7 May 2025

A meeting of the Cumberland Local Planning Panel will be held at 11:30am via Zoom on Wednesday, 7 May 2025.

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

 

 7 May 2025

CONTENTS

Report No.  Name of Report                                                                                         Page No.

Development Applications

ELPP009/25 Development application - 5 Irwin Place, Wentworthville.............................. 5

ELPP010/25 Development Application - 31 Mary Street, Lidcombe............................... 231

ELPP011/25 Development Application - 112 Girraween Road, Girraween................... 459

 7 May 2025

Item No: ELPP009/25

Development application - 5 Irwin Place, Wentworthville

Directorate:                                       Environment and Planning  

Responsible Officer:                       Executive Manager City Planning and Development   

 

 

1.   Development Application No. DA2024/0515 was lodged on 21 October 2024 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey co-living housing development comprising of 37 single rooms over basement car parking.

2.   The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 31 October 2024 and 14 November 2024. In response, 8 unique submissions were received.

3.   The applicant amended the proposal on 17 January 2024 by reducing the number of rooms to 30 single rooms. This amendment was not renotified as it is not a greater environmental impact.

 

4.   The variations are as follows:

Control	Required	Provided	% variation
Housing SEPP 2021 Cl.69(1)(b)(ii)   Minimum Lot Size	800sqm	627.9sqm	21.51%
Housing SEPP 2021 Cl.69(2)(a)(ii)	Side setback: 3m Rear Setback: 8.48m (20% the length of  the site)	Side setback: 2.87m. Rear Setback: 8m.	Side setback: 0.04%. Rear setback: 0.06%.
Housing SEPP 2021 Cl.69(2)(b)	6m separation up to level 4. 9m separation up to level 8.	3.25m to boundary (13.45m separation between buildings)	45.83% up to level 4. 63.89% on level 5.

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

6.   The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as recommended in the Council’s assessment report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site forms Lot 6 in DP 239558 and is identified as 5 Irwin Place Wentworthville. A single storey older style dwelling currently occupies the site.

The site is an irregular shaped allotment located on the northern side of Irwin Place Wentworthville with a frontage to Irwin Place of 13.715m and an overall site area of 627.9sqm. The subject site is zoned R4 – High Density Residential under the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 (CLEP 2021).

The site adjoins Irwin Place Park on its northern and western side and to the eastern side is a recently constructed 5 storey residential flat building. South of the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential where a number of single and double storey dwelling houses exist on the opposite side of Irwin Place.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan of subject site highlighted in purple [Source: Intramap]

Figure 2 – Aerial view of subject site highlighted in purple [Source: Intramap]

Figure 3 – Street view of subject site as seen from Irwin Place

Description of The Development

 

Council has received a development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey co-living housing development comprising of 30 single rooms over basement car parking. The detailed breakdown of the proposal is shown below:

 

·    Demolition of all existing structures including the single storey dwelling, vehicular crossing and associated handstand surfaces. Removal of 7 trees with a maximum height of 17.5m (four being within the subject site and three within the adjoining public open space).

 

·    Construction consisting of the following:

 

Level	Details
Basement Level	-     6 x car parking spaces (inclusive of 1 disabled parking space) -     6 x bicycle space -     6 x motorcycle space -     Lift and staircase -     Bulk waste room -     Storage room -     Main entrance driveway
Ground Floor	-     3 x rooms each with an ensuite and space for a kitchenette (inclusive of 1 x managers room) -     Managers work space room -     1 x communal living area with water closet and kitchenette -     1 x common laundry -     Lift and staircase -     Bin storage area -     Communal open space at the rear
Level 1	-     7 x rooms each with an ensuite and kitchenette -     1 x communal living area with water closet and kitchenette -     1 x common laundry -     Lift and staircase
Level 2	-     7 x rooms each with an ensuite and kitchenette -     1 x communal living area with water closet and kitchenette -     1 x common laundry -     Lift and staircase
Level 3	-     7 x rooms each with an ensuite and kitchenette -     1 x communal living area with water closet and kitchenette -     1 x common laundry -     Lift and staircase
Level 4	-     6 x rooms each with an ensuite and kitchenette -     1 x communal living area with water closet and kitchenette with a balcony facing north -     1 x common laundry -     Lift and staircase

 

History

 

·    PL2023/0077 – Pre-Lodgement meeting dated 8 February 2024 for the construction of a 40 room boarding house with basement parking

 

Applicants Supporting Statement

 

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 26 September 2024 and was received by Council on 27 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 Development Engineer 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 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.

 

Environmental Health

 

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

 

Public Spaces Planning and Design

 

The development application was referred to Council’s Parks & Open Space 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 provision of seven replacement trees within the park.

 

 

Waste Management

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

 

External Referrals

 

Endeavour Energy

 

The development application was referred to Endeavour Energy for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Sydney Water

 

The development application was referred to Sydney Water for comment who has advised that the development proposal is satisfactory and therefore can be supported subject to recommended conditions of consent.

 

Planning Comments

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP 2021)

 

As mentioned above, the Housing SEPP 2021 applies to the development and a comprehensive assessment of the Housing SEPP 2021 is provided at Attachment 6. An assessment has been undertaken against the relevant provisions identified in Chapter 3, Part 3 Co-living housing and the following numerical variations have been identified:

 

·    Minimum lot size

 

Section 69(1)(b)(ii) - Development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of co-living housing unless the consent authority is satisfied that the minimum lot size for the co-living housing is not less than 800 square metres.

 

Planner’s comments: The site has an area of 627.9 21.51 square metres, which is a shortfall of 172.1 square metres of the minimum 800 square metres. This presents a 21.51% variation to the numerical standard. The Clause 4.6 variation submitted with the development application demonstrates an acceptable co-living housing design that is compatible with the locality and satisfies the future desire character of the area. The Clause 4.6 is further addressed in detail later in the report. Accordingly, Council is satisfied that the variation request to the minimum lot size be supported.

 

·    Setbacks

 

Section 69(2)(a)(ii) - Development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of co-living housing unless the consent authority considers whether the front, side and rear setbacks for the co-living housing are not less than the minimum setback requirements for residential flat buildings under a relevant planning instrument.

 

Planner’s comments: The proposed development being located within the R4 High Density Residential zone is required to provide setbacks that are consistent with those required for residential flat buildings as contained within the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021. In this case, the proposed 2.87m side setback to the eastern boundary is short of the 3m requirement by 0.13m and represents a variation of 0.04%. Additionally, the proposed 8m rear setback is short of the 8.48m requirement (20% the length of the site) by 0.48m and represents a variation of 0.06%.

 

These minor numerical variations are considered acceptable in this case. Given the isolated nature of the site and the reduced lot size, the subject site is restricted in terms of the area available for the building footprint. Despite these restrictions, the architectural plans submitted confirm that the building design will not cause any adverse impacts to adjoining development in terms of overshadowing or privacy. The building provides a compliant front setback to ensure consistency with the streetscape as seen from the public. Additionally, the building provides generous amounts of communal living area on each floor and adequate room sizes.

 

Given the above, this non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance. 

 

·    Building separation

 

Section 69(2)(b) - Development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of co-living housing unless the consent authority considers whether the building will comply with the minimum building separation distances specified in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) if the co-living housing has at least 3 storeys.

 

Planner’s comments:

 

The ADG requires a 6 metre setback for habitable rooms (up to 12m, 4 storeys) from the side and rear boundary. The 5th storey requires a 9 metre setback for habitable rooms (up to 18m, 8 storeys) from the side and rear boundary.

 

The proposed 5 storey co-living housing provides a setback from the habitable rooms of 3.25 metres from the eastern side boundary representing a shortfall of:

 

·    2.75m and a variation of 45.83% up to level 4; and

·    5.75m and a variation of 63.89% is proposed on level 5.

 

This non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance. The neighbouring development to the east provides a generous setback of 10.2m from the boundary. This results in a total separation between both buildings of 13.45m. This distance is adequate as confirmed by the submitted architectural plans to limit unreasonable overshadowing impacts. Additionally, conditions are imposed requiring any habitable windows on this elevation to provide privacy screening to prevent privacy impacts.

 

No appreciable impact is anticipated towards the west where the site adjoins a public park.

 

Given the isolated site nature of the site and restricted by the lot size, this non-compliance is considered acceptable.

 

 

The provision of the 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 R4 High Density Residential zone.

(a) Permissibility:

The provision of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 is applicable to the development proposal.

The proposed development is defined as ‘co-living housing’

co-living housing means a building or place that—

(a) has at least 6 private rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, and

(b) provides occupants with a principal place of residence for at least 3 months, and

(c)  has shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, maintained by a managing agent, who provides management services 24 hours a day,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

Note ­­–

Co-living housing is a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of     that term in this Dictionary.

Pursuant to Section 67 of the Housing SEPP 2021, co-living housing development may be carried out with consent on land in a zone which development for the purposes of co-living housing, residential flat buildings and shop top housing is permitted under Chapter 5 or another environmental planning instrument. Residential Flat Buildings and shop-top housing are permitted with consent in an R4 High Density Residential zone under the Cumberland LEP 2021, and therefore the proposed development is permissible pursuant to Section 67 of the Housing SEPP 2021.

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 in Attachment 7.

