AGENDA - IHAP

Meeting:

Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)

Date:

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Time:

4pm

Venue:

Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville

Participants:

Paul Vergotis – Chairperson

Gabrielle Morrish – Panel Member

Juliet Grant – Panel Member

Chris Young - Community Represenative

Additional Invitees:

Meryl Bishop Director – Environment and Planning

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

2. Speakers 4.00pm 6.00pm -

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)

3. Reports and IHAP Deliberations in Closed Session - 6.30pm

 

Item:

DA No:

Address:

Description:

3.1

PP2016/0001

87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

Planning Proposal - Danebank School

3.2

PP2014/0004

108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

Planning Proposal

3.3

PP2014/0002

93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

 

Planning Proposal

3.4

DA2016/0026

35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah

Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision

3.5

DA2016/0078

19-23 Bembridge Street, Carlton

Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a five storey residential apartment building with (23) units, basement parking and strata subdivision

3.6

DA2015/0355

23 Marine Drive Oatley

Demolition of existing, tree removal, construciton of two-three storey dwelling with swimming pool and outbuilding to rear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair

 

MINUTES: Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - 27 October 2016 ()


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 3

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.1

Development Application No

PP2016/0001

Site Address & Ward Locality

87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

Hurstville Ward

Proposal

Planning Proposal - Danebank School

Report Author/s

Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner and Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory

Owners

Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation

Applicant

Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation

Zoning

R2 Low Density Residential, Hurstville LEP 2012

Date Of Lodgement

3/03/2016

Submissions

 One

Cost of Works

 N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

For consideration of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal

 

 

Recommendation

That the Georges River IHAP note the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2016/0001 and comments received.

That the amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to rezone two (2) lots within the Danebank School (87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville) from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) and remove the minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum FSR controls consistent with SP2 Infrastructure zoning be supported.

That a report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations and request that Council resolve to support the Planning Proposal and the finalisation of the draft amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

1.         Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation submitted a request that Council prepare a Planning Proposal request to change the zoning of two (2) lots within the Danebank School campus (No.87 and No.89 The Avenue, Hurstville) from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) and remove the development standards (minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio “FSR”) consistent with the majority of land within the Danebank School campus.

 

2.         The Planning Proposal was considered at the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) 21 June 2016 meeting and Georges River Council meeting of 4 July 2016 and subsequently received a Gateway Approval from the Department of Planning and Environment on 19 August 2016 with six (6) months to finalise the draft Local Environmental Plan.

 

3.         The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 14 September to 14 October 2016. No community submissions were received during the exhibition period and one (1) public authority submission was received from the Office of Environment and Heritage. A phone conversation with the Department of Education confirmed no objection to the Planning Proposal.

 

4.         This report recommends that the IHAP support the proposed changes as exhibited to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“LEP 2012”) for the Subject Site (No.87 and No.89 The Avenue, Hurstville):

·      rezone from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) (refer Attachment 1)

·      remove the minimum lot size of 450m2 and identify no minimum lot size (refer Attachment 2)

·      remove the maximum building height of 9m and identify no maximum building height (refer Attachment 3)

·      remove the maximum FSR of 0.6:1 and identify no maximum FSR (refer Attachment 4).

5.         Both No.87 and No.89 The Avenue include Federation and Inter-War Period Houses which are both identified as heritage items in the Hurstville LEP 2012; no change to this heritage listing is proposed. Consideration of the heritage significance of the sites and the comments made by the Office of Heritage is provided below.

 

6.         No development applications are currently being considered on the Subject Site.

 

7.         An independent planning consultant has been contracted for the Planning Proposal assessment, including the preparation of this report.

                                                                                                                                 

Report Details

Proposal

8.         The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2016/0001) for two (2) lots within the Danebank School (No.87 and No.89 The Avenue, Hurstville) was submitted by the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation on 3 March 2016. The Planning Proposal requested that two (2) lots currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential be rezoned to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) and the minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio (“FSR”) development standards removed, consistent with all SP2 Infrastructure zoned land. The proposed changes will acknowledge the “educational establishment” use of the site and allow for this use to continue as the Danebank School.

 

9.         The proposed zoning and development standard changes are shown in Attachments 1-4 and extracts below.

 

 

 

 

 

The Site and Locality

10.       The Subject Site includes two (2) lots with a combined area of approximately 1,302m2 which are known as No. 87 and No. 89 The Avenue, Hurstville and comprise:

·      Lot 97 in DP 1595 (No. 87 The Avenue) is a rectangular shaped lot which measures approximately 820m2 and has a frontage of approximately 17.5m to The Avenue and a depth of 47m.

·      Lot 96 in DP 663361 (No. 89 The Avenue) is a rectangular shaped lot which measures approximately 482m2 and has a frontage of approximately 15.5m to The Avenue and a depth of 31m.

11.       No. 87 The Avenue also includes approximately 2m wide parcel of land (Lot 1 DP166769), adjacent to No. 85 The Avenue. This land is not part of the Planning Proposal as it is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure and has no maximum building height, maximum FSR or minimum lot size consistent with the majority of the Danebank School site.

 

12.       As detailed in the previous report to the Georges River IHAP, both No.87 and No.89 The Avenue are identified as heritage items in the Hurstville LEP 2012. This heritage listing is not proposed to change.

 

13.       As detailed the IHAP Report (21 June 2016), the Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the Subject Site and the following provisions currently apply:

·      Land zoning: R2 Low Density Residential

·      Lot Size: minimum subdivision lot size of 450m2

·      Height: maximum building height of 9m

·      FSR: maximum FSR of 0.6:1

·      Heritage: the two (2) lots are identified as items of environmental heritage (Item 51 and Item 52).

Background

14.       The majority of land within the Danebank School campus is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment); the remaining lots are zoned R2 Low Density Residential (consistent with the surrounding residential area). A recent amendment (rezoning to SP2 Infrastructure and removal of development standards) to the Hurstville LEP 2012 (PP2015/0003) for No.80 Park Road and No.83 The Avenue, also within the Danebank School campus, was finalised on 30 September 2016.

 

15.       The Planning Proposal was considered at the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) 21 June 2016 meeting and Georges River Council meeting of 4 July 2016 and subsequently received a Gateway Approval from the Department of Planning and Environment on 19 August 2016, with six (6) months to finalise. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition as detailed below.

 

Public Exhibition

16.       The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 14 September to 14 October 2016 in accordance with the Gateway Approval (which require exhibition for a minimum of 28 days) and exhibition material (including a plain English explanation, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps) was provided during the exhibition period on the Georges River Council website and printed copies were available at:

·      Hurstville Service Centre and Kogarah Service Centre.

·      Hurstville City Library and Penshurst Branch Library.

 

17.       Notification of the public exhibition was provided through:

·      Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader

·      Exhibition notice and material on Council’s website.

·      Notices in council offices (Hurstville and Kogarah Service Centres) and Hurstville and Penshurst Libraries.

·      Letter to NSW Department of Education and Office of Environment and Heritage as specified in the Gateway Determination.

·      Letters to adjoining landowners (in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures).

18.       During the public exhibition period no submissions were received from the community.

 

19.       Consultation with the NSW Department of Education and Office of Environment and Heritage was undertaken (also in accordance with the Gateway Determination); no submission was received from the Department of Education. A phone conversation on 19 October 2016 with the Department of Education confirmed no objection to the Planning Proposal.

 

20.       The Office of Environment and Heritage stated in its submission:

It is noted that both sites are identified as locally significant heritage items (I51 and I52) within Schedule 5 of the Hurstville LEP 2012. The house formerly known as ‘Oikos’ on 87 The Avenue is significant for the representative values as a Federation style cottage reflecting the development of the area following subdivision of the Hurstville Park Estate in 1885 and contributes to the streetscape character of The Avenue. Similarly, ‘Sylvan’ at 89 The Avenue, Hurstville demonstrates the phases of development in Hurstville dating back from the Victorian and Federation periods to the Inter-War period.

Given that the heritage items are of local significance Georges River Council is the consent authority. It is recommended that Georges River Council give consideration to any adverse impact the proposed changes and any potential future development on the subject sites would have on the locally listed items and especially on the streetscape character of The Avenue.

