within the Cumberland Plain Woodland. |
Whilst the site is located within the Cumberland Shale Plain Woodland, the subject application was assessed on its merits and conditioned accordingly. |
From the statement on page 29 of the BDAR it can be assumed that DA2024/0473 does not comply with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 part 7.
The disclaimer in the BDAR report is not to be relied upon by Council. |
The applicant is required to offset the residual impacts of the proposal by the purchase and retire the appropriate species credits. This will be conditioned accordingly. |
Not right to cut down all trees, why not half or less, it is not okay. |
The trees proposed for removal are within areas that will impact the internal road proposed to service the site, proposed building envelopes and services/retaining walls that form part of the civil works proposed. |
We do not recognise 8 Bradman Street. |
The addressing to the former properties and known as 767A-769 Merrylands Road was registered with the NSW Land Registry Services on the 2nd of September 2024. This was as a result of the sub-division that was approved by Council under DA2022/0414.
Therefore, the ‘Superlot’ approved under DA2022/0414 and now subject of this application is now known as 8 Bradman Street, Greystanes - Lot 7 in DP 1308880. |
Bradman Street off Merrylands Road, a very narrow Cul-de-sac, already a traffic hazard. |
As stated earlier, the application was accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment that concludes “With reference to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002, the traffic assessment has concluded that the proposed development will pose no impact to the local area regarding traffic”.
Council’s Senior Development Engineer also reviewed the application and did not raise any objections subject to conditions. |
No paved pedestrian footpath along the Council strip, residents forced to walk on the road. |
This is not within the scope of the subject application. |
There does not seem to be any surface flow path for emergency overflow which may cause property damage. |
The plans have been amended to indicate a 900mm setback along the western boundary with the provision of swale drain to carry the emergency overflow. |
The submitted stormwater plans by TELFORD do not include MUSIC output, cannot confirm WSUD measures are compliant. |
A condition has been imposed to incorporate the WSUD measures at the time of the development of each lot, however on the northern side being lots 13 and 14 will incorporate the WSUD with the OSD system within the community road.
The MUSIC model has been submitted separately. |
How does lots 13, 14, 15, 16 and the north side of the proposed development drain into the WSUD chamber? |
Lots 13, 14 and the road will drain into the stormwater system incorporating the WSUD.
There are no lots numbered 15 and 16. |
Shadow diagrams has not been considered the proposed fill plus 1.8m boundary fence along the western boundary. Fill varies from 0.82m high-1.68m high. |
Shadow diagrams have been provided indicating the potential overshadowing to number 30 Bradman Street. The shadow diagrams indicate some overshadowing of the private open space at 9am on 21 June to the townhouses located along the western boundary of the subject site.
The applicant has also made some amendments to the location of retaining walls along this boundary to minimise any impacts to the townhouse development at 30 Bradman Street. |
The current habitats will take shelter in nearby trees and put additional strain on the existing habitats and crowed nearby trees. |
A condition is recommended that a suitably qualified ecologist install nesting boxes in the trees that are proposed for retention to offset the loss of habitat due to the proposed clearing and to ensure any fauna currently utilising site are not adversely impacted. |
Tree removal work started while approval was still not loaded on the Council website (MOD2023/0452). |
Tree removal was approved under DA2022/0414 and later modified under MOD2023/0452, therefore works onsite may have been in relation to the original approval granted under DA2022/0414. |
Senior staff knew there is an objection of community on DA2023/0722 and they forgot to add MOD2023/0452. |
MOD2023/0452 notified residents and objectors as per the original application being DA2022/0414.
The notification under DA2023/0722 was extended beyond the requirements of the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021. |
Current infrastructure not sufficient for the new lots. |
The current infrastructure is considered satisfactory to service the site. The applicant is proposing civil works and services to each new lot created. |
“Land release”, including a new house number and allowing subdivisions and removing trees without due diligence. Advertised as “Land release”, with no discussion with residents.
Procedural concerns. |
The advertisement of the site as ‘Land release’ by the real estate is not a matter for consideration by Council. |
No independent survey conducted to find out impact of tree removal (such as rainwater or landhold clay that was held firm by these trees). |
The applicant has provided reports in support of their application. The arborist report, BDAR report and stormwater management plans were reviewed by Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer and Senior Development Engineer and have been found to be satisfactory subject to conditions. |
Townhouses at the bottom of the hill suffering real impact of rainfall.
A proper independent structural engineer report should be ordered. |
DA2022/0414, granted approval for sub-division only, no approval has yet been granted for any civil works.
The subject application provides for civil works which will be conditioned to ensure retaining walls and stormwater are adequate addressed. |
Noise pollution form construction and new residents. |
Construction noise from building works, are matters that are dealt with by way of conditions of consent.
The proposal is for subdivision; however, it is not expected that noise from any future residential use would create an adverse impact to the adjoining properties. |
The application is invalid as the documents refer to 767A-769 Merrylands Road Greystanes and not 8 Bradman Street. |
The reports relate to the rear portion of the sites that were formerly known as 767A-769 Merrylands Road. It is likely that the reports were prepared just prior to the registration of the subdivision certificate approved. Therefore, the documents referring to the previous address is acceptable in this instance, given the reports still address the subject area that forms part of this application. |
Everyone who has an objection their name and email address is included and should be counted as an individual objection, in case their email is not reached in time or they are unable to send an email due to pre-occupation. |
Noted. The Local Planning Panels Direction - Operational Procedures dated 18 October 2022 outline the definition of a unique submission. Therefore, in this instance, including email addresses do not count as an individual/unique submissions. |
Residents of Bradman Street, Benaud Street and Merrylands Road request the independent panel members personally visit the east side of Bradman Street before starting any discussion or deliberation. |
The Local Planning Panels Direction - Operational Procedures dated 18 October 2022 outlines the requirements for site inspections and panel briefings. This matter is for the Panels operational procedures. |
Residents have to go through financial or mental stress due to poor planning decision due to non-compliance, or undertrained officers not trained for making decisions on hilly terrain. |
The application has been assessed by the relevant staff who are qualified in various areas (such as but not limited to Senior Development Engineer, Town Planning and Tree Management). A recommendation is made to the Cumberland Local Planning Panel on this application who is the determining authority on behalf of Council in this instance, and has relevant expertise to consider and determine the application. |
Any plan to increase additional movements on this street is against NSW movement and plan framework and Sydney Street Code. There is an extremely dangerous blind spot curve entering from Merrylands Road, going from east to west. |
The application was accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment that concludes “With reference to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002, the traffic assessment has concluded that the proposed development will pose no impact to the local area regarding traffic”. |
I am already being affected by the rain water that is shifting the ground around my house, incur the cost of renovating my backyard as the pavers have shifted. |
DA2022/0414, granted approval for subdivision only, no approval has yet been granted for any civil works.
The subject application provides for civil works, which will be conditioned to ensure retaining walls and stormwater are adequate addressed. |
I express deep disappointment with Cumberland Council handles critical environmental and community issues. |
The submission is noted.