 

Development Standard	Compliance	Discussion
Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings Max. 15m	Yes	Proposed 5 storey co-living housing with a maximum building height of 15m when measures from the existing natural ground level.
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio Max. 1.5:1 + 10% Housing SEPP 2021 bonus = 1.65:1	Yes	The proposed development has a total gross floor area of 1,024.2 square metres which equates to a floor space ratio of 1.63:1.   This complies when considering the bonus 10% granted under the State Environmental planning Policy (Housing) 2021 for co-living housing.
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards	Yes	The proposal fails to comply with the non-discretionary development standard for co-living housing Section 69(1)(b)(ii) minimum lot size for co-living housing on other land. Therefore, a written variation to justify the development standards in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the Cumberland LEP 2021 is required.   Review of the development application confirmed that a suitable Clause 4.6 has been provided to address the non-compliance in relation to minimum lot size which satisfies this requirement.   Refer to the following for a detailed discussion.

(b)     Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

 Clause 4.6 aims to achieve better design outcomes for and from development by allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility to development standards if particular circumstances are satisfied.

The application seeks to vary the development standard for minimum lot size for co-living housing under section 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Housing SEPP 2021.

Consent may only be granted upon the consent authority being satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated in a document submitted with the application that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and (b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

1.   compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

The decision of Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827, affirmed in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 set out five common and non-exhaustive ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. They were that:

(i)   the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

(ii)  the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

(iii) the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

(iv) the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

(v)  the zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Applicant’s justification: The applicant has submitted a variation request of 627.9 square metres to the minimum lot size for co-living housing of 800 square metres. The applicant states that the proposal satisfies the objectives identified in the Housing SEPP 2021 and the Cumberland DCP 2021 in accordance with the Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827 despite the non-compliance to the numerical development standard summarised as follows:

·    The site is isolated and constrained with no opportunity to amalgamate with surrounding development. Therefore, the provision of a co-living development that responds to the site constraints and is considered to be an appropriate outcome in the R4 High Density Residential zone which is undergoing transition to higher density development.

·    The proposed co-living development will deliver 30 single rooms that will provide a high level of amenity for the occupants. In this regard, the proposed development will have a north facing communal living areas and all rooms are likely to achieve approximately 2 hours of solar access. The co-living development is located on a constrained and isolated site but will not impose on the landscaped character of the locality. The proposed co-living development will provide basement parking and be in a highly accessible location to cater for a wide variety of occupants.

·    The proposed co-living development has excellent access to public transport, shops and services. The site is within walking distances of Wentworthville Plaza, buses, train stations, shops and facilities. The proposal will make use of all existing connections to infrastructure and will have no greater impact than the surrounding RFB’s which are of a significantly greater density than the proposal.

·    The proposal involves the construction of a new co-living development to replace a dwelling. The proposal will not result in the loss of any existing affordable rental housing.

·    The proposal provides for a building envelope and design which is consistent with that anticipated in the zone. Specifically, the proposal largely provides for appropriate building height, street frontage alignment, side setbacks and building separation, as anticipated by the relevant controls and as set by the neighbouring properties. In accordance with Woollahra Municipal Council v SJD DB2 Pty Limited [2020] NSWLEC 115, the desired future character is subjective and can be set by the existing, recently approved and proposed buildings within the neighbourhood. In this regard, the proposed built form, despite non-compliance with the lot size requirement, is compatible with the scale and development established by the recently approved and constructed mixed-use developments. This ultimately ensures planned density is achieved in line with the R4 zone.

·    Finally, and when considering the amenity of future co-living residents, the non-compliance results in no adverse impact. Specifically, the co-living rooms, communal living areas and communal open spaces are designed to satisfy the relevant area and facility requirements as set out in the Housing SEPP. As such, the non-compliance with site area has no impact to the amenity of future building occupants. On this basis, the requirements of Clause 4.6(3)(a) are satisfied.

Planner’s comments: The proposed development is consistent with principles (c) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 which is stipulated to ensure new housing development provides residents with a reasonable level of amenity.

As discussed in the report, the subject site is considered sufficient to accommodate the proposed development on the site despite its isolated nature. The building is considered consistent with the existing streetscape and future desired character of the area.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone as the generally compliant built form maintains a reasonable level of residential amenity with the locality.

The proposed development is consistent with the principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

2.   there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

In respect of there being sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, Initial Action found that although the phrase ‘environmental planning’ is not defined, it would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including the objects in s.1.3. To be sufficient, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248.

The assessment of this numerical non-compliance is also guided by the recent decisions of the NSW LEC in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 and Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 whereby Justice Pain ratified the original decision of Commissioner Pearson. The following planning grounds are submitted to justify contravening the minimum lot size requirement:

Applicant’s justification: The applicant’s justification on environmental planning grounds is summarised as follows:

The assessment of this numerical non-compliance is also guided by the recent decisions of the NSW LEC in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 and Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 whereby Justice Pain ratified the original decision of Commissioner Pearson. The following planning grounds are submitted to justify contravening the minimum lot size requirement:

1.  The subject site is isolated

The subject site is isolated with respect to the existing development on surrounding properties. To the east, No. 1 Irwin Place contains a newly constructed 5 storey residential flat building. To the north and west lies Irwin Place Park and to the south Irwin Place. This effectively rules out the potentially to consolidate land to the north, west and south of the subject site.

2.  Co-living housing is an appropriate use for the subject site

Co-living housing is considered to be an appropriate form of development for the subject site given it’s highly accessible nature, proximity to numerous public transport options, services and facilities.

 

3.  Orderly and economic use of the land

Object 1.3(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 is “to promote the orderly and economic  use and development of land”. As discussed, strict compliance with the development standard would stifle redevelopment and essentially sterilise the site, particularly when considering the lot ownership pattern of neighbouring properties. In turn, this will have a significant impact to the delivery of affordable residential accommodation on a well-suited site, in close proximity to public transport options and a variety of land uses.

4.   The proposal will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality

As considered in Woollahra Municipal Council v SJD DB2 Pty Limited [2020] NSWLEC 115, the desired future character is subjective and can be set by the existing, recently approved and proposed buildings within the neighbourhood. In this regard, the proposed development is entirely compatible with the bulk, scale and building height of properties surrounding the subject site and as per the CLEP.

5.  The variation will not prejudice redevelopment of the neighbouring  properties

The variation will not prejudice the redevelopment of the neighbouring property as it includes newly constructed high density residential development. The neighbouring site to the east features a large area of approximately 2,334.5m2 which is unlikely to seek to incorporate the subject site into an amalgamated lot. To deny the variation request would be counterintuitive to the desired future character of the locality.

6.  Strict compliance would not result in a development which is    substantially different from that proposed

Whilst non-compliant with the standard, this has not impacted the site planning, urban or architectural design of the development. The proposal will provide for a five storey development which is compatible with the desired character for the area that would be similar to the scale and proportions on a compliant site area. That is, a strictly compliant site area of 800sqm would not result in any wholesale changes to the urban and architectural form of the development, including proportions, bulk, scale, articulation or character.

7.  The non-compliance will not result in any adverse impact to surrounding properties

It is considered that there is an absence of any significant material impacts attributed to the breach on the amenity or the environmental values of surrounding properties, the amenity of future building occupants and on the character of the locality.

8.  The proposal meets aims and objectives of key planning documents

The proposed development meets the objectives of the development standard and meets the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone through the provision of a well-designed and located mixed-use development, inclusive of affordable co-living housing. In fact, to request strict compliance would halt redevelopment and would be entirely antipathetic to the zone objectives.

It is noted that in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ clarified what items a Clause 4.6 does and does not need to satisfy. Importantly, there does not need to be a "better" planning outcome.

As outlined above, it is considered that in many respects, the proposal will provide for a better planning outcome than a strictly compliant development. At the very least, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Planner’s comments: The applicant’s justification is considered to be well founded. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential land use zone of the Cumberland LEP 2021. The subject site is 627.9 square metres which equates to a variation of 21.51% to the minimum 800 square metre requirement for co-living housing under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

Despite the undersized lot, the proposal incorporates compliant communal open space, communal living space, adequate room sizes and car parking to service the proposed co-living housing development on site.

The subject site is identified as being isolated. Despite this, the proposal is designed in such a way that it provides a housing type that is consistent in terms of front setback and scope that is consistent with the existing and desired future character of the area. The development is therefore considered acceptable despite the non-compliant lot size.

Conclusion

The applicant’s justification of the minimum lot size has satisfied the test under Clause 4.6. Council is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6.

In regard to the above, the proposal is supported by Council.

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

Council has received a Gateway Determination (from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for the Draft Woodville Road Corridor Planning Proposal. As part of this approval, public exhibition of the Draft Woodville Road Corridor Planning Proposal has commenced. The Public Exhibition period is from 4 March 2025 to 17 April 2025 inclusive.

The Draft Planning Proposal seeks to revitalise Woodville Road by amending planning controls in the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (CLEP) 2021 for 31 sites located around the three (3) precincts of Woodville North, Merrylands East and Woodville South

The subject application was received on 7 and the site does not fall within the Draft Woodville Road Corridor and therefore no further consideration is required.