21.       The removal of the development standards (lot size, height and FSR) from the two (2) lots within the Danebank School (No.87 and No.89 The Avenue) is consistent with all other land zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the Hurstville LEP 2012, including sites which contain heritage items. The Planning Proposal does not propose the ‘delisting’ of these heritage items.

 

22.       It is noted that there are 13 heritage items currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the Hurstville LEP 2012 and where no development standards apply (minimum lot size, maximum building height and maximum FSR). These items include schools, churches, railway stations and water infrastructure.

 

 

 

23.       Any future development application on the site will need to consider the heritage provisions contained in the Hurstville LEP 2012 (clause 5.10 Heritage conservation) in the assessment. It is noted that consultation with Council is required under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 in relation to development with impacts on local heritage.

 

24.       No change to the amendments proposed in the Planning Proposal is recommended.

 

25.       No planning agreement has been offered and is not warranted in this instance.  The Planning Proposal’s zoning change from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure provides a more restrictive zoning and limits the type of development on the site to “educational establishments”, consistent with the sites current and future use as the Danebank School.

 

Conclusion and Next Steps

26.       This report recommends that the IHAP support the following proposed changes to the Hurstville LEP 2012 for the Subject Site (No.87 and No.89 The Avenue, Hurstville) as exhibited:

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the Subject Site from R2 Low Density Residential to SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishments) as shown in the proposed Land Zoning Map in Attachment 1.

·    Amend the Minimum Lot Size Map to remove the minimum lot size of 450m2 and identify no minimum lot size for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land as shown in the Lot Size Map in Attachment 2.

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map to remove the maximum building height of 9m and identify no maximum building height for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zone land as shown in the proposed Building Height Map in Attachment 3.

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to remove the maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 and identify no maximum floor space ratio for the Subject Site, consistent with the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land as shown in the proposed Floor Space Ratio Map in Attachment 4.

27.       The key reasons for supporting the Planning Proposal include that the:

·    Proposed SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment) zoning and changes to the principal development standards will provide consistent zoning and planning controls across the majority of land within the Danebank School campus and reflect the existing and future school use of the site.

·    Proposed zoning change, and the consequent reduction in R2 Low Density Residential zoned land, will not impact on the supply of residential accommodation in the LGA. The Subject Site has been owned and used by Danebank School for school-related purposes.

·    Rezoning will provide for long-term certainty for the existing Danebank School, as well as provide for the current and likely future needs of educational facilities in the Georges River Council area.

 

·    The heritage provisions of the Hurstville LEP 2012 (clause 5.10 Heritage conservation) must be considered in any future development application on the Site. It is also noted that consultation with Council is required under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 in relation to development with impacts on local heritage.

·    No community submissions were received during the public exhibition and one (1) public authority submission received from Office of Environment and Heritage (as considered above) and no objection was made by the Department of Education.

28.       The advice from the Department of Planning and Environment at the issuing of the Gateway Determination (19 August 2016) confirmed that Council may exercise its delegation for the finalisation of the Planning Proposal and consult directly with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office in relation to the drafting and finalising of the Local Environmental Plan under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

29.       The Department of Planning and Environment requested that it be informed of the progress of the Planning Proposal and its finalisation. The Department of Education and Office of Heritage and Environment will also be advised of Council’s decision and the finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

 

30.       If the IHAP supports the report recommendations, a separate report will be prepared for the next Georges River Council meeting to advise the outcomes and recommendations of this IHAP meeting and request that Council (as the ‘relevant planning authority’) resolve to support the Planning Proposal and the finalisation of the draft amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in accordance with section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s delegation for the finalisation of the Planning Proposal. The Department of Planning and Environment, Department of Education and Office of Heritage will be advised of the Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Danebank School - Proposed Zoning Map

Attachment View2

Danebank School - Proposed Lot Size Map

Attachment View3

Danebank School - Proposed HOB Map

Attachment View4

Danebank School - Proposed FSR Map

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.1                          87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

[Appendix 1]         Danebank School - Proposed Zoning Map

 

 

Page 12

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.1                          87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]         Danebank School - Proposed Lot Size Map

 

 

Page 13

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.1                          87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

[Appendix 3]         Danebank School - Proposed HOB Map

 

 

Page 14

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.1                          87 and 89 The Avenue, Hurstville

[Appendix 4]         Danebank School - Proposed FSR Map

 

 

Page 15

 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 16

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.2

Development Application No

 PP2014/0004

Site Address & Ward Locality

108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

Hurstville Ward

Proposal

Planning Proposal

Report Author/s

Coordinator Strategic Planning, Rita Vella

Owners

Slh 108 Pty Ltd (108, 112 Forest Road and 1 Wright Street), Shanghai Lihua Hurstville Pty Ltd (124 Forest Road), The Estate of Mrs E M Gehringer (3 Wright Street)

Applicant

Mr Tony Polvere

Zoning

Zone B4 – Mixed Use Zone; Zone B2 – Local Centre Zone; R3 – Medium Density Residential Zone

Date Of Lodgement

4/12/2014

Submissions

 N/A

Cost of Works

N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

In accordance with IHAP Charter

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the Georges River IHAP support the forwarding of the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to request a Gateway Approval for an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to:

§ Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

 

§ Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

 

§ Amend the Height of Building map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville  to 34m;

 

§ Amend the Height of Buildings map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

 

§ Amend the floor space ratio map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1; and

 

§ Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from its application and consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use zone; and

 

§ Amend Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 to include the a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non –residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

THAT the Georges River IHAP also support the following:

 

(a)    The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to include 108 Forest Road, 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street in the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre to reflect the proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning of the land; and

 

(b)    The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6) to include the subject site within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and site specific provisions including (but not limited to), setbacks to the adjoining residential development, street activation provisions and vehicular access points, building massing and form as well as provisions to upgrades to public domain, provide deep soil landscaped areas and through site connections and linkages.

 

 

 

 

Site Plan

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                           

1.         The former Hurstville City Council received the original Planning Proposal request (PP2014/0004) for Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville, which is at the edge of the Hurstville City Centre on 4 December 2014.

 

2.         The Planning Proposal has a long history with a number of revisions – this is as a result of a Council’s resolution in May 2015 which requested that Council staff work with the applicant to deliver a mutually acceptable solution for the site.

 

3.         The initial Planning Proposal requested the following:

§ Zoning change for part of the site from B2 - Local Centre to B4 - Mixed Use zone;

§ Increase in height from 9m and 23m to 42m and 60m; and

§ Increase in floor space ratio from 1.5:1 and 4:1 to 6.6:1.

 

4.         On 6 May 2015, the former Hurstville City Council considered a report on the Planning Proposal request.

 

5.         The Council officer’s report recommended that the request for increased height and FSR not be supported as it represented an over-development of the site and lacked urban design justification.

 

6.         Subsequently, Council at this meeting resolved the following:

 

“THAT the matter be deferred for a period of 2 months and for the applicant to work with Officer’s for a mutually acceptable solution.”

 

In July 2015, the applicant amended the Planning Proposal to include additional two (2) lots to the Planning Proposal (Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville),which are currently  zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential (known as Revision 2).

 

7.         Since 2015, Council’s Strategic Planning officers have been working with the applicant to resolve the issues identified. A number of revisions to the Planning Proposal have been submitted and this report is the subject of Revision 6 which was submitted to Council on 11 March 2016.

 

8.         In summary, Revision 6 proposes the following:

 

Amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 in relation to the subject site by:

 

§ Rezoning Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use zone

 

§ Rezoning Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone

 

§ Retain the existing B4 -  Mixed Use zone for 124 Forest Road, Hurstville;

 

§ Increasing the maximum building height for 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from 9m and 12m to 34.5m

 

§ Increasing the maximum building height for 124 Forest Road from 23m to 46.5m; and

 

§ Increasing the maximum floor space ratio for 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from 1:1 and 1.5:1respectively to 4:1 and retaining the maximum floor space ratio for 124 Forest Road Hurstville of 4:1.

 

9.         Revision 6 also includes an indicative development concept showing a mixed-use development varying in height from 10 to 14 storeys with 217 residential apartments and 1,150m2 of retail floor space, which the report states will generate 113 jobs.

 

10.       The subject site currently accommodates 4707m2 of retail/commercial floor space

 

11.       Various revisions of the Planning Proposal have been referred to the St George Design Review Panel (DRP), and it has been considered formally on three (3) occasions (2 August 2015, 19 November 2015 and 18 February 2016).