Council has made a merit assessment of the application pursuant to s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. |
All affected home owners were very surprised that the council did not involve community representation-before putting up the current notices. |
There is no requirement under current legislation that requires Council to consult with the community prior to the lodgement of a Development Application.
The subject application was notified once it was formally lodged with Council. The notification of the subject application was above the requirements specified Council’s notification requirements contained within the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021. |
Statement of Environmental Effects: Subdivision (Stage 2) was taken out of the submission. Why? |
Noted. This has no impact on the application. The application is for the “Subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title) including associated tree removal, earthworks and civil works”. |
DA2023/0722 at 767a-769 Merrylands Rd, Greystanes. I was not notified of this DA. Why? I thought council is working for the local residents. Why would I not be notified? |
DA2023/0722 was notified in accordance with Council’s Council’s Notification requirements contained within Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021. Council then re-notified the application and extended the notification catchment area and placed site notices. Residents outside the notification area would not have received written notification of the application. |
Tree 26Q and 29 is not on land owned by the applicant, Why would approval to remove be allowed to a non-owner of the land? |
Tree 29 is on Council owned land and is not proposed for removal.
Tree 26Q is on the subject site and is being proposed for removal. |
Vegetation around tree 31B and 24C is not on land owned by the applicant. Why would approval to remove be allowed to a non-owner of the land? |
No vegetation removal is proposed outside the land owned by the applicant. This will be confirmed with a condition of consent. |
In preference the nest boxes should be installed outside the subject land in a more appropriate area. |
Nest boxes have been conditioned onsite in the trees that are proposed for retention to offset the loss of habitat due to the proposed clearing and to ensure any fauna currently utilising the site are not adversely impacted. |
Planning Certificate, p3. “Does the land include or compromise critical habitat? The land does not include or comprise critical habitat”. We can asset that this was answered incorrectly, from page 51 of the BDAR stating “to provide habitat for the threated species they are targeting”. |
A Planning Certificate was not submitted with the development application.
Irrespective of this, the BDAR report was reviewed by Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer who raised no objections subject to conditions. |
The proposed plans for building duplexes will further add to extreme congestion that this development brings. |
The proposal does not seek any built form as part of this application. The applicant has provided indicative building envelopes to support their proposed lot sizes.
No approval is sought or will be granted for built forms or the indicative building envelopes. Should the community title subdivision be approved, a separate application will be required for the construction of any development for each lot. |
Loss of sunlight, and lack of privacy.
Elevated ground, no privacy and will cause our properties to decrease in value. |
Shadow diagrams have been provided indicating the potential overshadowing to number 30 Bradman Street. The shadow diagrams indicate some overshadowing of the private open space at 9am on the 21st June to the townhouses located along the western boundary of the subject site.
The applicant has also made some amendments to the location of retaining walls along this boundary to minimise any impacts to adjoining properties.
Any future application received for the construction of the residential built forms will be assessed on their merits. |
Lacks the capacity to safely accommodate heavy or even light construction traffic (Bradman Street). |
The Traffic Impact Assessment report submitted with the development application provides for a ‘Construction Traffic Management’. Any consent granted will be conditioned accordingly. |
Bradman Street be made one-way, with appropriate entry and exit points to minimise risk. |
This is not feasible as Bradman Street is a cul-de-sac which would require roads to be made via privately owned lots. The Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 does not have any sites within the Bradman Street or adjoining sites earmarked for land acquisition for future roads. |
Independent and comprehensive engineering report to evaluate current and future traffic conditions, tree management and rainwater drainage. |
The applicant has provided reports in support of their application. The arborist report, BDAR report and stormwater management plans were reviewed by Council’s Senior Tree Management Officer and Senior Development Engineer and have been found to be satisfactory subject to conditions. |
Removal of 88 heritage trees.
Propose a children’s park be established as a compensatory measure to preserve green space for the community. |
The trees being removed are not heritage listed pursuant to the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.
The land is not zoned for recreational purposes. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and the proposal seeks consent for community title subdivision and associated works which is permissible within the zone and subject to a merit assessment pursuant to s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
It is noted that public open spaces are located in close proximity to the proposed subdivision. |
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 7.11 of the EP&A Act, calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution of $160,000.00 would be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
HOUSING AND PRODUCTIVITY CONTRIBUTION (HPC)
In accordance with s7.24, s7.26 and s7.28 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is subject to the payment of the Housing and Productivity Contribution (HPC).
A condition of consent has been imposed on the development consent in accordance with s7.28 of the EP&A Act 1979 requiring the payment of the HPC.
DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS
The applicant and notification process did not result in any disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts.
Conclusion:
The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 and Cumberland DCP and is considered to be satisfactory subject to conditions.
The proposed development is appropriately located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the relevant provisions of the Cumberland LEP. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with Council’s controls have been discussed in the body of this report. 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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to conditions.
Consultation:
There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.
Policy Implications:
There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.
Communication / Publications:
The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.
1. That Development Application No. DA2024/0473 for Subdivision of 1 allotment (known as Super Lot 7) into 8 residential allotments and 1 new private road (under Community Title) including associated tree removal, earthworks and civil works on land at 8 Bradman Street, GREYSTANES be approved subject to conditions listed in Council’s assessment report.
2. Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.
Attachments
1. Draft Notice of Determination
2. Proposed Sub-division and Shadow Diagram Plan
3. Stormwater/Engineering Plans
5. Appendix A - Cumberland LEP Assessment
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP038/24
Attachment 1
Draft Notice of Determination
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP038/24
Attachment 2
Proposed Sub-division and Shadow Diagram Plan
11 December 2024
Item No: ELPP039/24
Development Application - 96 Chiswick Road, Auburn (CLOSED SESSION)
Directorate: Environment and Planning
Responsible Officer: Executive Manager City Planning and Development
Application accepted |
29 July 2024. |
Applicant |
Cumberland City Council. |
Owner |
Cumberland City Council. |
Application No. |
DA2024/0332. |
Description of Land |
96 Chiswick Road, Auburn, Lot 2 DP 235351. |
Proposed Development |
Installation of a prefabricated building to be used as office spaces and installation of a prefabricated bathroom amenity building. |
Site Area |
13,692.80 square metres. |
Zoning |
Zone RE1 - Public Recreation. |
Disclosure of political donations and gifts |
Nil disclosure. |
Cost of works |
$990,000.00. |
Heritage |
Yes - Auburn Botanic Gardens |
Principal Development Standards |
N/A.
|
Issues |
Council owned property and parking |
Summary:
1. Development Application 2024/0332 was accepted by Council on the 29 July 2024 for the installation of a prefabricated building to be used as office spaces and installation of a prefabricated bathroom amenity building.
2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 28 days between the 8 August 2024 to the 5 September 2024. In response, no submissions were received.
3. There is a variation to the parking controls that apply to the site.
4. 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.
5. The application is recommended for conditional approval subject to the conditions as recommended in the Council’s assessment report.