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

Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (Cumberland DCP 2021)

The Cumberland DCP 2021 does not specify any development control for co-living housing development within the local government area. However, given the subject site is zoned as R4 High Density Residential under the Cumberland LEP 2021, the residential flat building controls being Part B3 of the Cumberland DCP 2021 are the most applicable development controls to inform the built form for this development. The assessment against all relevant part of the Cumberland DCP 2021 confirmed the proposed development is considered acceptable from an environmental planning viewpoint. A comprehensive Cumberland DCP 2021 assessment is contained in Attachment 8.

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)

Mail

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 development was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 31 October 2024 and 14 November 2024. The notification generated 8 unique submissions in respect of the proposal. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

Submissions summary table

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

Advice has been provided by Council’s Senior Contributions Advisor in which a contribution of $249,814 for the development is required to be paid. Contributions are addressed at Condition 17 of the development consent.

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. The contribution is reflected within the draft condition set for Panel consideration with the amount being payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 and Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021.

It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable for the reasons outlined in this report. It is recommended that the development be approved, subject to conditions.

There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.

There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.

The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

1.   That the Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the Minimum Lot Size development standard, pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, be supported.

2.   That Development Application No. DA2024/0515 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey co-living housing development comprising of 30 single rooms over basement car parking on land at 5 Irwin Place WENTWORTHVILLE NSW 2145 be approved subject to conditions recommended in the Council’s assessment report.

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

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Redacted Submissions  

4.      Clause 4.6 Variation Request - Minimum Lot Size  

5.      Plan of Management  

6.      Appendix A - Housing SEPP 2021 & ADG Assessment  

7.      Appendix B - Cumberland LEP 2021 Assessment  

8.      Appendix C - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment   

 

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 3

Redacted Submissions

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 4

Clause 4.6 Variation Request - Minimum Lot Size

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 5

Plan of Management

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 6

Appendix A - Housing SEPP 2021 & ADG Assessment

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 7

Appendix B - Cumberland LEP 2021 Assessment

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP009/25

Attachment 8

Appendix C - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment

 7 May 2025

 7 May 2025

Item No: ELPP010/25

Development Application - 31 Mary Street, Lidcombe

Directorate:                                       Environment and Planning  

Responsible Officer:                       Executive Manager City Planning and Development   

 

 

1.  Development Application 2024/0751 was lodged to the Council on Wednesday 15 January 2025 for alterations and additions to a mixed use development approved under Development Application 2022/0643 to remove NDIS rental apartments and a swim school and to introduce 20 co living rooms and associated communal rooms and changes to the basement car park.

2.  The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of fourteen (14) days between Thursday 30 January 2025 and Thursday 13 February 2025. In response, 1 submission was received.

3.  The variations are as follows:

 

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

5.  The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as recommended in the Council’s assessment report.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the southern side of Mary Street close to the edge of the Lidcombe Town Centre. The site dimensions are:

·    North and south boundaries 19.505 metres.

·    East and west boundaries 40.235 metres.

This provides for a site area of 784.78 square metres. All previous site improvements have been removed and early site preparation works including excavation works have commenced pursuant to the approval granted under Development Consent 2022/0643.

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential as shown in the map below under the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.

The location of the site is shown below edged in purple.

As shown in the photos below taken Wednesday 29 January 2025, all previous site improvements and buildings have been removed. Excavation work has commenced which is associated with the construction of the basement car park.

There is a mix of land uses dominating the locality which includes:

·    A three storey apartment building to the immediate east at 33 Mary Street.

·    The St Andrews Church, nursing home accommodation, childcare centre and associated car park lies to the immediate west.

·    A large residential apartment complex (2 separate buildings) to the southeast at 81 Church Street that has a maximum height of 8 storeys.

·    There are various low rise apartment buildings situated along the northern side of Mary Street opposite the site.

·    Low rise 1 and 2 storey dwelling houses are also scattered across the immediate locality such as 6, 8 and 10 Mary Street.

·    An educational establishment being the St Joachims Catholic Primary School lies further to the west at 5 - 11 Mary Street which is listed as a local heritage item Number I180.

·    Further afield, various mixed used development, commercial developments and retail outlets dominate due to the land use zoning that permits such developments.

Furthermore, a 1.5 metre wide drainage easement is located to the immediate east of the site situated between 31 and 33 Mary Street.

Description of The Development

Development application 2024/0751 is an amending development application that is proposing various alterations to the approved mixed use development approved under Development Consent 2022/0643. Effectively, the NDIS apartments and the swim school across the upper floors are fully removed and will be replaced with three levels of co living rooms.

As such, the approved apartments on Levels 3 and 4 and the swim school of level 5 is replaced with 20 co living rooms and associated communal rooms. This includes the necessary internal layout changes that are required to support the land use change and changes to the rooftop common area.

The rooftop common area is retained but increased in size to allow for co living communal use.

The main features and changes per level is described within the table below.

Generally, the primary changes are occurring mainly across Levels 3 to 5 of the building. As such, the building now features:

a)   A two level basement car park for 23 vehicles. Of this, 19 car parking spaces are to be allocated for use for the childcare centre and 4 car parking spaces are to be used for the co living rooms of the building.

b)   A childcare centre for 76 children which is retained but slightly modified. The approved childcare centre is generally retained across the ground, first and second storeys of the building.

c)   Co living rooms across Levels 3, 4 and 5 encompassing:

·      17 x single occupant co living rooms.

·      3 x two occupant co living rooms.

History

The site benefits from development consent 2022/0643 for the demolition of the existing two storey residential flat building and construction of a seven (7) storey mixed use development comprising of:

·    An 80 place childcare centre.

·    4 residential apartments under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

·    An indoor recreation facility comprising a swimming pool.

·    Basement car park.

The primary development application was approved by the Land and Environment Court following a Section 34 Conference on Tuesday 24 October 2023 subject to conditions.

Modification application 2024/0051 being a Section 4.56 application was approved under delegated authority on Thursday 12 September 2024 for various amendments to the seven 7) storey mixed use development which included a revision of the basement car park, increase the floor to floor heights of each floor of the building, increase to the overall building height, a reduction in the National Disability Insurance Scheme apartment sizes and a reduction in the play space requirements associated with the child care centre resulting in a reduction of 4 child places from 80 places to 76 places. The application was approved subject to conditions.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners which is dated December 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 Development Engineer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Environmental Health

The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions.

Waste Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer for comment. No comments were received within the allocated time. No objection is raised to the development application.

External Referrals

The following external referrals have been undertaken:

Ausgrid

The development application was referred to Ausgrid, but no comment was received in the allocated time. Ausgrid previously responded to development application 2022/0643.

Planning Comments

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

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

The development application has been submitted under Chapter 3 (Part 3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. As stated in the above table, there are two variations that requires attention being:

·    Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) - A Clause 4.6 Variation is lodged for consideration for the size of the allotment which is addressed below under the heading - “Assessment of the Size of the Allotment - Clause 4.6 Variation”. It is determined the Clause 4.6 Variation request may be supported given the discussion provided.

·    Clause 69(2)(b) addressing side and rear setbacks. The clause requires that where the co living housing has at least 3 storeys, the building will comply with the minimum building separation distances specified in the Apartment Design Guide.

The separation distances taken from the Apartment Design Guide are provided below:

Comments

The main setbacks should be:

·    Level 3 - 6 metres.

·    Level 4 and 5 - 9 metres.

The proposed building setbacks for the co living rooms for Levels 3, 4 and 5 are shown within the table below:

 

The variations to the setbacks are addressed below.

Applicant’s comments

The site is located within the R4 zone and varies the side and rear setbacks as outlined in the Cumberland Development Control Plan and that of the Apartment Design Guide. The proposed building footprint is generally consistent with the approval of development application 2022/0643. The setbacks approved for that building were considered appropriate to accommodate residential apartments on each level.

Given the setbacks provided, the adjoining drainage reserve and the land uses on the immediate adjoining sites, an appropriate setback is provided to all adjoining boundaries that will not unacceptably impact on the privacy of the adjoining properties.

Planning comments

The applicant’s comments may be supported. In addition:

·    The footprint of the ground, first and second floors are not subject to any change.

·    Changes have occurred across the upper floors but important setbacks established for the original building are retained.

·    The 1.53 metre wide drainage reserve along the eastern side of the building provides additional building separation. Further, the number of windows facing east is limited in extent to mainly insignificant glazed elements. A significant privacy issue is not identified.

·    The co living rooms are setback as far as possible from the western side boundary and further additional setbacks is not feasible given that the allotment has a limited width of 19.5 metres and isolated by surrounding developments. It is not feasible to provide a side setback of 9 metres from the western property boundary plus an appropriate setback distance from the eastern property boundary. The main west facing and south facing windows feature obscure glazed elements which improves the level of privacy to the south and west.

·    Additional privacy screens will be required for the west facing balconies to maintain adequate privacy, but this may be addressed as a condition attached to any consent issued.

For the reasons presented above, the development is considered acceptable for the site in terms of proposed building setbacks.

 

Local Environmental Plans

Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021

The provision of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 is applicable to the development application. It is noted that the development achieves compliance with the floor space ratio provisions but not for the height of buildings clause. The development is determined as achieving the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone that prevails.