 

12.       Revision 6 was considered by the DRP on 18 February 2016.

 

13.       The Planning Proposal has also been had an independent Urban Design Review, undertaken by GM Urban Design and Architecture Pty Ltd (GMU) and has been modelled in the former Hurstville Council’s Traffic Model for the Hurstville City Centre (“TMAP”).

 

14.       It is recommended, based on the assessment of Revision 6 that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment with the following changes:

§   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use zone;

 

§   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone;

 

§   Amend the Height of Building map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34m;

 

§   Amend the Height of Buildings map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

 

§   Amend the floor space ratio map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1; and

 

§   Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from its application and consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use zone.

 

15.       Revision 6 is also accompanied by a Voluntary Planning Agreement which is subject to a separate report

REPORT IN FULL

 

1.      INTRODUCTION

 

16.       This report provides an assessment of a Planning Proposal request relating to Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (the subject site) to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012 by changing the zoning and increasing the maximum building height and floor space ratio.

 

17.       The subject site has a total site area of 5,407m2 and is situated on the northern side of Forest Road between Wright Street and Hudson Street, Hurstville (refer to Figure 1).

 

18.       The applicant for the Planning Proposal request is Tony Polvere.

 

19.       There have been six (6) revisions to the Planning Proposal since it was lodged in 2014. For the purposes of this report, the Planning Proposal will be referred to as Revision 6.

 

20.       In summary, Revision 6 was lodged on 11 March 2016 and requests the following:

 

§   Rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road from B2 Local Centre and 1 and 3 Wright Street from R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone;

 

§   Increase the maximum building height of Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street from a range of 9m, 12m and 23m to 34.5m and 46.5m;

 

§   Increase the maximum floor space ratio from 1:1(Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street) and 1.5:1 (Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road) to 4:1 and retain the maximum FSR of 4:1 for 124 Forest Road Hurstville

 

§   No change is proposed to the existing B4 - Mixed Use zone and maximum FSR of 4:1 for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville.

 

21.       Revision 6 proposes a mixed-use development (predominantly residential) varying in height from 10 to 14 storeys with 217 residential apartments and 1,150m2 of retail space.

 

22.       The applicant’s indicative development concept plans includes two (2) towers (10 storeys and 14 storeys) above a four (4) storey podium. The development is setback from the adjoining 3-4 storey residential flat buildings to the north and proposes a north facing communal open space.

 

23.       The indicative development concept also provides for a 2m wide road dedication along the Forest Road frontage.

 

24.       A copy of Revision 6 and the supporting material, including the indicative concept plans is included in Appendix 1.

 

2.      SITE DESCRIPTION

 

2.1    The Subject Site

 

25.       The subject site fronts Forest Road, Wright Street and Hudson Street and is located on the eastern edge of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

26.       It comprises five lots, being Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville as identified in Table 1- Site Description below. The subject site has a total area of approximately 5,407m2 with the following frontages on three streets – Forest Road (90.6m), Hudson Street (49.3m) and Wright Street (70.9m).

 

Table 1 – Site Description

Property Address and current use

Lot/DP

Site Area (m2)

108 Forest Road Hurstville (Car mechanical repairs and tyre service)

 Lot 1, DP78322

741

112 Forest Road Hurstville (Engineering and tool making)

 Lot 1, DP75572

903

124 Forest Road Hurstville (Ground Floor includes a gym, Dick Smith and Bing Lee tenancies. First floor includes coaching schools and other commercial offices.)

 Lot 531, DP777334

2,771

1 Wright Street Hurstville (Dwelling house)

 Lot 55, DP78322

496

3 Wright Street Hurstville (Dwelling house)

 Lot 54, DP78322

496

Total Site Area

 

5,407m2

 (Source: Planning Proposal - PPD Planning Consultants - Revision 6 - March 2016)

 

 

Hudson Street frontage

Forest Road frontage

 

Wright Street frontage

 

2.2    Site Context

 

27.       No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville is located in Hurstville City Centre while Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street and 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville are located on the edge of the area identified as Hurstville City Centre.

 

28.       The subject site is situated approximately 530m from Allawah Station and 650m from Hurstville Railway Station. The site surrounds are described as follows:

 

§   North: To the north along Hudson Road and Wright Street are 3-4 storey residential flat buildings.

§   South: Opposite the subject site on the southern side of Forest Road is the East Quarter site. Stages 1 and 2 of this development are complete. A Planning Proposal for Stage 3 of the development of the site was supported by the former Hurstville Council at its meeting on 18 March 2015. A report on the East Quarter Site Planning Proposal is to be presented to the IHAP Meeting on 24 November 2016.

This Planning Proposal requests two towers - 30m (8 storeys) and 65m (20 storeys) high, 379 residential units and 4,735m2 of commercial floor space on ground level, of which approximately 3600m2 has been identified for a supermarket. 

 

 

 

§   East: To the east of the subject site are industrial uses which are accommodated in one and two storey buildings between Forest Road and Durham Street. A Planning Proposal on the industrial site was supported by the former Hurstville Council on 20 April 2016.

 

This Planning Proposal requested to rezone the site from part IN2 - Light Industrial zone and part R2 - Low Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone and includes a range of heights from 25m to 65m. The Planning Proposal has been submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination. A response has been received from the Department requesting additional information on the built form outcomes for the site.

 

§   West: To the west of the subject site are two-storey shops and commercial offices.

 

2.3    Existing Planning Controls

 

29.       The HLEP 2012 applies to the subject site and the following provisions are relevant to Revision 6:

HLEP 2012 Clause

Affectation

Zoning

The subject site is zoned part R3 - Medium Density Residential zone (1 and 3 Wright Road), B2 - Local Centre zone (108 and 112 Forest Road) and B4 - Mixed Use zone (124 Forest Road) as shown in Figure 2 below.

 

Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot sizes

Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street are currently zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential zone and have a minimum lot size of 450m2 as shown in Figure 7 below.

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings (HOB)

The subject site has a maximum building height of 9m, 12m and 23m as shown in Figure 3 below.

 

Clause 4.4 - Floorspace Ratio (FSR)

The subject site has a maximum floor space ratio of 1:1, 1.5:1 and 4:1 as shown in Figure 4 below.

 

Clause 4.4A - Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones

This provision currently applies to land in the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone and B2 – Local Centre zone and requires a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

Council recently considered and endorsed an amendment to Clause 4.4A to reduce non-residential FSR in the B1 and B2 zone to 0.3:1.

 

Clause 5.10 - Heritage

Two heritage items are in the vicinity of the subject site - No 140-142 Forest Road, Hurstville (shop and residence) and No 144 Forest Road, Hurstville (St George Anglican Church) as shown in Figure 5 below.

Clause 6.6 - Active Street Frontage

The subject site has active frontages along Forest Road and Hudson Street as shown in Figure 6 below

 

 

Figure 2: Land Zoning Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 3: Height of Buildings Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

 

Figure 4: Floor Space Ratio Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

 

Figure 5: Heritage Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 6: Active Street Frontage Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 7: Lot Size Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.      APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

 

3.1    Description of Planning Proposal Request

 

30.       In summary, Revision 6 requests an amendment to HLEP 2012 as outlined in Table 2 below:

 

Property

Current Controls in

HLEP 2012

Planning Proposal request 

108 & 112 Forest Road

(1,644m2)

B2 Local Centre zone

9m (2 storeys)

1.5:1 (2,466m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone

34.5m (10 storeys)

4:1 (6,576m2)

 

1 and 3 Wright Street

(992m2)

R3 Medium Density Residential zone

12m (3 storeys)

1:1 (992m2)

 

B4 Mixed Use zone

34.5m (10 storeys)

4:1 (3,968m2)

124 Forest Road

(2,771m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone

23m (6 storeys)

4:1 (11,084m2)

 

B4 Mixed Use zone (No change)

46.5m (14 storeys)

4:1 (No change) (11,084m2)

Table 2: Summary of Current Controls and controls in Planning Proposal request (Revision 6)

31.       The proposed amendments, as identified in Table 2 above are shown in Figures 8 – Figures 10 below:

Figure 8: Planning Proposal request Land Zoning Map (Source: Planning Proposal, - PPD Planning Consultants - Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

 

Figure 9: Planning Proposal request Maximum Building Height (Source: Planning Proposal - - PPD Planning Consultants - Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

Figure 10: Planning Proposal request Maximum Floor Space Ratio (Source: Planning Proposal - - PPD Planning Consultants - Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

 

32.       Revision 6 proposes a mixed-use development (predominantly residential development) with 21,628m2 floor space comprising the following:

 

§ A four-storey podium and two (2) tower buildings varying in height from 10 to 14 storeys.