Report:
Subject Site and Surrounding Area
The site is legally identified as Lot 2 DP 235351 and is known as 96 Chiswick Road, Auburn.
The site has an area of 13,692.00 square metres and a primary frontage to Chiswick Road of 73.70 metres.
The subject site is part of the Auburn Botanic Gardens precinct which also forms part of the local heritage listed item (Number I5 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021) known as Auburn Botanic Gardens. Specifically, the Peacock Gallery and the Auburn Aviary are both located within the subject site and is accessed via Chiswick Road as the primary street frontage (northern property boundary).
The Auburn Botanic Gardens is located opposite the subject site to the north. Duck River is also located within the vicinity of the site to the west, in which the Auburn Depot is located in between the subject site and Duck River. The subject site at present also has a public car park, that services the Aviary and the Peacock Gallery.
The location of the site is shown below edged in purple.
Figure 1 - Land
zoning map showing the location of the subject site.
The aerial photo is provided below.
Figure
2 - Aerial photograph showing the location of where the new facilities building
is to be constructed.
A photo of the site is shown below.
Figure 3 - View of the location of where the new facilities building is to be constructed.
Description of The Development
Council has received a development application for the installation of a prefabricated building to be used as office spaces and the installation of a prefabricated bathroom amenity building.
The prefabricated office building will be constructed towards the western side of the existing car park. The bathroom amenity building will be located between the western boundary and the existing glasshouse. The structures will be attached to the Peacock Gallery building via a connected walkway area that will include a roof structure.
The proposed buildings are single storey in height and the office building will include a central courtyard, 2 meeting rooms 59 workstations and 2 lunchrooms. An assessment of the plans has revealed that five trees are required to be removed. The bathroom amenity building will contain male and female toilets, each with accessible toilets. The proposed buildings have a combined floor area of 676.40 square metres.
Whilst the site is contained within the Duck River Parklands (as detailed in the Duck River Parklands Strategic Masterplan, dated the 21 November 2022), the proposed structures will not have any direct impact to the ecosystem. Also, the clearing of vegetation within the ecosystem of Duck River is not required, as Progress Park provides a buffer between the subject site and the riparian corridor.
The proposed office and amenities building will not alter the land management goals for the Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct as specified under the Plan of Management for Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct 2001, as the proposal will not impact the existing features shown highlighted in Table 1, under Pt 2, 2.1 in the Plan of Management for Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct 2001. In this regard, the features and structures associated with the Aviary, Floral Clock, Peacock Gallery (formally known as a Kiosk) and the now-defunct Bonsai Garden Fernery (Glasshouse) will not be impacted or removed for demolition to make way for the proposed buildings.
History
The following applications have been issued for the land.
· Development consent DA2005/356 was issued on the 2 September 2005 for the use and fit out of existing building for Council offices.
· Development consent DA2009/254 was issued on the 26 August 2009 for the change of use of the existing kiosk to arts and culture facility, exhibition gallery, meeting and storage room.
· Development consent DA2011/199 was issued on the 5 August 2011 for the change of use and internal refurbishment of existing fernery to an art gallery (Peacock Gallery & Auburn Arts Studio - Auburn Botanic Gardens).
Applicants Supporting Statement
The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Graham Bakewell Architect dated May 2024 and was received by Council on the 11 July 2024 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 Engineering
The development application was referred to Council’s Senior Development Engineer for comment. Following a request for additional information, dated the 10 September 2024, it has been advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.
Environmental Health
The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory, subject to recommended condition of consent.
Public Spaces Planning and Design
The development application was referred to Council’s Senior Landscape Architect for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported.
The proposal is not expected to impact the existing features shown highlighted in Table 1, under Pt 2, 2.1 in the Plan of Management for Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct 2001.
Tree Management
The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent, including the requirement of three trees to be planted near the southern elevation of the new buildings.
Heritage Advisory Committee
The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Committee for comment who has provided no response. On this basis, it is considered that the Committee has no issue with the development from a heritage perspective.
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:
State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) |
Relevant Clause(s) |
Compliance with Requirements |
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021
|
Chapter 2 -Vegetation in non-Rural Areas |
Yes - Overall, 5 trees are to be removed. At least 5 new trees are to be planted to replace trees that are to be removed. A further detailed analysis is provided under Appendix B of this report. The proposal does not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold. Therefore, the proposed vegetation removal is considered acceptable. |
Chapter 6 - Water Catchments.
Sydney Harbour Catchment |
It is determined that given the location, not being situated immediately adjacent to Duck River, a detailed assessment is not required given that there is no direct impact upon the catchment and no direct impact upon watercourses. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021
|
Chapter 2 - Coastal Management |
The subject site is not identified as being within a coastal wetland area or land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or a coastal management area. |
Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land. Clause 4.6 |
A preliminary site investigation report was not required with this application as the proposed buildings are prefabricated structures where excavation works are not required. As such, it is considered that the development application is satisfactory under Part 4.6 of Chapter 4 of the State Policy. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022
|
Chapter 3 - Standards for non-residential development |
Chapter 3 of SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 does not apply to the development as the new building does not have a capital investment value of $5 million or more (as per Clause 3.1(1)(a)). |
Local Environmental Plans
Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021
The provision of the CLEP 2021 is applicable to the development proposal. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the key statutory requirements of the CLEP 2021 and the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation land use zone in which the subject site is situated within.
(a) Permissibility:
The proposed development being office spaces/amenities is considered ancillary works to the existing depot. A depot under the CLEP is defined as the following:
“a building or place used for the storage (but not sale or hire) of plant, machinery or other goods (that support the operations of an existing undertaking) when not required for use but does not include a farm building”.
A depot is permissible in the RE1 Public Recreation land use zone. These new office spaces and amenities building are ancillary to the existing depot.
The relevant matters to be considered under the CLEP and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD |
COMPLIANCE |
DISCUSSION |
4.3 Height of Buildings. |
N/A |
There is no maximum building height limit provided for the site. The buildings are one storey in height and rises no higher than 3.48 metres above the natural ground level. The height of the building, including the provided ridge levels (RL’s) is satisfactory. |
4.4 Floor Space Ratio.
|
N/A |
There is no maximum floor space ratio provided for the site. The proposed building(s) has a combined floor area of 676.40 square metres. |
4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards. |
N/A |
There are no proposed variations to any development standards. |
5.10 Heritage Conservation |
Yes |
A Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage & Planning, dated the 21 October 2024, was submitted in support of the application concluding that the proposed office and amenities building will have an acceptable impact on the ‘Auburn Botanic Gardens’, as all significant original built and landscaping elements are to be retained.
Having considered the location of the structures, the development is not considered to pose a significantly detrimental impact on the heritage significance of Auburn Botanic Gardens. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of this clause. |
A comprehensive CLEP assessment is contained in Appendix A.
The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))
No proposed planning instruments applicable.
The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))
The Cumberland Development Control Plan (CDCP) 2021 is relevant to the development proposal. The development has been assessed in accordance with Part G - Miscellaneous Development Controls of the Cumberland DCP 2021.