(a)     Permissibility:

The proposed development is defined as:

1.   A Centre based childcare facility.

2.   Co living housing.

1 - Centre-based child care facility means—

(a)  a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides any one or more of the following—

(i) long day care,

(ii) occasional child care,

(iii) out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

(iv) preschool care, or

(b)  (an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)),

Note -

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

but does not include—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note -

Centre-based child care facilities are a type of early education and care facility—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

2 - co-living housing means a building or place that—

(a) has at least 6 private rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, and

(b) provides occupants with a principal place of residence for at least 3 months, and

(c) has shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, maintained by a managing agent, who provides management services 24 hours a day,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

Note -

Co-living housing is a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

Pursuant to Section 67 of SEPP (Housing) 2021, co-living housing development may be carried out with consent on land in a zone which development for the purposes of co-living housing, residential flat buildings and shop top housing is permitted under another environmental planning instrument. Residential Flat Buildings are permitted with consent in an R4 High Density Residential zone under the CLEP 2021, and therefore the proposed development is permissible pursuant to Section 67 of the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

Both land uses are permitted with consent within the R4 High Density Residential zone.

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 B.

 

Assessment of the Size of the Allotment - Clause 4.6 Variation.

The application seeks to vary the development standard for Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 for allotment size.

Clause 4.6 aims to achieve better design outcomes for and from development by allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility to development standards if particular circumstances are satisfied.

Consent may only be granted upon the consent authority being satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated in a document submitted with the application that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and (b), there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

A variation of 1.9% to the lot size requirement of Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) is sought. The site cannot be amalgamated with the adjoining land parcels given its location. In particular:

·    The site adjoins a drainage easement to the east.

·    A childcare centre and church complex lies to the west.

(a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

The decision of Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827, affirmed in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 set out five common and non-exhaustive ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. They were that:

(i)    the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

(ii)   the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

(iii)  the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

(iv)  the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

(v)   the zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Applicant’s justification:

The applicant states that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the underlying objectives of the control, and the objectives of the zone are achieved despite the non-compliance to the numerical development standard as set out above, which satisfies Wehbe Test 1.

The objective of the clause is not identified but is assumed to relate to ensuring that an adequately sized allotment is provided for a Co-Living development. Notwithstanding the numerical departure the development is consistent with the intent of the clause as:

a)   The existing allotment is undersized and is a result of historic subdivisions before the current LEP came into force. A residential flat building or mixed use development could be constructed on the site and given this, it is inconsistent with the Housing SEPP that a diverse form of housing being a co-living development would be unable to be constructed on the same lot area that a residential flat development could be- hence the SEPP provision for a numerical requirement is at odds with the sensible approach in the CLEP 2021 that enables merit consideration of the adequacy of the lot size in determining the suitability of a residential flat development on a site which is a suitable approach to take with this co living development. In this case, the site benefits from an approval for a mixed use development including 4 apartments, with this application seeking to replace the 4 apartments with a co-living development with a similar footprint as the approved apartments.

b)   The main intent of the control is to ensure that an appropriately sized site is provided for a Co-Living development. The lodgement of a local development application allows Council to consider the merits of the application in terms of site coverage, building height.

c)   The development proposal remains compliant with the FSR provisions within the planning controls and does not further vary the LEP Height control which indicates the form of development is entirely appropriate for the allotment notwithstanding the departure from the numerical control pertaining to lot size. Therefore, the area and dimensions of the lot are able to accommodate a co living development consistent with the key planning controls notwithstanding the proposed departure from the lot size control. The design and scale of the development is therefore site responsive and respects the reduced lot size to deliver an appropriate form of development on the site.

d)   The proposal provides for an intensity of development that is capable of being serviced by the existing infrastructure.

e)   The subdivision pattern of the locality is varied with a variety of allotment shapes and sizes existing currently and this allotment does not easily amalgamate with adjoining parcels given its orientation and location within the street block.

f)    The subject site is within proximity of local amenities including employment opportunities, educational establishments, public transportation, and recreational activities; and

g)   The proposed variation to the minimum lot size is not readily perceived when compared with the existing subdivision pattern within the locality and noting the 1.9% departure.

Planning comments

The following considerations are provided.

a)   The existing allotment is landlocked between a drainage easement and a Strata titled residential flat building to the east which limits the ability to extend any development towards the east. There is a large residential apartment building to the south which is also under a Strata title scheme. A place of public worship, childcare centre and associated accommodation and car park is located on land to the west. As a result, the site cannot be expanded.

b)   The site has the benefit of an approved mixed use development encompassing the childcare centre, apartments and a swim school above. The new development replaces the approved apartments and swim school with co living housing. The building retains most of the approved setbacks, built form and footprint. As such, the building has a similar appearance to the building already approved.

c)   The floor space ratio of the amended building is compliant with the relevant provisions and the height control is generally not varied further from what is already approved.

d)   The variation to the control is minor at 1.9% or 15 square metres which is not readily perceived across the site.

(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

In respect of there being sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, Initial Action found that although the phrase ‘environmental planning’ is not defined, it would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including the objects in s.1.3. To be sufficient, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248.

Applicant’s justification

In accordance with the provisions of this clause it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the proposed departure to the minimum allotment size given the following:

a)   The existing allotment is undersized and is a result of historic subdivisions before the current LEP came into force. A residential flat building or mixed use development could be constructed on the site and given this; it is inconsistent with the Housing SEPP that a diverse form of housing being a co-living development would be unable to be constructed on the same lot area that a residential flat development could be. Hence the SEPP provision for a numerical requirement is at odds with the sensible approach in the CLEP 2021 that enables merit consideration of the adequacy of the lot size in determining the suitability of a residential flat development on a site- which is a suitable approach to take with this co-living development. The site benefits from an approval for a mixed use development including 4 apartments, with this application seeking to replace the 4 apartments with a co-living development with a similar footprint as the approved apartments, as well as replacing an approved swim school with co-living suites with a similar footprint to the other floors of co-living suites.

b)   Australia is experiencing a housing crisis and the provision of co-living development will increase the supply of compact rental accommodation for a range of occupants, with minimum tenancies of 3 months in a very accessible location.

c)   The development proposes a modest development on an allotment that has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining properties. The revised development will not have an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties.

d)   The proposal will provide affordable accommodation for key workers and university students in an accessible location that has ready access to the Lidcombe Town Centre and employment centres such as the Parramatta CBD.

e)   The development is consistent with the Cumberland City Council Affordable Housing Strategy 2020 as it will marginally reduce the level of rental housing stress experienced by residents across Cumberland City Council so that they can thrive socially and economically by increasing the provision of affordable rental housing. More affordable rental housing will allow more residents to live closer to work, or close to good public transport links that make the journey to work cheaper, faster and easier.

f)    The development is located within an approved mixed use development envelope which previously contained 4 apartments and the impacts of this were found acceptable by Council and the Land and Environment Court.

 

 

 

Planning comments

a)   Similar to what is previously stated, the allotment is constrained by size due to being landlocked on three sides by existing developments.

b)   The development will assist in providing an alternate form of housing that is close to services and a transport node.

c)   The additional impacts created by the modified development are not significant. The modified building is contained largely within the approved footprint of the original building.

d)   The development is located within an approved mixed use development envelope which previously contained 4 apartments and the impacts of this were found acceptable by Council and the Land and Environment Court.

Conclusion

As the applicant’s justification has satisfied the test under clause 4.6 for allotment size of Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy Housing (2021), the application is capable of being approved subject to a satisfactory merit assessment.

Assessment of the Height of Buildings - Clause 4.6 Variation

Clause 4.6 aims to achieve better design outcomes for and from development by allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility to development standards if particular circumstances are satisfied.

The application seeks to vary the development standard for height of buildings under Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. Consent may only be granted upon the consent authority being satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated in a document submitted with the application that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and (b), there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

(a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

The decision of Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827, affirmed in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 set out five common and non-exhaustive ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. They were that:

(vi)    the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

(vii)   the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

(viii)  the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

(ix)    the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

(x)     the zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Applicant’s justification

In accordance with the provisions of this clause it is considered that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the underlying objectives of the control are achieved. The objectives of the building height development standard are stated as:

a)   to establish a maximum height of buildings to enable appropriate development density,

b)   to ensure that the height of buildings is compatible with the character of the locality,

c)   to minimise the visual impact of development,

d)   to ensure sufficient solar access and privacy for neighbouring properties.

The current development proposal is consistent with the underlying intent of the control based on the following key points:

a)   The overall height of the development presents as a compatible form of development to the anticipated high density residential development that are emerging in the locality, noting that the emerging character is for 6 plus storey residential developments. The common open space areas and lift overrun that are the main components of the building that exceed the height control are recessed behind the main building alignment to downplay visual dominance as viewed from the public domain and adjoining residential /industrial properties.

b)   The proportion of the building that protrudes above the 20m height limit contains limited floor space and presents with a dominant 6 storey building design, reinforcing that the breach to the height standard does not result in the development representing an overdevelopment of the site but rather a suitable contextual response to the locational characteristics on the site in order to achieve a suitable ground floor outcome with sufficient amenity for the suites at this level.

c)   The proposed development incorporates a complying floor space ratio as per the provisions of the CLEP 2021 and the Housing SEPP which will ensure that the scale of the proposed development will be appropriate and will be visually consistent with the permitted building height with the upper levels recessed and designed using a lighter design style to ensure a positive streetscape presentation.