 

§ 1,150m2 (5% of floor space) retail floor space provided on the ground level fronting the three streets and split in four parts. The nature of the proposed retail use is not clear.

 

§ 20,478m2 (95% of floor space) accommodating 217 residential apartments on the upper levels within the two towers.

 

33.       Under the current controls (HLEP 2012), the subject site can achieve a total floor space of 14,542m2 or an overall FSR of 2.69:1

 

34.       Revision 6 proposes a FSR of 4:1 generates a floor space of 21,628m2.

 

35.       The Planning Proposal was accompanied by an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). The VPA is being considered under separate cover and a report will be presented to Council. An overview of the VPA is discussed in Paragraph 144 of this report.

 

36.       Revision 6 is supported by the following documents and included as Appendix 1 of this report:

§   Architectural Report (George El Khouri - Revision 6 - March 2016), including Architectural Plans and Calculations, Solar Studies and 3D Images

§   Economic Impact Assessment (Urbis - March 2016)

§   Hurstville Traffic Modelling Report (GHD - November 2015)

§   Traffic Study Confirmation Study (GHD - March 2016)

 

4.      BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT REVISION (REVISION 6)

 

37.       The Planning Proposal request (PP2014/0004) and offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) were lodged with the former Hurstville City Council on 4 December 2014. 

 

38.       Since the lodgement of the original Planning Proposal, there have been six (6) revisions, as well as revisions to the VPA.

 

39.       An overview of the Planning Proposal requests (Revision 1 – 6) are summarised in Table 3 below:

 

Planning Proposal request

Planning Proposal details

Revision 1 (4 December 2014)

Mixed-use development

Apartments: approx. 242 

Retail: 1,890m2

Commercial: 3,885m2

Height: two towers 27m (8 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 6.6:1

 

Revision 2 (17 July 2015)

Mixed-use development

Apartments: approx. 264

Retail: 1,100m2

Commercial: Nil

Height: two towers 42m (13 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 4.8:1

Revision 3 (26 August 2015)

Mixed-use development

Apartments: approx. 260 

Retail: 1,700m2

Commercial: 600m2

Height: two towers 42m (13 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 4.8:1

Revision 4 (12 October 2015)

 Mixed-use development

Design concept same as Revision 3, only the urban design information was restructured

Revision 5 (18 January 2016)

Mixed-use development

Apartments: approx. 217 

Retail: 1,170m2

Commercial: 645m2

Height: two towers 34m (10 storeys) and 43m (13storeys)

FSR: 4:1

Revision 6 (11 March 2016)

Mixed-use development

 

Revision 6 is subject to the assessment of this Report.

Apartments: approx. 217

Retail: 1,150m2

Commercial: Nil

Height: two towers 34.5m (10 storeys) and 46.5m (14 storeys)

FSR: 4:1

Table 3: Summary table of Planning Proposal request revisions

 

5.      URBAN DESIGN REVIEW

 

40.       Indicative development concept plans in form of 3D images were submitted with Revision 6 that included colour coded building forms. These are indicated in Figures 11 – 13 below.

 

41.       The white buildings represent the bulk and scale of buildings proposed by Revision 6, the purple buildings indicate other Planning Proposals, currently under assessment by Council and the grey/green buildings represent existing buildings (already constructed).

Figure 11: Planning Proposal Birds Eye View – Forest Road (Source: 3D Images - Planning Proposal Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

 

Figure 12: Planning Proposal Birds Eye View – Forest Road (Source: 3D Images - Planning Proposal Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

 

Figure 13: 3D Images - Planning Proposal Birds Eye View – Corner Forest Road and Wright Street (Source: Planning Proposal Revision 6 – 11 March 2016)

Note: Purple coloured buildings in the figures do not represent current maximum building height and FSR controls under Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

42.       Table 4 below provides the break-up of land uses within each of the two (2) towers proposed for the subject site and as detailed in the indicative development concept plans:

 

124 Forest Road Hurstville (Tower 1)

108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville (Tower 2)

14 storeys

10 storeys

4 storey podium

 

4 storey podium

Retail (Part of Ground floor - Level 1)*

Retail (Part of Ground floor - Level 1)*

Residential (Levels 2-14)

Residential (Levels 2-10)

Total residential: 13 storeys

Total residential: 9 storeys

Total retail: 1 storey

Total retail: 1 storey

Table 4:  Break up of land uses within proposed towers on the Site (Source: Planning Proposal Revision 6 - 11 March 2016)

*Overall 1,150m2 proposed over the ground level for site area of 5,407m2

 

5.1    Independent Urban Design Peer Review

 

43.       GM Urban Design and Architecture Pty Ltd (GMU) was commissioned by the former Hurstville Council in October 2015 to provide an independent urban design peer review of Revision 4 of the Planning Proposal, which proposed the following amendments to height and FSR:

§ Building height – from 23m to 60m and from 9-12m to 42m

§ FSR – 4.8:1

 

44.       DCP No 2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No 6) divides the Hurstville Centre into 6 precincts. The subject site is within the Eastern Bookend precinct, the principles of which are summarised as follows:

§ This precinct covers the area that is partially outside of the City Centre’s area

§ It is an eastern gateway to the centre

§ It is dominated by East Quarter buildings in a prominent position on the axis of Forest Road

§ The desired future character for this precinct is to define and create a sense of entry. This will be achieved through strong built form statements and feature public domain treatment. Residential use will dominate upper levels of development and optimise commanding views; and

§ To define and create a sense of entry – strong built form statements and feature public domain treatment with residential uses on the upper levels enjoying the views.

 

45.       The key Land Use Principles for the Eastern Bookend are as follows. GMU in their assessment identified these principles and provided the following comments in response:

 

Key Land Use Principles

GMU Comment

1. Defining entry to the City Centre – characterised by a higher intensity of built form with taller buildings on designated sites to define the entry to the centre. Buildings situated along sites identified with significant frontages are to respond to their gateway context. .

 

Landmark architecture will define points of interest, especially its prominent position on the axis of Forest Road. All new development is to respond to the public realm, requiring building scale and form to retain a pedestrian scale at street level.

 

The proposal responds to this principle by providing a very strong architectural concept with sharp edges and greater scale than the rest of the sites. However, as it is not a designated site, it should retain a pedestrian scale and transition down from the identified higher intensity sites.

2. High Density Residential Land Uses

Mixed-use development will be promoted. This Precinct is to provide a transition between the City Centre and surrounding residential areas. Where land adjoins established residential areas, controls require that new development be suitably designed to maintain the amenity of adjoining residential and recreational land uses.

 

Based on the above, the proposed Mixed Use zoning is appropriate for the site.

 

46.       A copy of the report prepared by GMU is included at Appendix 2. In summary, GMU concluded that the height and density as requested are not warranted by the site location and it is recommended that the applicant further amend the proposal to reduce the scale and density of the proposed development.

 

47.       GMU in their report also provided two options for the applicant’s consideration:

 

Option 1

Increased density and height in recognition of the corner’s role as the western edge of the gateway. 

 

The recommended heights and street wall could be as follows:

·      Total height applicable to the site to reflect the surrounding existing and allowable heights to corners which is in the range of 13-10 storeys (42m-33m);

 

·      FSR of approximately 3.6:1

 

Option 2

This option is driven by the principle of responding to the scale opposite the site in Forest Road and is as follows:

·      10 storeys (33m) to the corner with a podium base and a maximum of 7 storeys (23m) along Forest Road.

 

·      Option 2 delivers an FSR of approximately 3.1:1.

 

 

5.3    St George Design Review Panel

 

48.       In accordance with the provisions of SEPP No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, the Planning Proposal was referred to the St George Design Review Panel (DRP) on three (3) occasions (12 August 2015, 19 November 2015 and 18 February 2016).