The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of the Cumberland DCP 2021 and is considered acceptable from an environmental planning view point.
Car Parking for the Office Building
In accordance with Section 3 of Part G3 – Traffic, Parking, Transport & Access (Vehicle), the following car parking rate applies to the proposed development:
Commercial - Business and Office (General rate).
1 space per 40m² GFA.
A calculation of the gross floor area of the new office building has indicated that 16 off-street car parking spaces are required.
Whilst there are 13 existing car parking spaces adjacent to the subject development, these spaces are to remain for public use and not intended to be utilised by the subject development.
The proposed development seeks a variation of 100% to the parking requirement. This is acceptable in this instance for the following reasons:
i. The plans indicate that there are 59 workstations proposed, within the new office building. It is an ancillary development to the existing adjoining depot, in which the staff that will be utilising the new office building are mainly depot staff.
ii. There are approximately 118 car parking spaces within the depot complex exclusively for staff parking which is available to all Council staff. Access to the proposed office and amenities building is facilitated directly from the adjoining depot site via a pedestrian path.
iii. As the subject site is part of a local heritage item (i.e. Auburn Botanic Gardens), it is necessary to minimise hard surfaces or removal of an significant landscape elements.
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 Regulation 2021 (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 (Website) |
|
Sign |
Not Required |
In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021, the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 28 days between the 8 August 2024 to the 5 September 2024. 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 would not require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020 as the site is Council property.
HOUSING AND PRODUCTIVITY CONTRIBUTION (HPC)
In accordance with s7.24, s7.26 and s7.28 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed development is not subject to the (Housing and Productivity Contribution) Act 2024, and not subject to the payment of the Housing and Productivity Contribution (HPC), given that the proposal is an ancillary development to an existing depot.
DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS
The applicant and notification process did not result in any disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts.
Conclusion:
The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Statement Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 and the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021.
The proposed development is appropriately located within the RE1 Public Recreation zone under the relevant provisions of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. The proposal is consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. The development is considered to perform adequately in terms of this 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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the development may be approved subject to conditions.
Consultation:
There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.
Policy Implications:
There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.
Communication / Publications:
The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.
That Development Application No. DA2024/0332 for the installation of a prefabricated building to be used as office spaces and installation of a prefabricated bathroom amenity building on land at 96 Chiswick Road, AUBURN be approved subject to conditions listed in Council’s assessment report.
Attachments
1. Draft Notice of Determination
2. Architectural & Stormwater Plans
3. Heritage Impact Report Prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage & Planning
4. Plan of Management for Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct (Adopted 7 February 2001)
5. Appendix A - Cumberland LEP Assessment
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP039/24
Attachment 1
Draft Notice of Determination
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP039/24
Attachment 3
Heritage Impact Report Prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage & Planning
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP039/24
Attachment 4
Plan of Management for Auburn Botanic Gardens Precinct (Adopted 7 February 2001)
11 December 2024
Item No: ELPP040/24
Modification Application - 28-30 Queen Street, Auburn (CLOSED SESSION)
Directorate: Environment and Planning
Responsible Officer: Executive Manager City Planning and Development
Application accepted |
Monday 5 August 2024. |
Applicant |
Urban Link Pty Ltd. |
Owner |
KYS Properties Pty Limited. |
Application No. |
MOD2024/0274. |
Description of Land |
Lot 1 in DP 176059 being 28 Queen Street. Lot 2 in DP 375528 being part of 28 Queen Street. Lot 4 in DP 662697 being 30 Queen Street. Lot 3 in Sec 13 in DP 1389 being 32 Queen Street. |
Proposed Development |
Section 4.55(2) modification application to introduce an additional storey to increase the number of residential apartments from 38 to 45 including associated changes to basement level 3 to incorporate 6 additional car spaces and revise layout of the ground floor garbage and bulky waste room. |
Site Area |
1,437 square metres. |
Zoning |
E1 Local Centre pursuant to the Cumberland Local Environment Plan 2021. |
Disclosure of political donations and gifts |
Nil disclosure. |
Cost of works |
$16,162,978 (Capital Investment Value). |
Heritage |
The site is not listed as a heritage item within the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. |
Principal Development Standards |
Floor Space Ratio Permissible: 3:1. Proposed: 2.97:1.
and
Height of Building Permissible: 27 Metres. Proposed: 27.4 Metres. |
Issues |
Height. Shadowing. Mix of three bedroom dwellings. Submissions. |
Summary:
1. Modification Application 2024/0274 was accepted on Monday 5 August 2024 being a Section 4.55(2) modification application to introduce an additional storey to increase the number of residential apartments from 38 to 45 including associated changes to basement level 3 which incorporates 6 additional car spaces into the development and revise the layout of the ground floor garbage and bulky waste room.
2. The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between Thursday 22 August 2024 and Thursday 5 September 2024. In response, 2 submissions were received.
3. The variations are as follows:
Required |
Most recent approval |
Provided |
% variation |
|
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings.
CLEP 2021. |
27 metres. |
24.14 metres |
27.4 metres. |
400 mm or 1.48%.
|
Part 3 Subpart 3B-2 Overshadowing minimised.
Apartment Design Guide. |
Not reduced by more than 20%. |
Approved shadows up to 100%. |
100%. |
100%. |
Part 2.2.
Adaptable Housing and Housing Mix Chapter Part B5.
Subpart C2.
(CDCP 2021). |
10% of dwellings to be three bedroom dwellings. |
10.5%. |
8.8%. |
12%. |
4. The modification application is referred to the Panel as the proposal is an apartment building for which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 being Chapter 4 “Design of Residential Apartment Development” applies.
5. The modification application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as recommended within the Council’s assessment report.
Report:
Subject Site and Surrounding Area
The subject site is legally described as follows:
· Lot 1 in DP 176059 being 28 Queen Street.
· Lot 2 in DP 375528 being part of 28 Queen Street.
· Lot 4 in DP 662697 being 30 Queen Street.
· Lot 3 in Sec 13 in DP 1389 being 32 Queen Street.
The site is located on the south-western side of Queen Street between Marion Street to the east, Beatrice Street to the south and Susan Street to the west. The site comprises of 4 lots in total, forming an irregular shaped configuration with a frontage width of 78.54m to Queen Street. The combined sites have an area of 1,437 square metres.
The site is situated within the Auburn Town Centre within the E1 Local Centres zone pursuant to the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.
The allotments forming the site are currently used for either residential purposes or business premises. All buildings across the site are single storey in height.
The immediate locality has been the subject of significant redevelopment over recent years from low density residential to higher density residential development and several low to midrise redevelopments have occurred. Some of the redevelopments include:
· 2-10 Susan Street - a part 3 and part 6 storeys residential flat building to the west.
· 9 Marion Street - a part 3 and part 4 storey residential apartment building to the northeast opposite the site. There are also townhouses situated central to the site.
· 13 to 15 Marion Street - a 4 storey residential flat building to the south at the corner of Marion Street and Beatrice Street.