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

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

f)    The proposed articulation of the built form will ensure that the additional building height will not be noticeable from street level and that the proposed development will provide a strong and identifiable building line that will pronounce the site’s prominent and strategic gateway entry location at the edge of the Lidcombe Town Centre.

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

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

Planning comments

The following considerations are provided.

a)   It is agreed that the development is compatible for the locality and site given the land use planning controls that prevail. The general character for the locality is for buildings to reach six (6) storeys in height. The common open space and lift overrun are the primary components that exceed the 20 metre height limitation. The protruding components do not dominate the building.

b)   The 20 metre height level does not pass through or into habitable floor area. As such, the height variation is limited to non habitable floor space.

c)   The floor space ratio of the building at 2.17:1 is compliant with the relevant provision of the Station Policy governing co living housing.

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

e)   The degree of shadowing created by the building is similar to that initially approved given that the height is not subject to any significant increase.

f)    Notwithstanding some differences to the setbacks of individual living areas, privacy impacts to the adjoining developments are minimised as much as possible.

(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

In respect of there being sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, Initial Action found that although the phrase ‘environmental planning’ is not defined, it would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including the objects in s.1.3. To be sufficient, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248.

Applicant’s justification

The variation has a number of distinct environmental planning benefits including that:

a)   The proposal will strongly contribute towards revitalising the subject area as it will increase employment opportunities both during the construction phase and at the completion of the proposal. The 20 co-living suites will provide augmented patronage in the locality thus both components will contribute towards boosting the local economy of Lidcombe.

b)   The 20 co-living suites will provide diverse housing for a range of residents that may not otherwise be able to live in this location including students, key workers and employees with low incomes.

c)   Australia is experiencing a housing crisis and the provision of co-living development will increase the supply of compact rental accommodation for a range of occupants with minimum tenancies of 3 months in a very accessible location.

d)   The development proposes a modest development on an allotment that has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining properties. The revised development will not have an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties.

e)   The proposal will provide affordable accommodation for key workers and university students in an accessible location that has ready access to the Lidcombe Town Centre and employment centres such as the Parramatta CBD.

f)    The development is consistent with the Cumberland Council Affordable Housing Strategy 2020 as it will marginally reduce the level of rental housing stress experienced by residents across Cumberland Council so that they can thrive socially and economically by increasing the provision of affordable rental housing. More affordable rental housing will allow more residents to live closer to work, or close to good public transport links that make the journey to work cheaper, faster and easier.

g)   The development is largely located within an approved mixed use development envelope which previously contained 4 apartments and the impacts of this were found acceptable by Council and the Land and Environment Court.

h)  The proposal will facilitate the redevelopment of a vacant allotment.

i)    The proposal will provide for a number of distinct public benefits.

·   Delivery of additional housing and a childcare facility within close proximity to the Employment Precinct of the Lidcombe Town Centre.

·   Creation of jobs during the construction stage and the ongoing use of the premises.

·   Activation of the street level.

·   Provision of appropriate solar access to residents of the development.

·   Amenity impacts to adjoining properties are mitigated and the distribution of additional floor space across the site will not be discernibly different to a built form that is compliant with the height control.

·   The scale and intensity of the development is appropriate noting that the proposal complies with the maximum FSR, which demonstrates an appropriate development outcome.

Planning comments

a)   The co-living housing will provide suitable housing for a range of residents that may not otherwise be able to live in this location such as students, key workers and employees with lower incomes.

b)   The development will increase the supply of compact rental accommodation for a range of occupants with minimum tenancies of 3 months in a very accessible location close to a shopping district and a transport node.

c)   The impacts of the modified development to the immediate locality are generally consistent with that already approved by the Land and Environment Court.

d)   The development achieves a compliant floor space ratio which is slightly less than that permitted across the site

Conclusion

As the applicant’s justification has satisfied the test under clause 4.6 for Height of Buildings of Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021, the application is capable of being approved subject to a satisfactory merit assessment.

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

Council has received a Gateway Determination (from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for the Draft Woodville Road Corridor Planning Proposal. As part of this approval, public exhibition of the Draft Woodville Road Corridor Planning Proposal has commenced. The Public Exhibition period is from 4 March 2025 to 17 April 2025 inclusive.

The Draft Planning Proposal seeks to revitalise Woodville Road by amending planning controls in the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan (CLEP) 2021 for 31 sites located around the three (3) precincts of Woodville North, Merrylands East and Woodville South.

The development application was lodged on Wednesday 15 January 2025 and the site does not fall within the Draft Woodville Road Corridor. Therefore, no further consideration is required.

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

The Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 is relevant to the development proposal. The development application has been assessed using the following chapters:

1.   Chapter B - Development in Residential Zones.

·   Part B3 Residential Flat Buildings (Only where relevant for the co living rooms on Levels 3, 4 and 5).

·   Part B5 Adaptable Housing and Housing Mix.

2.   Chapter E - Other land use based development controls

·   Centre Based Childcare Facilities.

3.   Part G - Miscellaneous Development Controls.

·   Part G3 - Traffic Parking, Transport and Access (Vehicle).

·   Part G4 - Stormwater and Drainage.

·   Part G5 - Sustainability, Biodiversity and Environmental Management.

·   Part G7 - Tree Management and Landscaping.

·   Part G8 - Waste Management.

The development is found to comply with most of the relevant provisions except for the following:

1 - Fencing (For front fence) - Height of solid base - Part B (Subpart 2.14) - Development in Residential Zones Chapter

The maximum height should be 900 mm whereas 1,000 mm is proposed. The 100 mm (11.1%) variation is considered to be minor and having no appreciable impact to the street or locality. Further, the fence structure is obscuring a sprinkler booster. The decision is taken to obscure a structure which has a less than satisfactory appearance to the street.

2 - Building envelope (Street setback) - Part B3 (Subpart 3.1) Control C2 - Residential Flat Buildings Chapter.

The street setback should be 6 metres. The primary building is setback 6 metres from the street but an articulation zone has been developed for the front part of the building which results in three balconies extending into the front setback area by 1.25 metres (20.8%).

This is a minor increase of 250 mm when compared to the most recent approval granted for the front balconies.

There are vertical and horizontal design feature that intrude into the front setback area. The balconies form part of the design features that significantly improves the front appearance and streetscape presentation. On this account, it is considered reasonable to retain the features in their present locations.

A detailed assessment is at Appendix C and D of the report.

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 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))

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021, the development was notified for a period of fourteen (14) days between Thursday 30 January 2025 and Thursday 13 February 2025. In response Council received 1 submission. The issues raised in the public submission is summarised and commented on as follows:

 

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 EPA Act 1979 which is calculated on the cost of works. A total contribution amount is $70,535 which is 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) on the grounds that Co living housing as per Schedule 1 is considered as being “Commercial development”.

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.

The development application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 being Chapter 2 - Vegetation in non Rural Areas and Chapter 6 Water Catchments (Sydney Harbour Catchment).

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 being Chapter 4 - Remediation of Land (Part 4.6).

(c)  State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 - Chapter 2 (Infrastructure) Part 2.41 and 2.48, 2.100 and Chapter 3 (Part 3.3).

(d) State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 - Chapter 2 and 3.

(e) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 being Chapter 3 (Part 3 for Co living housing).

(f)  Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.

(g) Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021

The proposed development is appropriately located within the R4 High Density zone under the relevant provisions of the Cumberland LEP. However, the following variations are sought:

·    Allotment size of Clause 69(1)(b)(ii)) of SEPP Housing 2021.

·    Building height of Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021.

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

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

There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.

There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.

The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

1.  That the Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the size of the allotment development standard, pursuant to Clause 69(1)(b)(ii)) of SEPP (Housing) 2021 be supported.

2.  That the Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the height of buildings development standard, pursuant to the Cumberland LEP 2021, be supported.

3.  That Development Application 2024/0751 for alterations and additions to a mixed use development approved under Development Application 2022/0643 to remove NDIS rental apartments and a swim school and to introduce 20 co living rooms and associated communal rooms and changes to the basement car park.

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

 

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Redacted Submissions  

3.      Architectural and Landscape Plans  

4.      Most recent approved plans under Modification Consent 2024/0051  

5.      Clause 4.6 Variation Request for Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 for size of allotment  

6.      Clause 4.6 Variation Request for Height of Building Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021  

7.      Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policies  

8.      Appendix B - Cumberland LEP 2021 Assessment Table  

9.      Appendix C - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment Table for Childcare Centres  

10.    Appendix D - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment Table for Residential Flat Buildings   

 

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 2

Redacted Submissions

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 3

Architectural and Landscape Plans

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 4

Most recent approved plans under Modification Consent 2024/0051

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 5

Clause 4.6 Variation Request for Clause 69(1)(b)(ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 for size of allotment

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 6

Clause 4.6 Variation Request for Height of Building Clause 4.3 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 7

Appendix A - State Environmental Planning Policies

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 8

Appendix B - Cumberland LEP 2021 Assessment Table

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 9

Appendix C - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment Table for Childcare Centres

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP010/25

Attachment 10

Appendix D - Cumberland DCP 2021 Assessment Table for Residential Flat Buildings

 7 May 2025

 7 May 2025

Item No: ELPP011/25

Development Application - 112 Girraween Road, Girraween

Directorate:                                       Environment and Planning  

Responsible Officer:                       Executive Manager City Planning and Development   

 

 

1.  Development Application No. DA2024/0715 was lodged on 12 December 2024 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy, conversion of the existing secondary dwelling and garage into two studio outbuildings, Torrens title subdivision into two lots and conversion of the two studio outbuildings into two secondary dwellings.