 

49.       Each time the DRP considered different revisions of the Planning Proposal, which are summarised as follows:

 

Date/Revision

Proposal

12 August 2015 - Revision 2 (17 July 2015)

 

§ Rezone part of the subject site from B2 -Local Centre zone and R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 Mixed Use zone

 

§ Increase maximum height of the buildings for the subject site to a range between 42m and 60m (currently 9m to 23m); and

 

§ Increase the maximum FSR for the whole site to 4.8:1 (currently 1.1 to 4:1).

 

Accompanied by supporting reports (Economic Impact Assessment and Traffic).

 

19 November 2015 - Revision 4 (12 October 2015)

 

§ Included referral of the GMU Report.

 

§ No change to the controls or design concept for the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal was restructured to include urban design information.

 

18 February 2016 - Revision 5 (18 January 2016)

 

§ Rezoning part of the subject site from B2 - Local Centre zone and R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone,

 

§ Increased the maximum height of the buildings to a range between 34m and 43m (currently 9m to 23m); and

 

§ Increased the maximum the floor space ratio control for the whole site to 4:1 (currently 1.1 to 4:1).

 

§ Revision 5 also addressed a number of issues raised previously by the DRP, including:

§ reducing the podium height to four storeys,

§ setting the towers back from the podium by 4m,

§ deleting the bridging element between the two towers,

§ providing retail uses on all three street frontages, and

§ reducing the maximum height and the FSR as compared to the earlier revisions

 

A copy of the comments of the DRP Meeting of 18 February 2016 is included in Appendix 3.

 

 

50.       The DRP, at its meeting on 18 February 2016 made the following conclusions with respect to Revision 5:

 

Recommendation

The planning proposal cannot be supported in its present form. The issues raised above must be addressed before any increase in height and density could be supported.

Given the very recent gazettal of the present LEP statutory controls a very strong case would have to be presented to justify the significant variations proposed. It is not at issue that demand for additional residential accommodation in particular in Hurstville is likely to continue, but there are a variety of sites which could also be considered if zoning under the LEP is to be amended.

The Panel recommends that a detailed Urban Design study be carried out to justify variations to building height and FSR on the site within the surrounding context. It must also be demonstrated that options other than that presented have been fully explored. The design cannot be supported in its present form and should be amended as outlined above for reconsideration by the Panel and should be consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Urban Design Peer Review.

5.4    Council’s Response to GMU and DRP Comments

51.       A report was presented to the former Hurstville Council on 9 December 2015. This report provided a status update of the Planning Proposal and provided an overview of the comments provided by GMU and the DRP.

 

 

52.       As a result of this report, Council resolved the following (Minute No 445):

THAT the Applicant be requested to submit an amended Planning Proposal which responds to the recommendations of the independent Urban Design Peer Review and the comments of the St. George Design Review Panel by 18 January 2016.

THAT a full assessment report on the revised Planning Proposal and Voluntary Planning Agreement offer be presented to Council in early 2016 following the completion of the assessment and referrals on the amended Planning Proposal.

 

53.       Subsequent to Council’s resolution on 9 December 2015, the applicant submitted a further revision to the Planning Proposal on 11 March 2016 (Revision 6)

 

54.       As outlined above, Revision 6 proposed the following:

 

§ Rezoning Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use zone

 

§ Rezoning Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone

 

§ Retain the existing B4 -  Mixed Use zone for 124 Forest Road, Hurstville;

 

§ Increasing the maximum building height for 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from 9m and 12m to 34.5m (10 storeys)

 

§ Increasing the maximum building height for 124 Forest Road from 23m to 46.5m (14 storeys); and

 

§ Increasing the maximum floor space ratio for 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from 1:1 and 1.5:1respectively to 4:1 and retaining the maximum floor space ratio for 124 Forest Road Hurstville of 4:1.

 

55.       The subject site is situated across the road from the East Quarter development where building heights vary from 7 – 19 storeys. There is currently a Planning Proposal being considered for East Quarter that is seeking to increase the maximum height from 60m to 65m (approximately 21 storeys). This is the subject of a separate report to the IHAP.

 

56.       Council is also in receipt of a Planning Proposal for the site bounded by site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville (known as the East Hurstville or Landmark site).

 

57.       Council, at its meeting on 20 April 2016 considered a report on the Planning Proposal for the Landmark site, which requested the following:

§ Change of zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

§ Increase in maximum building height to 65 metres (Site A) and 25 metres (Site B);

§ Increase in FSR to 3.5:1 (Site A) and 1.5:1 (Site B) and a bonus FSR incentive (1.5:1) for development including “hotel and motel accommodation” and a range of community and infrastructure uses.

 

58.       Subsequent to the report, Council, at the meeting made changes to the Planning Proposal for the Landmark site. As a result the Planning Proposal is currently on hold for further review. The Planning Proposal has been returned to Council following consideration by the Department of Planning for a Gateway Determination.

 

59.       A review of Council’s records also indicates that there are examples of other approvals in the Hurstville City Centre where a greater height has been permitted behind a lower/medium scale along the Forest Road frontage.

 

60.       Approvals have also been issued by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for a development opposite the East Quarter development, on the corner of Hill Street and Forest Road. The approval for this development has a 13 storey corner element with the remainder of the building stepping down to between 6-7 storeys.

 

61.       As outlined above, the GMU report states that the proposal responds to the key Land Use Principles as identified in the DCP No 2. The proposal is seeking to have the greater height of 46.5m on the site fronting Forest Road and Hudson Street and steps down to 34.5m on the sites fronting Wright Street and Forest Road.

 

62.       It is considered that in the context of the surrounding development adjacent to the proposal that the proposed maximum height of 46.5m (14 storeys) on the western portion of the subject site would not be out of context with the surrounding development and further design details around scale and massing can be developed through the development of specific DCP controls for the subject site.

 

63.       The development of these specific provisions will take into account the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as well as identifying detailed controls for setbacks to the adjoining residential development, street activation provisions and vehicular access points, building massing and form as well as provisions to upgrade to public domain. Consideration will also be given to the provision of deep soil landscaped areas and through site connections.

6.      TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

 

64.       During the development of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre, the former Hurstville Council was required by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to undertake a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP).

 

65.       Part of the subject site is outside the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre however, it was included in the area considered by the TMAP.

 

66.       The Hurstville City Centre TMAP (2013) prepared by GHD Pty Ltd is used to inform future planning controls and ensure that a coordinated and efficient approach is taken in the planning of land use and investing in transport infrastructure.

 

67.       The purpose of the TMAP was to recommend the amount of additional Gross Floor Area (GFA) which can be developed in the Hurstville City Centre while giving consideration to potential accessibility and infrastructure implications. The TMAP was adopted by Council in June 2013 and informed the finalisation of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre which were incorporated into HLEP 2012 on 10 July 2015.

 

68.       The TMAP considered broad land use assumptions based upon the objectives of the respective land use zones for the modelling of Hurstville City Centre Masterplan precincts.

 

69.       As part of the subject Planning Proposal, a Traffic Impact Assessment (GHD Pty Ltd, August 2014) (Revision 1) was submitted and referenced the TMAP. The Assessment demonstrated that the intersection of Hudson Street and Forest Road performed well under the current traffic situation (Level of Service A or very good), but is expected to deteriorate beyond acceptable limits in the future with expected traffic generation from the proposed development.

 

70.       The Traffic Impact Assessment submitted with the Planning Proposal also proposed to signalise the intersection of Hudson Street and Forest Road.

 

71.       An assessment of the proposed signalisation of this intersection was undertaken by Council’s Traffic Engineers. They have advised that although it would provide safe pedestrian access across Forest Road for residents and visitors (retail/commercial) of the development, it would not assist in improving the traffic flow within the road network.

 

72.       A further addendum to the traffic report was prepared by the applicant (GHD, July 2015) to examine the potential traffic and parking implications of Revision 2 of the Planning Proposal (264 apartments and 1,100m2 retail floor space).

 

73.       This Traffic Addendum notes that in accordance with the RMS rates in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002), the number of PM peak trips generated by Revision 2 is 175, which is less as compared to the total PM trips on the subject site of 222 in 2021 and 400 in 2036 (based on the assessment undertaken as part of the TMAP).

 

74.       An updated traffic assessment for Revision 6 has been undertaken.

 

75.       Revision 6 includes a Traffic Study Confirmation (March 2016) also prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (see Appendix 3). The Traffic Study Confirmation concludes that although the land use configuration for Revision 6 has been modified since the Traffic Addendum (GHD, July 2015) to 217 apartments and 1,150m2 retail floor space, the total expected peak hour trip generation is still the same.