Other important matters associated with the site are:
· A Sydney Water sewer main traverses through the centre of the site.
· Overland flow paths exist through the site and Queen Street is subject to flooding during substantial storm events.
· There are overhead powerlines alongside the footpath fronting the site but contained within the road reserve.
The location of the site is shown below with the development site edged in purple.
Photos taken during a site inspection of Friday 25 October 2024 are provided below.
Description of The Development
Modification application 2024/0274 is proposing to introduce an additional storey to the approved development to increase the number of residential apartments from 38 to 45 including associated changes to basement level 3 car park. In detail, the following changes are proposed to the approved development.
1. Introduce one additional storey to the approved development being Level 6. The new floor has the same number of apartments as Levels 1 to 5 below being 7 apartments. The additional floor has the same shape, dimensions and setbacks to that of the approved building. The additional floor features 1 x 1 bedroom and 6 x 2 bedroom apartments.
The former Level 6 which features three apartments and a common area will now become Level 7 being the topmost level of the building. Other than minor alterations to the landscape planter boxes across the common area and the provision of 5 cubic metres of storage area for Apartment L7.03 (Former F6.03), the topmost floor level is not subjected to any significant change.
2. Extend the basement Level 3 car park towards the north and Queen Street so that the footprint of the basement level matches the footprint of basements levels 1 and 2 above. The changes result in the addition of 6 car parking spaces to the development to support the additional number of apartments provided.
There are additional changes proposed being:
· An increase in the number of storage cages provided within the basement Level 3 car park from 38 to 45.
· Increase the number of bike bays within the basement from 22 to 40.
· Increase the size of the bulky waste storage room by 3 square metres from 16 square metres to 19 square metres.
· Addition of glazed elements to a ground level wall facing the south adjacent to an external common area.
· Addition of planter boxes alongside a south facing common wall of Commercial Tenancy Number 2.
A synopsis of the proposed changes are outlined within the table below comparing the original approval to the modification proposed.
Feature |
Original approval by the Panel |
Modified development
|
Comments |
Number of apartments. |
38 comprising of:
· 7 x 1 bedroom. · 27 x 2 bedroom. · 4 x 3 bedroom. |
45 comprising of:
· 8 x 1 bedroom. · 33 x 2 bedroom · 4 x 3 bedroom. |
There are 7 additional apartments.
|
Number of car parking spaces. |
60 |
66 |
Increase of 6 spaces. |
Height in storeys. |
7 |
8 |
1 additional storey. |
Height in metres. |
24.14 metres. |
27.4 metres |
The increase is 3.26 metres. (A variation of 400 mm occurs). |
Floor space ratio. |
2.58:1. |
2.97:1. |
Increase is 0.39:1. (Floor space ratio still complies). |
Changes to the conditions
The following conditions currently attached to the development consent and associated modification applications are required to be modified or deleted:
Condition Number |
Type of condition |
Comment |
2 |
Approved plans and supporting documents. |
To reflect new plan set. |
17 |
Amendments to approved plans. |
Request is made to delete Condition 17(a) and 17(f). |
21 |
Damage Deposit for Council infrastructure. |
To correct an error. |
23 |
Section 7.11 Contributions. |
To include additional contributions. |
24 |
Fees paid to Council. |
To include additional contributions. |
35 |
Off Street car parking. |
To update numbers. |
46 |
Acoustic report. |
To update report. |
63 |
Sydney Water Tap in Approval. |
To delete as it is a double to Condition 50. |
97 |
Acoustic verification. |
To update report. |
115 |
Compliance with acoustic report. |
To update report. |
118 |
Car parking. |
To update numbers. |
History
The Cumberland Local Planning Panel at its meeting of Thursday 7 December 2023 resolved to approve development application 2022/0629 as an electronic determination for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 6, part 7 storey shop top housing development comprising of 2 commercial tenancies on the ground floor and 38 residential apartments above over 3 basement car parking levels subject to conditions.
It is identified that during the final deliberation of the matter, the Panel did not impose any additional conditions to the recommendation made and the Panel did not modify any condition attached to the condition set that formed part of the presentation.
Applicants Supporting Statement
The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by “The Planning Hub” dated Friday 12 April 2024 which was received as part of the modification application package.
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 Engineering
The modification application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the modification application and changes to the basement car park is acceptable subject to conditions.
Environmental Health
The modification application was referred to Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the modification application is supported subject to conditions.
Waste Management
The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory. No additional conditions are required for any consent that may be issued.
External Referrals
Design Excellence Panel
The modified development has a maximum height of 27.4 metres which is 2.4 metres greater than 25 metres.
The Cumberland Design Excellence Panel Policy (Number POL-050) of July 2022 (Version 4) requires:
a) any development proposal subject to the design excellence provisions of a Local Environmental Plan.
b) any development proposal incorporating buildings with a height greater than 25m.
c) any development proposal voluntarily referred to the Design Excellence Panel by an applicant for development of any kind.
to be referred to the Panel.
It is identified that the original development application did not require referral to the Panel on the grounds that the approved building exhibited a height of 24.14 metres from the natural ground level which was below 25 metres in height.
As per the same policy, “alterations and additions to approved buildings that do not significantly alter the design of a building do not need to be referred to the Design Excellence Panel”.
The modification application proposes one additional storey to the approved building. The change sought does not significantly alter the design of the building and the changes do not have significantly adverse or greater impacts to the locality. On the above grounds, the matter does not require referral to the Design Excellence Panel in this instance.
Planning Comments
Section 4.55(2) Other modifications:
Requirement |
Comments |
Council is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and |
Based on a review of case law Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999], Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd v Westlime Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] and Ozzy States Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017], it is determined that the word “substantially” in this context means “essentially or materially having the same essence”. To be confident that the modified development is substantially the same requires a comparison between the development, as originally approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The comparative tasks, “involves an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts.
With considering the above, Council does consider the proposed modification to be substantially the same for the following reasons:
· The additional floor does not alter the approved front, side or rear setbacks of the building. · All additional works are confined within the approved floor plate of the building. · The additional floor space ratio of the development is calculated at 0.39:1 which is approximately 15.1% of the total size of the building. The increase in percentage terms is not excessively large and is compliant with Clause 4.4 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. · The increase in the number of car parking spaces is 6 or 10%. · The number of bedrooms is increasing by 13 or 17.8% when compared to the original development. · The increase in height is 3.26 metres or 13.5%. This results in a minor variation to the building height limit which is described below. The minor variation is acceptable.
The modified development is determined as being substantially the same as that approved as the increases in the intensity of use of the building is within acceptable limits.
The principal and essential features of the original approval are maintained. For these reasons, the modification is qualitatively and quantitatively substantially the same development as approved. |
Council has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and |
The modification application did not require referral to any external Government agency for comment. |
Council has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and |
The modification application has been notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between Thursday 22 August 2024 and Thursday 5 September 2024. In response, two (2) submissions were received to the modified development.