2.  The application was publicly notified to occupants and owners of the adjoining properties for a period of 14 days between 21 January 2025 and 4 February 2025. In response, one (1) submission was received.

3.  There is no heritage items located on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, nor is the site located within a Heritage Conservation Area.

4.  The variations are as follows:

5.  The application is referred to the Panel as the proposal contravenes a development standard by more than 10%. (Clause 53(2)(a) of the Statement of Environmental Planning Policy – Housing (2021)).

6.  The application is recommended for Refusal as discussed in the Council’s assessment report below and a list of the reasons is provided under attachment 1.

Subject Site and Surrounding Area

The site forms Lot 101 DP 1116199 and is known as 112 Girraween Road GIRRAWEEN NSW  2145. The site has an area of 742.0m2, a frontage of 18.28m to the western side of Girraween Road, a rear boundary of 17.28m and a depth of 42.69m. The site has falls approximately 2.0m towards the front, north-eastern corner at a gentle to moderate grade.

A site inspection of the premises was carried out on 7 February 2025, and it was confirmed that the site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling towards the front of the lot and secondary dwelling and double garage approved under CDC2012/5152 towards the rear of the lot.

The existing developments adjoining the site include two storey developments on either side. Subject site is located approx. 45m north of a classified road identified as Gilba Road. Girraween High school is located approximately 100m south of the subject site.

The subject site and surrounding area is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021. The site is located in an established residential area comprising mainly single dwellings and dual occupancy developments which are characteristic of the low-density residential environment.

Figure 1: Zoning of the subject site, which is outlined in yellow (Source: NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer).

Figure 2: Aerial view of the locality and the subject site, which is outlined in blue (Source: NearMap).

Figure 3: Site inspection photo of the street frontage of the subject site (Inspected date: 7 February 2025).

Figure 4: Existing secondary dwelling and double garage located towards the rear of the site approved under CDC2012/5152 (Inspected date: 7 February 2025).

Description of The Development

Council is in receipt of a development application that was accepted on 12 December 2024 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy, conversion of the existing secondary dwelling and garage into two studio outbuildings, Torrens title subdivision into two lots and conversion of the two studio outbuildings into two secondary dwellings. The proposal is detailed below in two (2) stages:

Stage 1:

Demolition:

·    Existing one storey dwelling, internal demolition works to secondary dwelling inclusive of stove and laundry.

Construction:

Dual occupancy 

Unit 1/ Lot 1:

·    Ground floor: Garage, living, bathroom, stairs, storage, laundry, kitchen dining, family, and outdoor alfresco.

·    First-floor: Front balcony, master bedroom with respective walk-in wardrobe and ensuite, three (3) bedrooms with respective built in wardrobes, stairs, void, bathroom, rumpus, and two balconies to the rear.

Existing secondary dwelling converted to a studio at lot 1:

·    Living, bedroom, bathroom, and laundry (as stated in the statement of environmental effects the stovetop and laundry is proposed to be removed, however this is not accurately reflected in architectural drawings).

Unit 2/ Lot 2:

·    Ground floor: Garage, living, bathroom, stairs, storage, laundry, kitchen dining, family, and outdoor alfresco.

·    First-floor: Front balcony, master bedroom with respective walk-in wardrobe and ensuite, three (3) bedrooms with respective built in wardrobes, stairs, void, bathroom, rumpus, and two balconies to the rear.

Existing double garage converted to a studio at lot 2:

·    Studio and water closet.

Torrens title subdivision:

·    Lot 1 = Frontage of 9.7m to Girraween Road and area of 380.2m2

·    Lot 2 = Frontage of 8.5m to Girraween Road and area of 361.8m2

Stage 2 (after subdivision has been registered with the NSW Land Registry services):

Conversion of studio to secondary dwelling to Lot 1:

·    Kitchen, living, bedroom, bathroom, and laundry.

Conversion of studio to secondary dwelling to Lot 2:

·    Two (2) bedrooms with respective built in wardrobes, living, kitchen, linen closet, and bathroom.

Please note: The applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects outlines a 2-stage approach has been proposed to ensure permissibility of the proposal as defined under the CLEP2021. Subdivision is to occur first to avoid 4 dwellings on a single lot of land. The outcome after subdivision will be semi-detached dwellings with secondary dwellings to each lot which is permissible in the R2 zone.

Several matters are noteworthy when comparing the above description of development and the plans lodged with the application:

1.   The subdivision plan shows lot 1 having an area of 380.2m2 and lot 2 having an area of 361.8m2. Dimensions are not provided for either lot. Based upon the near rectangular shape of lot 2 (eastern and western boundaries are 0O0’10” away from being parallel) and the 42.69m length of the southern boundary, the council deduces that the width of the lot must be in the order of 8.475m. If correct, the width of the majority of lot 1 (excluding where the lot fans out at the street frontage) would be 8.805m (17.28m less 8.475m). That results, in a general sense, of lot 1 being 0.33m wider that lot 2.

2.   Full dimensions of the pair of dwellings fronting the street have not been provided. Using provided first floor dimensions and making assumptions for consistent wall thickness, there is a minor discrepancy which suggests lot 1 is 0.31m wider that lot 2. 

3.   No dimensions, at all, are provided on survey or architectural plans for the studios / secondary dwellings. There is a narrow void between the two studios / dwellings that separate the internal wall of each studio / dwelling. In the absence of dimensions, it is unclear where the proposed lot boundary lies relative to internal walls and the void.

4.   Stage 1 is described to include removal of a stove and laundry. A skeptical mind might wonder if that would happen, only for the stove and laundry to return in stage 2. The stove and laundry removal are not shown on the demolition plan (other windows and garage doors are noted or marked). There is a note on the stage 1 ground floor plan to remove the stove, but there is no such note for the laundry which is unchanged and identically marked between both stages. 

History

 

Application No.	Proposal	Status	Date
CDC2012/5152/1	Construction of a secondary dwelling and attached garage.   It is worthy to note that the Complying Development Certificate No. CDC2012/5152 was approved under the former Holroyd City Council.	Approved	30 July 2012
OC2012/5152/1	Occupation Certificate No. OC2012/5152/1 was issued for the secondary dwelling and attached garage on 25 March 2014.	Issued	25 March 2014
DA2019/237/1	Demolition of existing structures, construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots.   On 26 June 2019, DA2019/237/1 was lodged.   On 4 September 2019, deferred commencement development consent was granted to DA2019/237/1.   The second of the deferred commencement conditions read as follows: 2. The existing double garage and attached secondary dwelling currently proposed to be converted into a covered entertaining area/pergola for each proposed dual occupancy unit is not supported by Council and amended plans are to be submitted to Council which nominate the entire existing double garage and attached secondary dwelling to be demolished and converted to landscape/deep soil area. All plans including architectural, stormwater and landscape are to be amended and correspond with this requirement.   With remaining schedule A conditions satisfied, the consent became operative on 14 January 2020.   Works to demolish the single storey dwelling and construct the attached dual occupancy approved under DA2019/237/1 are yet to commence.	Deferred Commencement consent granted      Consent operative	4 September 2019       14 January 2020
MOD2020/0009	Modification Application - S4.55(1A) Modification min. environmental impact - Removal of Development Consent condition No.2.   Under this consent the following had been modified: ·     deleting condition 2 under Schedule A deferred commencement condition which states “The existing double garage and attached secondary dwelling currently proposed to be converted into a covered entertaining area/pergola for each proposed dual occupancy unit is not supported by Council and amended plans are to be submitted to Council which nominate the entre existing garage and attached secondary dwelling to be demolished and converted to landscape/deep soil area. All plans including architectural stormwater and landscape are to be amended and corresponds with this requirement.” Please note amended plans which demonstrates this had been provided amending condition 2 of Schedule B regular conditions to the effect of inserting reference to new approved plans and reports; and ·     adding a new condition, numbered 116, reading: 116.         The rear pergolas for each proposed lot are not to be enclosed under any circumstances.	Approved	14 January 2020
CC2023/0052	Construction Certificate Private Certifier Issue - A single dwelling - Demolition of existing structures, construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy and associated Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots at 112 Girraween Road, Girraween NSW 2145.   Please note: No construction works have begun, and a subdivision certificate has not been issued.	Issued	07 February 2023
MOD2024/0072	Section 4.55(1A) modification to retain the existing secondary dwelling and workshop at the rear of the approved dual occupancy	Refused	13 June 2024

Please note: Development Application DA2024/0715 was accepted on 12 December 2024. A request to withdraw letter was sent to the applicant 22 January 2025. Accordingly, an email correspondence from the applicant and homeowner confirmed their intentions to proceed with the application.

Applicants Supporting Statement

The applicant has provided a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by think planners dated 11 October 2024 and was received by Council on 12 December 2024 in support of the application.