 

76.       Revision 6 proposes a residential floorspace of 20,478m2 (95%) and a retail floorspace of 1,150m2 (5%). Although the proposal is inconsistent with the TMAP modelling assumptions, it is not considered that the configuration of the proposed development will result in significant impacts to the road traffic network.

 

77.       Therefore, no further intersection analysis is required to assess the traffic impacts of the revised proposal (Revision 6).

 

78.       The Traffic Study Confirmation also identified that a 2m dedication is proposed to be provided along the frontage of Forest Road between Hudson Road and Wright Street, to allow Council to implement a potential future widening of this section of Forest Road. The 2m dedication forms part of the VPA which is the subject of a separate report to Council.

 

79.       With respect to the proposed land dedication for potential widening purposes, Council’s Engineering Services have advised that what has been proposed is acceptable. 

6.1    Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (“TMAP” 2013)

 

80.       As outlined above, during the development of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre, the former Hurstville Council was required to prepare a TMAP in response to the amount of floor space (1,141,000m2) initially contained within the draft City Centre LEP, the potential accessibility and infrastructure implications and the inconsistency with S.117 Direction 3.4 - Integrating Land Use and Transport.

 

81.       The TMAP adopted by Council in June 2013 recommended that there is potential to develop 363,000m2 additional GFA resulting in a total of approximately 861,354m2 in the City Centre by 2036.

 

82.       A level of inconsistency with Direction 3.4 currently exists because the total GFA allowed for by the planning controls adopted in the City Centre (and included in the HLEP 2012 - Amendment No. 3) is 1,091,000m2 (the initial 1,141,00m2 GFA figure was reduced to address inconsistencies with the TMAP analysis) which is 229,646m2 more than recommended in the TMAP.

 

83.       Since the gazettal of the HLEP 2012 - Amendment No 3 (July 2015), there has been a number of development approvals (Council, JRPP and PAC) well above the maximum building height and FSR in the HLEP 2012 and a number of Planning Proposals with significant increases in both height and FSR proposed.

 

84.       The TMAP provides a number of key recommendations for road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre. In particular it recommends policies with “road infrastructure improvements which are targeted at increasing road capacity on rail crossings and network reliability on both regional roads and city centre access routes” (RN1).

 

85.       Hurstville City Centre Action Plan (Table 52) in the TMAP report provides a list of road network and intersection improvements along with other transport and land use works and actions required in the short, medium and long term to support the future planning of the City Centre and to provide an efficient road network.

 

86.       Some of the key road works identified include the widening of The Avenue railway underpass, widening of the Lily Street rail overpass (currently under construction), upgrades to the Treacy Street overpass and the intersection of King Georges Road and Hillcrest Avenue.

 

87.       In October/November 2015, Council commissioned GHD Pty Ltd to undertake traffic modelling analysis using the model developed for the TMAP. This work was to assess the cumulative impact on the local road network of the Planning Proposal request (Revision 3) along with a number of other major approvals and Planning Proposals in the vicinity of the subject site, including:

·          Planning Proposal for site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville (PP2015/0001);

·          Planning Proposal for East Quarter Stage 3 at 93 Forest Road, Hurstville (PP2014/0002);

·          Development Application for 23-35 Treacy Street, Hurstville (Major Project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act); and

·          Development Application for 1-5 Treacy Street, Hurstville (DA2014/1083).

 

88.       GHD Pty Ltd reviewed the Planning Proposal (Revision 3). The modelling found that a number of intersections will require additional upgrades above those previously included in the TMAP (2013) as a direct consequence of the cumulative impact of these Planning Proposals and Development Applications.

 

89.       Specifically, the analysis identified that the intersection of Forest Road/ Wright Street/ Durham Street would operate over capacity, in particular for right turns from Forest Road into Durham Street. The recommendation of this is that the intersection of Forest Road/ Wright Street/ Durham Street must be signalised.

 

7.      STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT

 

7.1    A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy)

 

90.       The Planning Proposal request is broadly consistent with the aims of A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy).

 

91.       A Plan for Growing Sydney sets out 664,000 new homes and 689,000 jobs will be required in the Sydney Metropolitan Region by 2031. Revision 6 will contribute toward housing and jobs in an area close to existing transport infrastructure and services.

 

92.       As noted in the Metropolitan Strategy “Locating jobs in around 30 to 40 large centres will provide greater benefits to the overall productivity of Sydney. Strategic centres are areas of intense, mixed economic and social activity that are built around the transport network and feature major public investment in services such as hospitals and education and sports facilities. Together, these centres form a network of transport-connected hubs that help to make Sydney a networked and multi-centred city.”

 

93.       The proposal will also contribute to reinforcing the status of Hurstville as a Strategic Centre. The proposal achieves the following relevant Goals and Directions of the Metropolitan Strategy:

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world-class services and transport

§ Direction 1.7: Grow strategic centres – providing more jobs closer to home

 

94.       It is recommended that a minimum non-residential floor space of 0.5:1 be included to ensure that potential employment floor space is retained on the subject site and within the Hurstville Centre.

 

 

 

95.       The incorporation of the minimum non-residential floor space requirement of 0.5:1, will contribute towards achieving this Direction through providing employment floor space within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, on a site which benefits from its proximity to the commercial, retail and services within the Hurstville City Centre. This will also assist in delivering more investment and business activity and increased productivity.

 

96.       It is recommended that Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 be amended to include a specific provision for the subject site requiring a minimum non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1. This will encourage the development of retail/commercial floorspace at ground floor level and ensure the activation of the street frontages.

 

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles

 

§   Direction 2.1: Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

§   Direction 2.2: Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs

§   Direction 2.3: Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles

 

97.       Revision 6 will provide approximately 217 new dwellings in the form of a mix of apartments. The site is suitable for this increase in dwellings as it is located within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, close to jobs and public transport services (Illawarra Railway line and bus interchange) with frequent services.

 

98.       Housing choice to suit the varying needs of residents will be provided through the development of the anticipated 217 new dwellings on the site, with a range of sizes provided to satisfy the Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction of SEPP 65.

Goal 3: Sydney’s great places to live

§ Direction 3.3: Create healthy built environments

99.       Revision 6 assists in encouraging healthy communities by creating mixed-use development that provides a convenient focus for daily activities and benefits from its proximity to the retail and services within the Hurstville City Centre. It is also in close proximity to Kemp Field, which provides a recreation area for the local community.

Sydney South Subregion

100.    In relation to the priorities of the South Subregion, Revision 6 provides housing supply and choice in a suitable location for housing intensification and urban renewal within the established Hurstville City Centre serviced by a key public transport corridor (Illawarra Railway Line).

101.    Revision 6 addresses the Hurstville Strategic Centre priorities of providing capacity for additional mixed use development in Hurstville including offices, retail, services and housing. It is also consistent with the “Planning Principles” for growth identified in the Metropolitan Strategy, including:

 

§   Principle 1: Increasing housing choice around all centres through urban renewal in established areas

 

 

102.    Revision 6 will increase housing opportunities within Hurstville City Centre (with an estimated 217 new residential apartments) within walking distance from Hurstville Railway Station and bus interchange. The subject site is also is close proximity and has direct access to shops and services, is close to employment opportunities, which will reduce car dependency.

 

103.    Increasing the variety of housing available will provide housing choice to suit different lifestyles, household sizes and affordability.

 

§   Principle 2: Stronger economic development in strategic centres and transport gateways

 

104.    A minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 is recommended, equating to approximately 2,704m2 of employment floor space, as compared with the 4,707m2 of existing commercial/retail floorspace on the site.

 

105.    It is anticipated that this floor space will provide for jobs and addresses Principle 2 through locating jobs within the strategic centre of Hurstville, an important hub for business and employment and one of Sydney’s ‘transport gateways’.

 

7.2    Draft South Subregional Strategy (2007)

 

106.    The draft South Subregional Strategy includes key directions and strategies for economy and employment, centres and corridors, housing and transport and sets dwelling and employment targets for the South Subregion to 2031.

 

107.    The Strategy identifies the Hurstville City Centre as a ‘Major Centre’. The dwelling target for the Hurstville LGA to 2031 is 4,100 additional new dwellings and the employment target is 3,000 additional new jobs.