The submissions are addressed below under the heading “Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(d))”. |
Council has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. |
The submissions received has been considered and addressed below under the heading “Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(d))”. |
Relevant matters referred to in Section 4.15(1) of the act have been taken into consideration. |
The proposed modification is not contrary to the public interest and the likely environmental impacts of the development as modified are considered acceptable. |
Council has considered the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified. |
The following reasons provided by the Cumberland Local Planning Panel have been considered as part of the assessment process:
· The Panel generally concurred with the Council’s Officers Notice of Determination.
· Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties or the locality.
· Taking into account the reasons above, approval of the application will be in the public interest.
Planning Comment:
When considering the Panel’s decision making process, it is identified that there were no objections to the development and general compliance with the planning instruments were achieved.
The changes sought are generally satisfactory and do not create additional adverse impacts across the locality. It is considered that the changes sought are acceptable to the site. |
In accordance with Section 4.55(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in determining a modification application made under Section 4.55 the consent authority must take into consideration such matters referred to in section 4.15 (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.
The relevant matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, are:
Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration |
Comments |
Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) - Provisions of any environmental planning instrument. |
This is generally satisfactory as demonstrated throughout the report. |
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) - Provisions of any proposed planning instrument. |
There are no draft planning instruments that need to be considered for the modification application. |
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) - Provisions of any development control plan. |
The Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 will apply to the modification application. An assessment undertaken identifies that the modified development will be acceptable when considered under the relevant chapters being:
a) Part B Development in Residential Zones. · Part B3 Residential Flat Buildings. · Part B5 Adaptable Housing and Housing Mix.
b) Part C Development in Business Zones.
c) Part F2 Business Site Specific · Part F2-1 Auburn Town Centre.
d) Part G Miscellaneous Development Controls. · Part G3 Traffic, Parking, Transport and Access (Vehicle). · Part G4 Stormwater and Drainage. · Part G8 Waste Management.
Further discussion is provided below. |
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) - Provisions of any planning agreement. |
There are no Planning Agreements applicable to the modification application that requires review. |
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) - Provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. |
The modification application has been made in accordance with the relevant matters prescribed by the Regulations.
A detailed assessment is made below to the relevant sections of the Regulations under the heading ‘Section 4.1.5(1)(a)(iv)’. |
Section 4.15(1)(b) - the likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality. |
The environmental impacts of the modified development on the natural and built environments are addressed under the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP) section in this report and are determined as being satisfactory.
The modified development will not have a detrimental social impact in the locality considering the nature of the proposal. The changes sought are acceptable within the context of a Town Centre and residential environment. In particular:
· There are no changes to the ground floor commercial tenancies.
· There are no changes to the vehicle or pedestrian access to and from the building.
· The additional floor is contained within the approved floorplates and building footprints.
· There is an increase in shadowing towards the south but the increase is within reasonable expectations for such a development within a town centre environment.
· The built form of the final development remains generally the same as that initially approved notwithstanding the addition of one additional storey.
· Privacy is satisfactory or capable of being satisfactory.
The modified development will not have a detrimental economic impact on the locality considering the nature of the locality. In this regard:
· The development is consistent with the type of built form development expected within a town centre environment.
· The site is located within a town centre and zoned as such being E1 Local Centre. The development is generally consistent with the development controls applicable to the land. |
Section 4.15(1)(c) - the suitability of the site for the development. |
The site has previously been determined as being suitable to support the development. There are no changes occurring that would alter the conclusion that is made. |
Section 4.15(1)(d) - any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act 1979 or EP&A Reg 2021. |
Council has received two submissions to the modified development. The submissions are addressed below under the heading “Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulation (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(d))”. |
Section 4.15(1)(e) - the public interest. |
No matters have arisen in this assessment that would justify the refusal of the application in the public interest. |
The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instruments (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(i))
State Environmental Planning Policies
The modified development is affected by the following State Environmental Planning Policies:
State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) |
Relevant Clause(s) |
Compliance with Requirements |
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021.
|
Chapter 2 -Vegetation in non Rural Areas. |
The original development application included the removal of thirteen (13) trees across the development site.
The original development application did not exceed the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold.
There is no change to the number of trees to be removed and no further assessment is required. |
Chapter 6 - Water Catchments.
Sydney Harbour Catchment. |
It is determined that given the location of the site, a detailed assessment is not required given that there is no direct impact upon the catchment and no direct impact upon watercourses.
As such, the modified development is acceptable under the provisions that came into effect on Monday 21 November 2022. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021.
|
Chapter 2 - Coastal Management. |
The subject site is not identified as being within a coastal wetland area or ‘land identified as a “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or coastal management area. |
Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land.
Part 4.6. |
Part 4.6 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application.
Comments
A Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) prepared by Raw Earth Environmental dated 18 November 2021 has been considered as part of the assessment of the original development application.
The report which was incorporated into the consent issued provided adequate recommendations to address site conditions. Appropriate conditions were included into the Notice of Determination issued addressing the report.
No further assessment is required in this instance. As such, it is considered that the development application is satisfactory under Part 4.6 of Chapter 4 of the State Policy. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. |
Chapter 2 - Infrastructure.
|
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 is relevant to the modification application as follows. |
Clause 2.48
|
Chapter 2 - Infrastructure.
Determination of development applications (Subpart (2) - Give written notice to electricity providers and take account of responses received within 21 days.
Comment No referral was required given that no significant changes were proposed at grade. The referral was completed as part of the original development application with correspondence from Ausgrid being incorporated into Condition 2 of the development consent.
No further assessment is required in this instance. |
|
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. |
Chapter 4 |
Chapter 4 - Design of Residential apartment development.
The building is more than 3 storeys in height and the additional floor has more than 4 apartments.
Chapter 4 will apply to the modification application. An assessment shows that the changes sought are acceptable and supported under Chapter 4.
Further discussion is required in relation to shadow impacts (Part 3B-2) which is addressed below.
Overall, an assessment undertaken using the Apartment Design Guide demonstrates that the modified development (As relevant) achieves a high degree of compliance.
See discussion below. |
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. |
Chapter 2 Standards for Residential Development (BASIX). |
BASIX Certificate number 1230091M-05 has been submitted and determined as being acceptable for approval.
The Certificate demonstrates a score of 42 and 36 for water and energy which exceeds the minimum requires of 40 and 25 for both elements. |
(a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 Chapter 4 - Design of Residential apartment development.
Chapter 4 of SEPP (Housing) 2021 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 Chapter 4 SEPP (Housing) 2021 was prepared by the project architect. Integral to Chapter 4 of SEPP (Housing) 2021 is the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which sets benchmarks for the appearance, acceptable impacts and residential amenity of the development.
Following a detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of Chapter 4 of the SEPP (Housing 2021) and the ADG, the proposal is generally considered compliant and therefore performs satisfactorily with respect to (e.g. building amenity, landscape design….) A comprehensive assessment against Chapter 4 of SEPP (Housing) 2021 and the ADG is contained in Appendix A and B attached to the report.