The applicant has also submitted a Clause 4.6 statement, reference no. 2024-142 prepared by Design Corp Architects was received by Council on 12 December 2024 in support of the application. The Variation request is in relation to the minimum lot size for a secondary dwelling under the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

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

Building Surveying

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Surveyor for comment who has advised that the proposal is not satisfactory as the proposed conversion to a studio, then to a secondary dwelling, fails to comply with the National Construction Code 2022, Building Code of Australia, Volume 2, and the ABCB Housing Provisions Standard 2022.

Tree Management

The development application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who has advised that the proposal is satisfactory. Should the application be approved, conditions of consent have been recommended for the retention, protection and preservation of trees and landscaped areas.

 

External Referrals

Sydney Water

An external referral was made to Sydney Water (Sydney Water Act Clause 78). Accordingly, Sydney Water has raised no objections, subject to recommended conditions of consent should the application be supported.

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:

Statement Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

The application has been submitted under Chapter 3 Part 1 Division 2 of the SEPP (Housing) 2021. It should be noted that the proposal generally complies with the key planning controls contained within the SEPP (Housing) 2021, with the exception of Clause 53(2)(a) which states that for a detached secondary dwelling the development must have a minimum site area of 450m2.

Notwithstanding the variation noted above, the proposed development is considered acceptable from an environmental planning viewpoint and a comprehensive assessment against SEPP (Housing) 2021 and a discussion of the clause 4.6 request is provided below.

 

Clause 4.6 – Variation to Clause 53(2)(a) - Minimum Site Area

Clause 4.6 allows the consent authority to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. The consent authority may grant the exception as the Secretary’s concurrence can be assumed where clause 4.6 is adopted as per the Department of Planning Circular PS 20-002, dated 05 May 2020.

As previously discussed, the application seeks to vary the minimum site area of 450m2 for a detached secondary dwelling as required by Clause 53(2)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. The proposed subdivision has a site area of 380.2m2 for Lot 1 which is deficient and contravenes the development standard by 69.8m2 equating to a 15.51% variation. Similarly, the site area for Lot 2 will be  361.8m2 which is deficient and contravenes the standard by 88.2m2 equating to a 19.6% variation.

Consent may only be granted upon the consent authority being satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated in a document submitted with the application that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and (b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard for Minimum Site Area based on various case laws established by the Land and Environment Court of NSW such as Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSW LEC 7, Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1015, and Four2five P/L v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 9 to justify the variation. An assessment and detailed discussion is provided.

a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

The decision of Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827, affirmed in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 set out five common and non-exhaustive ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. They were that:

(i)    the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

(ii)   the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

(iii)  the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

(iv)  the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

(v)   the zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Applicant’s justification:

The applicant relies on the case law established in Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC (i.e., the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard), claiming that the proposed variation to the site area will be visually imperceptible when viewed from the adjoining properties and the surrounding public domain. The subject site has demonstrated to accommodate a secondary dwelling that complies with the relevant development standards applicable including height, FSR and the relevant controls of the DCP including POS, landscaping, site coverage and solar access, therefore strict application of the minimum site area standard is not necessary. The development is consistent with principles of the Housing SEPP 2021 and zone objectives (please refer to attached Clause 4.6 for applicant’s detailed assessment against principles). Strict compliance with the site area control is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances as outlined from the Wehbe v Pittwater Council case law. Development will not have adverse environmental, or amenity impacts and will provide a positive outcome with minimal impact on surrounding development.

Planner’s comment:

The likely intent of the development standard at clause 53(2)(a) is to ensure overdevelopment does not occur and residents of the subject development and surrounding sites are provided with a satisfactory level of amenity. Council is not satisfied that the development adequately achieves these outcomes (with regard to building mass, siting, and amenity requirements). Please see detailed assessment against the following principles of the Housing SEPP 2021 that are not satisfactory:

a) encouraging the development of housing that will meet the needs of more vulnerable members of the community, including very low to moderate income households, seniors and people with a disability.

Comment: The proposed secondary dwellings do not accommodate the needs of the vulnerable members of the community as it fails to demonstrate compliance with the National Construction Code 2022. In particular with regard to fire safety and preventing the spread of fire. Accordingly, the need of adequate protection and safety of vulnerable members of the community has been compromised.

b) ensuring new housing development provides residents with a reasonable level of amenity.

Comment: The proposed secondary dwellings have not been designed to provide a suitable level of amenity for future residents as there is insufficient separation between two secondary dwellings to allow for a sense of openness between buildings. Insufficient separation/setbacks are considered to potentially impact privacy issues on surrounding residences and their sense of private open space and environment.

c)  promoting the planning and delivery of housing in locations where it will make good use of existing and planned infrastructure and services.

Comment: The proposed secondary dwellings are located in an area that is serviced by existing infrastructure and service. However, existing infrastructure fails to comply with the National Construction Code 2022. In particular with regard to fire safety and preventing the spread of fire. Accordingly, the conversion of existing infrastructure to secondary dwellings is not considered “good use” of existing infrastructure as protection and safety of residences has been compromised.

d) reinforcing the importance of designing housing in a way that reflects and enhances its locality.

Comment: The proposed secondary dwellings are not considered to enhance local characteristics. Although not visible from the street frontage, the proposed secondary dwellings sharing an attached common wall is not only non-compliant but will create an undesirable precedence. Moreover, the secondary dwellings are considered to be poorly designed, diminishing amenities and privacy.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the desired low-density character of the area. The proposal provides inadequate site area that is not consistent with the relevant planning instruments and would represent overdevelopment of the resultant subdivision pattern, and the correlation between the building height and density is not considered appropriate. As demonstrated in the attached assessment tables the development fails to be complaint with the building mass (i.e., in regard to side setbacks), and amenity requirements of the relevant planning instruments. In this regard, Council considers the provided written request to be inadequate with addressing part (a).

b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

In respect of there being sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, Initial Action found that although the phrase ‘environmental planning’ is not defined, it would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including the objects in s.1.3. To be sufficient, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248.

Applicant’s justification:

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support a variation of the development standard, hence the minimum site area requirement should be approached with an element of flexibility as follows:

·    The development has been designed to minimise impacts where practicable on neighbouring properties and likely future adjoining properties.

·    Strict compliance with the site area standard would result in no material-built form benefits and loss of resident amenity, as the difference between a compliant built form and the one proposed is minimal.

·    There is also a discrepancy between the SEPP and the CDCP 2021, where the minimum site area of the DCP is 380m² for secondary dwellings. There is an inconsistency between the DCP, and the SEPP and it is evident that Council’s controls envisaged secondary dwellings on sites smaller than 450m².

Planner’s comment:

Council considers that the development will not protect the amenity of residents within the development and the adjoining properties as the development is excessive. The resultant lot sizes from the proposed subdivision are insufficient in size to appropriately accommodate two secondary dwellings noting that the proposal fails to comply with the relevant planning controls that is designed to protect the amenity of future residences inclusive of safety and acoustic impacts to the adjoining properties . The proposal failing to meet these provisions including failure to comply with the NCC has a cumulative effect of the proposal representing an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal therefore cannot be supported in its current form and is not considered to be a favourable design outcome as it would lead to an undesirable precedence. Moreover, it would diminish the weight of the development control or standard if it cannot protect inappropriate development from being developed in the area.

Further to not complying with the minimum site area the development fails to comply with the following controls outlined under the CDCP and the Design Guide: compliance with BCA/NCC, secondary dwelling’s setbacks, studio’s size and setback. The proposed secondary dwellings have not been designed to provide a suitable level of amenity for future residents as there is insufficient separation between two secondary dwellings to allow for comfort, privacy and a sense of openness between buildings. Furthermore, the development fails to comply with the National Construction Code 2022. In particular with regard to fire safety and preventing the spread of fire.

Council’s controls consider a lot of 380m² to be of suitable size to accommodate a secondary dwelling. This is a specific control contained in the CDCP, Part B, Section 2.21, C7 which states “The minimum site area for a detached secondary dwelling shall not be less than 380m2.” However, the proposal for Lot 2 with a resultant allotment size of 361.8m2 is well below the required lot size which represents a variation of 4.8% or 18.2sqm to the CDCP. Non-compliance with the minimum lot size suggests the subject site is not suitable to accommodate a secondary dwelling.

Council considers the proposed Lot 1 (380.2m2) and Lot 2 (361.8m2) are inappropriate in size to accommodate the proposed development. On this basis, it is considered that the applicant’s proposal and written request has not sufficiently addressed the environmental planning grounds to vary the development standard.

Conclusion:

It is the view of Council that the applicant’s justification has not satisfied the test under clause 4.6 to warrant support of the application in its current form. The exception to the minimum site area development standard is therefore considered unacceptable in this instance.

 

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 development is defined as a ‘dual occupancy (attached)’ and ‘secondary dwelling’. It is noted that dual occupancies are permissible in the R2 zone and that secondary dwellings are permissible by virtue of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 which permits development for the purpose of a secondary dwelling on residential zoned land if development for the purpose of a dwelling house is permissible on the land and; which overrides the LEP in the event of any inconsistency.

In this regard, both forms of development are permissible in the prescribed land use zone in accordance with the LEP and SEPP Housing 2021.