 

108.    The draft South Subregional Strategy (2007) includes key directions and strategies for economy and employment, centres and corridors and housing which are relevant to this Planning Proposal.

 

109.    In relation to economy and employment, the key relevant directions include:

·          Retain strategic employment lands including those required for utilities and local services.

·          Strengthen the commercial centre of Hurstville.

 

110.    In relation to centres and corridors, the key relevant directions include:

·          Increase densities in centres whilst improving liveability

·          Ensure sufficient commercial office sites in strategic centres

 

111.    In relation to housing, the key relevant directions include:

·          Focus residential development around centres, town centres, villages and neighbourhood centres

 

112.    It is noted that a new District Plan is under preparation for the South Subregion by the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

7.3    Hurstville City Centre Masterplan 2004

 

113.    The former Hurstville Council in collaboration with the NSW Government Architect developed a Concept Master Plan for Hurstville City Centre, which was adopted in 2004.

 

114.    The Concept Master Plan includes seven key principles to improve the public infrastructure and amenity in Hurstville City Centre. The Masterplan divides the City Centre into six precincts, each having unique characteristics.

 

115.    Part of the subject site is situated within the Eastern Bookend precinct. The Masterplan notes that this precinct has the potential to form the eastern gateway to the City. It is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the principles in the Masterplan.

 

7.4    Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 – LGA Wide

 

116.    Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 – LGA Wide (DCP No.1) applies to all land in the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA outside the Hurstville City Centre, and includes No 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville (zoned B2 Local Centre) and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (zoned R3 Medium Density Residential).

 

117.    Should the subject site be rezoned to B4 Mixed Use, it is recommended that the Hurstville City Centre boundary be amended to include No 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville.

 

118.    In this regard, the provisions of HDCP No 1 will no longer apply.

 

7.5    Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

 

119.    As outlined above, parts of the subject site zoned B2- Local Centre zone (Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville) and R3 - Medium Density Residential (Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville) are situated outside the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre which means the provisions of HDCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre do not currently apply.

 

120.    If the subject site is rezoned to B4 Mixed Use, it will be necessary to amend HDCP No. 2 by inserting a new Hurstville City Centre Land Application Map in Appendix 1 of the DCP to include the subject site within the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

121.    HDCP No. 2 applies to No 124 Forest Road Hurstville and this site is located in the Eastern Bookend precinct of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

122.    As outlined above, it is recommended that the DCP also be amended to include specific development controls related to the subject site.

 

123.    Such provisions would include, but not be limited to identifying detailed controls for setbacks to the adjoining residential development, street activation provisions and vehicular access points, building massing and form as well as provisions to upgrade to public domain, the provision of deep soil landscaped areas and through site connections and linkages.

 

 

 

7.6    Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study

 

124.    In 2014, the former Hurstville Council commissioned independent consultants Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) and SJB Planning to prepare a draft Employment Lands Study to review all land zoned IN2 - Light Industrial and commercial centres (land zoned B1- Neighbourhood Centre and B2- Local Centre) under Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

125.    The objectives of the draft Employment Lands Study include:

§   A detailed land use survey and analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the employment lands;

§   A market assessment;

§   A review of the NSW State Government’s employment targets; and

§   A review of the effectiveness of the existing planning controls.

 

126.    With the proclamation of Georges River Council in May 2016, the draft study is currently under review to expand consideration of the study area to include the former Kogarah Council LGA.

 

7.7    Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

 

127.    The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 applies to all land in the Hurstville LGA. As outlined above, should the subject site be rezoned to B4 - Mixed Use zone, it is recommended that the Section 94 Plan be amended to include the whole of the subject site within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

128.    The Section 94 Plan includes specific provisions which levy development in the Hurstville City Centre for non-residential floor space and deficient car parking spaces. It is recommended that the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 be amended by inserting a new Hurstville City Centre map which incorporates the subject site within the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre. This will then allow Council to levy for non-residential floor space and any deficient car parking spaces as part of any development application.

 

7.8    Economic Impact Assessment

 

129.    An Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared by Urbis (August 2014) for the Planning Proposal (Revision 1) which included an estimate of current employment floor space of 4,707m2 and 175 jobs on the subject site. The Planning Proposal (Revision 1) also included a proposed estimate of 5,695m2 of retail/commercial employment GFA and a total of 204 jobs.

 

130.    Independent employment generation rates provided by SGS Economics and Planning have been utilised to assess the employment generation in the Planning Proposal.

 

131.    As outlined in Table 5 below, Revision 6 results in a reduction of employment floor space as compared to current employment on the subject site, as at December 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Economic Impact Assessment – Employment Floor Space Assessment

 

Planning Proposal Estimates

Council Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

Current Employment Floorspace (estimated December 2014)

 

Proposed Employment Floorspace (estimated December 2014 - Revision 1)

Current Employment Floorspace (estimated March 2016)

Proposed Employment Floorspace (estimated March 2016 - Revision 6)

 

Proposed Employment Floorspace (based on SGS rates)

 

Commercial Floor Space

3063sqm(1)

2490sqm(2)

1500sqm(3)

Not provided

Not provided

Retail Floor Space

1890sqm(4)

1600sqm(5)

1150

(1035sqm GLA) (6)

1150

(1035sqm GLA) (7)

Industrial Floor Space

1644sqm(8)

N/A

Floor space not included

Not provided

Not provided

Gym/ Fitness

N/A

1315sqm(9)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total employment Floorspace

4,707sqm

5,695sqm

3,100sqm

1,150sqm

1,150sqm

Estimated total jobs

175 jobs

204 jobs

110 jobs

113 jobs

46 to 77 jobs

Notes:

(1) Commercial estimated at one employee /20sqm

(2) Commercial estimated at one employee / 67sqm

(3) Commercial estimated at one employee / 22sqm

(4) Retail estimated at one employee / 40sqm

(5) Retail estimated at one employee / 69sqm

(6) Retail estimated at one employee / 16.5sqm

(7) Retail estimated at SGS rate of one employee / 15-25sqm

(8) Industrial estimated at one employee/ 90sqm

(9) Gym/fitness at one employee / 27sqm                   

 

132.    A revised Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared by Urbis (March 2016) to accompany Revision 6.

 

133.    The EIA (March 2016) included a total current employment of 3100m2 of retail/commercial GFA (the EIA appears to have excluded Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road from the total figure) estimating 110 jobs currently on the subject site. The EIA (March 2016) is included in Appendix 4.

 

134.    The EIA (March 2016) also estimates the proposed number of employees in the development resulting from Revision 6 at 113 retail employees on the 1150m2 proposed retail (estimate based on approximately 16.5 jobs/m2).

 

 

 

135.    In relation to the removal of the commercial space component in an earlier version of the Planning Proposal (Revision 5), the EIA (March 2016) notes that “demand for traditional office space is subdued, with surplus capacity in the market able to accommodate future employment growth”

 

136.    The EIA (March 2016) also noted that the revised proposal will not have an adverse economic impact on the Hurstville Centre or its capacity to achieve its 2031 employment targets. The proposed development will increase the housing supply in a market where population growth is expected to exceed its existing development and affordability is an issue.

 

137.    It is noted from Table 5 above that the existing commercial/retail GFA on the subject site is 4,707m2 (an approximate FSR of 0.9:1), while Revision 6 provides for 1150m2 (an approximate FSR 0.2:1). This represents a reduction in the future employment floor space on the subject site.

 

138.    The employment (job) numbers proposed in Revision 6 have been reviewed with independent employment rate/m2 estimates provided by SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd (SGS) as follows:

·          Retail (speciality food) – ranging between 15-25m2/job

·          Retail (including personal goods/services/other retail/ clothing and soft goods) - Ranging between 25-35 m2/job

·          Commercial - Ranging between 20-30 m2/job

·          Industrial - 90 m2/job

 

139.    Based on the proposed retail floor space in Revision 6 and employment generation rates provided by SGS, the proposed employment (job) numbers on the subject site varies between 46 - 77 employees. This is a reduction of between 98 – 129 jobs, which currently exist on the subject site.

 

140.    A Plan for Growing Sydney identifies that a commercial core in Hurstville is to be retained, as required, for long-term employment growth and that capacity be provided for additional mixed-use development in Hurstville including offices, retail, services and housing.