Further discussion is required in relation to Part 3B-2 which addresses overshadowing. Generally, overshadowing of neighbouring properties should be minimized during mid winter. Further, shadowing should not be reduced by more than 20%.
Commentary
As per the original report, shadowing towards the south is unavoidable and shadow impacts are considered to reach 100% in some instances. The additional shadow impact as a result of the 7th storey is considered minimal as discussed below.
a) North-eastern side of 2-10 Susan Street
The existing rear 3 storey residential apartment building closest to the development site has a total of 12 apartments with balconies and living rooms facing the eastern common boundary with 28 and 32 Queen Street. The apartments currently receive a maximum of 2 hours of sunlight from 9:00am to 11:00am in mid-Winter. From 11:00am onwards, the apartments are shadowed by their own building.
The approved development will remove the 2 hours of solar access from the rear 3 apartments across the lowest 2 levels (total of 6 apartments) and provide no more than 1 hour of solar access to another 3 apartments across this part of the development.
Given the angle of the site and allotment pattern, the additional floor proposed does not worsen the shadow impact across 2 to 10 Susan Street. The shadows are extended at least 7 metres to the south across 12 to 16 Susan Street to the south / southwest at 9:00am but this recedes and is largely removed by 11:00am.
Generally, the variation to the shadow impact to the west and southwest remains acceptable.
b) Southern side 26 Queen Street and 11 Marion Street
Both 26 Queen Street and 11 Marion Street are currently occupied by 2 storey dwelling houses. Both sites will not receive adequate direct sunlight in mid winter. This is as originally approved and it is noted that the shadow impacts are not made worse by the addition of another storey to the development.
c) 13 to 15 Marion Street
The existing shadow impact as approved already impacts upon the common area and windows of the ground floor of the four storey residential apartment building. While there is a minor increase, the increase is within acceptable limits.
It should also be noted that the existing two storey dwelling house at 11 Marion Street casts a shadow across the north facing windows of that building and thus the shadows created by the new development (existing and additional) coincides with the shadow created by that dwelling house. As such, the direct shadow impact created by the development the subject of this application is considered acceptable in this instance.
The north facing common area of Number 13 to 15 Marion Street will be provided with sunlight between 1 pm and 3 pm which is similar to what is approved.
The late afternoon shadow created by the development including the extended shadow impact will fall mostly across Marion Street and road reserve and is generally consistent with the approval already granted.
Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021
The provisions of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 are applicable to the modified development.
(a) Permissibility:
The proposed development is defined as “Shop top” housing comprising of commercial tenancies within the ground floor and residential apartments above with a basement car park below.
Shop top housing is defined by the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 as:
“one or more dwellings located above the ground floor of a building, where at least the ground floor is used for commercial premises or health services facilities.
Note - Shop top housing is a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.”
Shop top housing is a permitted form of development within the E1 Local Centre zone subject to consent.
The relevant matters to be considered under Cumberland LEP 2021 and the applicable clauses for the proposed development are summarised below. A comprehensive Cumberland LEP 2021 assessment is contained at Appendix C.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD |
COMPLIANCE |
DISCUSSION |
4.3 Height of Buildings Maximum - 27 metres. |
No. |
The building has a maximum height of 27.4 metres.
A variation of 400 mm exists for the topmost part of a lift overrun and portions of a parapet. |
4.4 Floor Space Ratio Maximum - 3.0:1. |
Yes. |
The floor space ratio of the development is 2.97:1 based upon a floor area of 4,269.67 sq m. |
4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards |
Satisfactory. |
There is no statutory requirement for a Clause 4.6 variation request to be submitted for s4.55 modification applications. Nonetheless, the applicant has prepared a justification against the relevant criteria of Clause 4.6 to justify the proposed variation. |
Assessment of Height variation
A detailed Clause 4.6 variation is not lawfully required for the modification application. However, the applicant has provided the following reasons as to why the Panel should support the modification application noting that no Clause 4.6 variation is required. The detailed justification attached as part of the Statement of Environmental Effects is provided at Attachment 3 of the report.
Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances?
Applicant’s Response
· The proposal provides a built form that is reflective of the future higher density form of development envisaged for the surrounding area. The numeric increase in building height is approximately 3.1 metres which is confined to the addition of a level resulting in a minor variation of 400 mm or 1.48%.
· The proposal does not result in adverse amenity or built form impacts on the surrounding area and only involves a minimal percentage of the building volume including the lift overrun and roof structure. The minor variation facilitates additional housing supply.
· Consideration has been placed on the potential overlooking and overshadowing impacts arising from the amended development. The non-compliance is minor and the building is sited in a manner that does not create adverse impacts upon adjoining properties.
· The variation is confined to a lift overrun centrally located within the building footprint and portions of the roof sited towards the street elevation. The non-compliance does not comprise trafficable areas. The variation will not cause adverse overlooking or overshadowing impacts onto adjoining properties.
· The proposed additions have been sympathetically designed to maintain the principal presentation of the approved development with the majority of the new works set below the maximum building height. The overall bulk and scale of the building remains consistent to that originally approved and the proposed additions aligns with the desired future character of the area.
Council Assessment
The applicant’s response may be supported as follows:
· It is agreed that the variation is limited to a portion of a lift overrun and portions of a roof element namely the parapets. The variation is 400 mm or 1.48%. This is minor and not contributing to additional bulk and scale of the building.
· Privacy and shadow impacts have been considered. It is identified that the architect has retained all the elements that contributes to satisfactory privacy between adjoining sites. This includes the planter boxes for the rooftop common area, privacy screens where needed and satisfactory placements of windows.
· The increase in the shadowing is assessed as being satisfactory. In this regard, the shadow impacts created by the development are not made worse across the south and southwest of the development site.
· The variation is limited to non trafficable areas and thus there is no additional floor space ratio involved. Other than the topmost part of the lift overrun and parapets, the remainder of the building falls below 27 metres in height and therefore is compliant with the height limit.
For the reasons presented above the variation may be supported.
Are there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard?
Applicant’s Response
There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the building height standard as follows:
· The variation proposed is consistent with previous approvals within the surrounding area and does not result in any unreasonable increase in bulk, scale or form of the development of the site.
· The proposal does not result in any adverse or increased impacts on adjoining properties.
· The works are sympathetic to the existing character and design of development of the site whilst catering to the growing needs of the area.
· The height variation only includes a minor portion of the building and is a result of providing rooftop communal open space which provides a better planning outcome for the site than strict compliance with the height control.
· The area of exceedance consists only of the lift overrun and roof structures and does not contain any habitable floor space.
· The proposal does not result in any adverse view loss or visual impacts.
· The proposal provides for the economic and orderly development of the site by allowing alterations to cater for the growing needs of the community.
· The non-compliance does not arise additional overshadowing impacts onto adjoining residents to that of a compliant development.
· Strict compliance with the building height development standard would result in a development that does not achieve the desired development density for the site, reduces residential amenity through the removal of rooftop communal open space and would be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.