The relevant matters to be considered under Cumberland LEP 2021 and a comprehensive assessment and compliance table 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))

The subject site of the proposed development does not fall within the Draft Woodville Road Corridor Planning Proposal that is currently on public exhibition from 4 March to 17 April 2025. In this instance, no further consideration is required under this part.

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

The Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021 (CDCP) and the Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide (the Design Guide) 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 B.

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the CDCP and the Design Guide with the exception of the controls outlined below. Please note the application is recommended for refusal due to numerous non-compliances noted.

As a result of the non-compliances listed below, it is considered that the proposal does not perform adequately from an environmental planning viewpoint and is recommended refusal. The following non-compliances are discussed in further detail below:

Cumberland Development Control Plan 2021

2.21 Secondary dwellings

Design and appearance

2.21 Secondary dwellings, Control C1 and C2 of the CDCP 2021 states “The appearance of a secondary dwelling is not to detract from the visual amenity of the development on the site and surrounding locality.” And “Secondary dwellings shall compliment the principal dwelling house in style of construction, design and materials.” The proposal is considered to detract from the visual amenity of the development on site or surrounding locality and does not compliment the principal dwelling due to insufficient allotment size and side setbacks.

The resultant lot sizes from the proposed subdivision are insufficient in size to appropriately accommodate two secondary dwellings noting that the proposal fails to comply with the relevant planning controls that is designed to protect the visual and acoustic privacy of the adjoining properties. The proposal failing to meet these provisions including failure to comply with the NCC has a cumulative effect of the proposal representing an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal therefore cannot be supported in its current form and is not considered to be a favourable design outcome as it would lead to an undesirable streetscape precedence.

Proposed detached secondary dwelling does not compliment the principle dwelling in regard to the construction, design and materials, as the secondary dwelling does not align with the built form within the general locality due to non-compliant side setbacks. Accordingly, secondary dwelling does not provide suitable design and appearance and is recommended for refusal. 

Compliance with BCA/NCC

2.21 Secondary dwellings, Control C5 of the CDCP 2021 states “Conversions of existing outbuildings will only be considered where: The building meets the standards required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA); and the principal dwelling house complies with the provisions of this DCP including, but not limited to, landscaping, setback, and parking requirements”.

The existing secondary dwelling and attached garage is proposed to be converted into two secondary dwellings (attached) with no setback or adequate separation being proposed between the two secondary dwellings. A referral was sent to Council’s building department who has stated the proposal may be non-compliant with NCC /BCA standards and the ABCB Housing Provisions Standard 2022. In particular with regard to fire safety and preventing the spread of fire. Therefore, adequate protection and safety of future residents will be compromised as a result of the design. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

Please note: Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects states the development complies. No justification has been provided on this matter.

Lot restriction

2.21 Secondary dwellings, Control C7 of the CDCP 2021 states “The minimum site area for a detached secondary dwelling shall not be less than 380m2”. Proposed Lot 2 has an area of 361.8m2 which is a variation of 18.2 m2 or 4.8%. The applicant has provided written justification in support of the variation stating that a larger total lot size offsets the very minor departure of this control and compliance has been achieved with all other controls. Council’s full assessment verified that the development fails to comply with other controls inclusive of compliance with BCA/NCC, setbacks, allotment size, and building mass (i.e., in regard to side setbacks). Therefore, Council will not accept a variation to the minimum lot size as it further deviates from the minimum lot area required under the CDCP and does not align with the desired characteristics of the area. It is also worthy to note that the SEPP (Housing) 2021 takes precedent over the CDCP. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal as the design of the proposal is unacceptable in its current form

Setbacks

2.21 Secondary dwellings, Control C12 of the CDCP 2021 states a minimum of side setback of 0.9m is required. The proposed setbacks are as follows:

Lot 1

The single storey secondary dwelling has a 900mm northern side setback, nil (0m) southern side setback, and 3m rear setback. Lot 1 has non-complaint southern side setback. This is a variation of 900mm or 100%.

Lot 2

The single storey secondary dwelling has a 900mm southern side setback, nil (0m) northern side setback, and 3m rear setback. Lot 2 has non-complaint northern side setback. This is a variation of 900mm or 100%.

It is considered that the proposed nil side setbacks for the secondary dwellings are undesirable and inconsistent with the existing character of the area, is not appropriate in bulk and scale, poorly designed, and is not adequately articulated along the side boundaries. Furthermore, a nil side setback is considered to produce additional privacy and acoustic impacts as there is no adequate separation between the building and boundary lines to buffer noise. A referral was made to Council’s building department who has raised objections to the proposal concluding that the structure does not comply with BCA/NCC requirements and the building is not considered to be safe for the subject site and adjoining properties. As the development does not comply with the minimum setback controls and for the reasons stated above, it is considered to not maintain the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal in its current form is therefore unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

Please note: Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects states the development complies. No justification has been provided on this matter.

Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide

2.1T Pools and Detached Development (Studio)

Studio size

Objective 2.1T-2, control 102 states the maximum floor area for detached studios is 36m2. Maximum area of studio is 53.6m2 to Lot 1 and 52m2 to Lot 2. Studio to Lot 1 includes a studio, bedroom, and bathroom/laundry. Studio to Lot 2 includes a studio and water closet. This is a variation of 17.6m2 or 48.9% to Lot 1 and 16m2 or 44.44% to Lot 2. Proposed non-compliance is considered unreasonable and excessive in bulk and scale for a studio. As proposed, the intended use of the studios is to be converted into secondary dwellings at stage 2. Accordingly, due to the non-compliance with NCC and the numerical departure noted, the application cannot be supported in its current form and is recommended for refusal.

Studio side setback

Objective 2.1T-2, control 104 states the maximum side setback of 0.9m. The proposal presents inadequate building separation as follows:

Studio to Lot 1

Existing rear setback is 4m, northern side setback is 1.1m, and nil side setback proposed to the southern side. This is a variation of 0.9m or 100%.

Studio to Lot 2

Existing rear setback is 4m, southern side setback is 0.9m, and nil side setback proposed to the northern side. This is a variation of 0.9m or 100%.

For similar reasons outlined under setbacks for secondary dwelling assessment above, the application cannot be supported in its current form and is recommended for refusal.

Please note: No assessment or justification has been provided within the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects.

As indicated in the compliance discussions above, the proposed development departs from the CDCP and the Design Guide. Having regard to these departures, it is considered that the proposal performs unsatisfactorily from an environmental planning viewpoint for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, the application is unacceptable in its current form and is recommended for refusal.

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 significant adverse environmental impacts in the locality. Proposed development results in insufficient allotment size to accommodate the secondary dwellings. Furthermore, the development results in unsatisfactory amenity impacts, and non-compliance with the NCC resulting in unsafe occupation specifically in regard to fire and safety implications. In the circumstances of the case, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest as it is not compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and the broader Cumberland local government area.

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. However, the development is not considered to be  suitable in the context of the site and surrounding locality due to the non-compliant NCC provisions associated with the proposed secondary dwellings and the fire safety implications and amenity concerns the proposal will have on the surrounding developments.

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

In accordance with Council’s Notification requirements contained within the Cumberland DCP 2021 the proposal was publicly notified for a period of 14 days between 21 January 2025 and 4 February 2025. The notification generated one (1) submission in respect of the proposal with none disclosing a political donation or gift. The issues raised in the public submissions are summarised and commented on as follows:

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

In view of the foregoing analysis, it is considered that the development as proposed would not be consistent with the public interest as development is not considered to protect the safety of residents and adjoining properties, the proposal will also diminish the overall residential amenity and will generate an undesirable precedence that is out of character with the surrounding area.

CUMBERLAND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2020

The development would require the payment of contributions in accordance with Cumberland Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan 2020 should the application be supported.

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 $50,484.00 would be payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate should the application be supported.

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).

As the application is recommended for refusal no 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 should the application be supported.

DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

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

There are no consultation processes for Council associated with this report.

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.

There are no policy implications for Council associated with this report.

The final outcome of this matter will be notified. The objectors will also be notified in writing of the outcome.

1.  That the Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the development standard for minimum lot size for a secondary dwelling, pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, is not supported.

2.  That Development Application No. DA2024/0715 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy, conversion of the existing secondary dwelling and garage into two studio outbuildings, Torrens title subdivision into two lots and conversion of the two studio outbuildings into two secondary dwellings on land at 112 Girraween Road GIRRAWEEN NSW  2145 be issue a Refused subject to reasons listed in the attached schedule.

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

1.      Draft Notice of Determination  

2.      Architectural Plans  

3.      Statement of Environmental Effects  

4.      Clause 4.6 Variation Request - Minimum Lot Size  

5.      Redacted Submission  

6.      Appendix A - Cumberland LEP Assessment Table  

7.      Appendix B - Cumberland DCP and Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide for Development Applications Assessment Table   

 

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 1

Draft Notice of Determination

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 3

Statement of Environmental Effects

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 4

Clause 4.6 Variation Request - Minimum Lot Size

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 5

Redacted Submission

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 6

Appendix A - Cumberland LEP Assessment Table

 7 May 2025

DOCUMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
REPORT ELPP011/25

Attachment 7

Appendix B - Cumberland DCP and Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide for Development Applications Assessment Table

 7 May 2025