Council Assessment
The applicant’s response may be supported as follows:
· The variation does not result in any unreasonable increase in bulk, scale or form of the development that are outside the development controls applicable to the site.
· The proposal does not result in any adverse or increased impacts on adjoining properties.
· The variation is limited to a portion of a lift overrun and portions of a roof element namely the parapets. There is no habitable floor space involved and as a result, there is no unacceptable increase in floor space ratio. The floor space ratio of the development is 2.97:1 which is less than 3:1 permitted for the site.
· The proposal does not result in any adverse view loss or visual impacts. In particular, the increase in the level of shadowing is acceptable given location and prevailing allotment pattern of the locality.
Conclusion
Council is satisfied that the applicant’s justification has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated. Council is further satisfied that the proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.
The provisions of any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(ii))
There are no proposed planning instruments applicable to the modification application.
The provisions of any Development Control Plans (EP&A Act s4.15 (1)(a)(iii))
The Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 is the relevant development control plan to consider which provides guidance for the design and operation of development to achieve the aims and objectives of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. A comprehensive assessment and compliance table is contained in Appendix D attached to the report and a high degree of compliance is achieved. The following chapters are relevant to the development:
A) Part B Development in Residential Zones.
· Part B3 Residential Flat Buildings.
· Part B5 Adaptable Housing and Housing Mix.
B) Part C Development in Business Zones.
C) Part F2 Business Site Specific
· Part F2-1 Auburn Town Centre.
A detailed assessment of Part C and F2 is not required on the grounds that the modification application does not result in changes to the commercial floor of the building.
D) Part G Miscellaneous Development Controls.
· Part G3 Traffic, Parking, Transport and Access (Vehicle).
· Part G4 Stormwater and Drainage.
· Part G8 Waste Management.
There is one variation that requires discussion not initially approved by the Panel which is related to Part B5 - Adaptable Housing and Housing Mix (Subpart C2) which reads as:
“C2 If an equal mix cannot be provided, a minimum 10% of the dwellings shall be three plus bedroom dwellings.”
In this regard, the number of 3 bedroom apartments remains the same at 4 but the number in percentage terms falls from 10.5% to 8.8%. A variation of 12% is identified under Subpart C2 which is a result of an increase in the number of apartments across the whole development from 38 to 45. It is considered reasonable to support the variation as follows:
· The number of three bedroom dwellings is approved and no change is occurring to those apartments.
· The applicant has provided 20% (9) adaptable apartments within the development plus 6 additional liveable apartments.
· It is considered that an adequate variety of housing forms is provided within the entire development notwithstanding the minor variation identified.
There are no other additional variations identified that are not approved by the Panel.
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 modification 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 Regulation 2021 (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 within 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 (Website) |
|
Sign |
Not Required |
In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021, the modified development was publicly notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between Thursday 22 August 2024 and Thursday 5 September 2024. In response, 2 submissions were received.
The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:
Issue |
Planner’s Comment |
The increase in population density will strain overburdened infrastructure, lead to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution and strained public services. |
The site is shown to be capable of supporting the increase in the intensity of use as shown throughout the assessment report. |
The development will result in the valuation of my property decreasing. |
There is no evidence provided to verify the claim made and such matters are not a relevant consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. |
There will be much traffic. |
There is an adequate level of car parking provided within the development site to support the development proposed. |
The development will create adverse noise. |
Conditions have been added to the existing development consent addressing such matters.
An amended acoustic report has been supplied and will be incorporated into any development consent that may be issued. |
Crime rates will increase. |
There is no evidence provided to this effect. |
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.
CUMBERLAND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2020
A contribution is payable to reflect the changes made. The increase in the contribution is $124,558 which reflects the additional seven (7) apartments to be constructed. The total amount of contribution is now $746,156. The change is reflected within the draft condition set for Panel consideration with the amount being payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
HOUSING AND PRODUCTIVITY CONTRIBUTION (HPC)
In accordance with s7.24 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Housing and Productivity Contribution) Act 2023, the development is subject to the (Housing and Productivity Contribution) Act 2023.
In accordance with Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Environment Planning & Assessment (Housing and Productivity Contribution) Order 2024 (‘the Order’), the Order does not apply to a development consent granted to a pending development application (Pending DA).
A ‘Pending DA’ as per Schedule 1 of the Order and s16 of the EP&A Reg 2021 is as follows:
(a) a development application that is made, but not determined, before 1 October 2023, or
(b) a development application that is made and determined before 1 October 2023, but has not been finally determined, or
(c) an application for a complying development certificate that is made, but not determined, before 1 October 2023.
The original development application for the development was accepted by the Council on Tuesday 14 November 2022. The application was then determined by the Panel on Thursday 7 December 2023 subject to conditions. That consent did not contain any condition addressing the Housing and Productivity Contribution requirement. Given the above, the Housing and Productivity Contribution will not apply to the modification application.
DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS
The applicant and notification process did not result in any disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts.
Conclusion:
The modification application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following planning instruments:
a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 being Chapter 2 - Vegetation in non Rural Areas.
b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 being Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land.
c) State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 - Part 2.48.
d) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 being Chapter 4 - Design of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).
e) State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Chapter 2).
f) Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.
g) Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021.
The modified development is appropriately located within the E1 Local centre zone pursuant to the provisions of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. The modified proposal is generally consistent with all statutory and non-statutory controls applying to the development. Minor non-compliances with Council’s controls have been discussed in the body of this report. The modified 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 modified proposal is satisfactory having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the modified development may be approved subject to conditions.
Consultation:
There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.
Policy Implications:
There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.
Communication / Publications:
The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.
1. That Modification Application 2024/0274 being a Section 4.55(2) modification application to introduce an additional storey to increase the number of residential apartments from 38 to 45 including associated changes to basement level 3 to incorporate 6 additional car spaces and revise layout of ground floor garbage and bulky waste room on land at 28 to 32 Queen Street, AUBURN be approved subject to conditions as recommended in the Council’s assessment report.
2. Persons whom have lodged a submission in respect to the application be notified of the determination of the application.
Attachments
1. Draft Notice of Determination
3. Statement of Environmental Effects including the Height Variation Justification at Part 4.1 and 4.2
4. Copy of Existing Approved Development Plans
5. Redacted Submissions Received
6. Appendix A - "SEPP Housing" 2021 Chapter 4 Assessment Table
7. Appendix B - Apartment Design Guide Assessment Table
8. Appendix C - Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 Assessment Table
9. Appendix D - Cumberland Development Control Plan Assessment Table
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 1
Draft Notice of Determination
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 3
Statement of Environmental Effects including the Height Variation Justification at Part 4.1 and 4.2
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 4
Copy of Existing Approved Development Plans
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 6
Appendix A - "SEPP Housing" 2021 Chapter 4 Assessment Table
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 7
Appendix B - Apartment Design Guide Assessment Table
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 8
Appendix C - Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 Assessment Table
DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP040/24
Attachment 9
Appendix D - Cumberland Development Control Plan Assessment Table