 

141.    Although Revision 6 proposes a loss of jobs, it is considered that due to the location of the site within the City Centre, that this is not critical, however it is considered that any future development must include some commercial/retail floor space to ensure that services can be provided to both current and future residents, on and around the site and also to ensure ground floor activation of all of the street frontages.

 

142.    To ensure that this does occur, it is proposed to amend Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 to include a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1. This would aim to provide for up to 2,704m2 of employment floor space and depending on the employment generating use, between 77 - 108 jobs.

 

6.      OFFER TO ENTER INTO A VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT (VPA)

 

143.    As part of Revision 6, the applicant on 11 March 2016 has submitted an amended offer to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council in accordance with section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

144.    A VPA is a mechanism which allows for negotiation and agreement between planning authorities and developers to extract public benefits from the planning process and ensure that development produces targeted public benefits over and above measures to address the impact of development on the public domain. 

 

145.    The VPA offer provides for the following public benefits:

§ A monetary contribution, which is consistent with other monetary contributions negotiated within the Hurstville City Centre Precinct; and

§ Land dedication along the Forest Road frontage to provide for road widening and other road works

 

146.    The Heads of Agreement are currently being finalised and the offer to enter into a Planning Agreement will be considered as future report to Council.

 

7.      THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

147.    Revision 6 has been assessed under the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000 and the following advisory documents prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment:

·          A guide to preparing planning proposals” (August 2016) and

·          A guide to preparing local environmental plans” (August 2016)

 

148.    The following summarises the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal to amend HLEP 2012 in relation to the subject site, as follows:

 

§   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use zone (Figure 14)

 

§   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone (Figure 14)

 

Figure 14 – Amendment to LZM - B4 Mixed Use zone – HLEP 2012

 

§   Amend the height of building map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville  to 34m (Figure 15)

 

§   Amend the height of buildings map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m (Figure 15); and

 

Figure 15 – Amendment to HOB Map – HLEP 2012

 

§   Amend the floor space ratio map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1 (Figure 16).

Figure 16 – Amendment to FSR Map – HLEP 2012

 

§ Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from its application (Figure 17).

             Figure 17 – Amendment to LSZ Map – HELP 2012

 

149.    It is also proposed, as discussed above to amend Clause 4.4A to require a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 for the subject site

 

8.      COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

150.    Should Revision 6 be supported it will be forwarded NSW Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

151.    If a Gateway Determination is issued, and subject to its conditions, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of twenty eight (28) days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000 and any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

 

152.    Exhibition material, including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council service centres.

 

153.    Notification of the public exhibition is proposed as follows:

§   Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader;

§   Exhibition notice on Council’s website;

§   Notices in Council service centres (Kogarah and Hurstville);

§   Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies, as identified in the Gateway Determination;

§   Letters to all landowners in the subject site; and

§   Letters to adjoining landowners (in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures).

§   Drop in Sessions, manned by Strategic Planning staff. This will allow the community the opportunity to discuss the Planning Proposal with staff and make comments/feedback.

 

154.    The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown in Table 6 below:

 

Table 6: Timeframe for Community Engagement

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Submission of revised Planning Proposal (subject of this assessment)

11 March 2016

Reporting to IHAP on Planning Proposal

24 November 2016

Report to Council

5 December 2016

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

February 2017

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway determination)

March 2017

Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period (twenty eight (28) days)

Completed early May 2017

 

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

June 2017

Timeframe for the consideration by Council of the planning proposal post-exhibition

August 2017

Date of submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

August 2017

 

CONCLUSION

 

155.    Should IHAP resolve to support the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be considered at the next available Council meeting for endorsement to submit to the NSW Department of Planning.

 

156.    Once endorsed by Council (the Administrator), the Planning Proposal document would be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

157.    With respect to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, if the Gateway is issued by the Department, it will specify the extent of consultation that Council must undertake, along with any additional conditions that may be imposed by the Gateway Determination.

 

Operational Plan Budget

 

158.    Within budget allocation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Planning Proposal Request - Revision 6

Attachment View2

Urban Design Peer Review & SEPP 65 Assessment Report - GMU

Attachment View3

Traffic Study Confirmation (March 2016)

Attachment View4

Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 1]         Planning Proposal Request - Revision 6

 

 

Page 51

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 2]         Urban Design Peer Review & SEPP 65 Assessment Report - GMU

 

 

Page 104

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 3]         Traffic Study Confirmation (March 2016)

 

 

Page 134

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 3]         Traffic Study Confirmation (March 2016)

 

 

Page 136

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 137

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 152

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 153

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 156

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 157

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 160

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 161

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 162

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 163

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 168

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 171

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 184

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.2                          108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville - Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012

[Appendix 4]         Economic Impact Assessment (March 2016)

 

 

Page 189

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 205

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.3

Development Application No

PP2014/0002

Site Address & Ward Locality

93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

Hurstville Ward

Proposal

Planning Proposal

Report Author/s

Senior Strategic Planner, Harkirat Singh and Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory

Owners

East Quarter Hurstville Pty Ltd

Applicant

Hville FCP Pty Ltd

Zoning

 B4 Mixed Use, Hurstville LEP 2012

Date Of Lodgement

19/09/2014

Submissions

 44

Cost of Works

N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Change development standards under Hurstville LEP 2012 - Report following Public Exhibition

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the Georges River IHAP receive and note the submissions received during the exhibition of the joint public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0002 and DA2016/0218 for the “East Quarter” site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville.

 

THAT the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as exhibited be supported:

 

(a)     increase the Floor Space Ratio for the entire East Quarter site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1

(b)     increase the height on Stage 3 of the East Quarter site from 23m to 30m; and

 

(c)     increase the height on Stage 3 of the East Quarter site from 40m to 65m, subject to the receipt of concurrent from Sydney Airports that the maximum building height of 65m will not protrude into the Obstacle Limitation Surface.

 

THAT should concurrence not be received from Sydney Airport in respect to (c) above, the maximum height will be in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Airport.

 

THAT the amendment to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to increase the height on part of Stage 2 of the East Quarter site from 60 to 65m, not be supported as the site is already developed (Building E).

 

THAT a report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations and request that Council resolve to support the Planning Proposal and the finalisation of the draft amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

 

 

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

1.         The former Hurstville City Council received a Planning Proposal request (PP2014/0003) for the ‘East Quarter’ site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville on 19 September 2014 which requested an amendment to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (“LEP”) 2012 to increase the maximum building height on the eastern part of the site from 23m to 30m, 40m to 65m, 60m to 65m and increase the maximum FSR on the entire site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1.

 

2.         The Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) was jointly exhibited with a Development Application (DA2015/0274) from 13 January to 10 February 2016.

 

3.         DA2015/0274 was withdrawn on 12 August 2016 and a new Development Application (DA2016/0218) was lodged together with updated Planning Proposal (August 2016) documents which reflect the built form of the new development application. No change was made to amendments (increases in FSR and height) being sought in the Planning Proposal.

 

4.         DA2016/0218 was inadvertently notified without reference to the Planning Proposal from 1 to 30 September 2016.

 

5.         A joint public exhibition (notification) of DA2016/0218 and the Planning Proposal (August 2016) was undertaken in accordance with Section 72K of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (“the Act”) from 28 September to 28 October 2016.

 

6.         The St George Design Review Panel (DRP) considered the new Development Application (DA2016/0218) and the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0002) on 6 October 2016 and has provided comments, which primarily relate to the DA2016/0218, in relation to the activation of the interface between the development and Kempt Field, quality and design of the pedestrian access to Kempt Field, solar access to the communal open space because of the density of the development and the character of Jack Brabham Drive at the interface with Kempt Field.

 

7.         This report considers the submissions received at the two joint public exhibitions (January-February 2016 and September-October 2016) of the Planning Proposal and Development Applications and the separate notification of Development Application (DA2016/0218). In total thirty four (34) community submissions and ten (10) public authority submissions were received. A summary of all the submissions received is included as attachments to this report and where the issues raised specifically relate to the Planning Proposal these are addressed in the report. A future report to the Sydney  South Planning Panel on DA2016/0218 will address all comments raised in submissions which specifically relate to the DA.

 

8.         This report recommends that IHAP support the proposed increase in the FSR for the whole of the East Quarter site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 as exhibited.

 

9.         It is recommended that the heights for Stage 3 (the eastern side of the site) be increased from 23m to 30m and 40m to 65m (as exhibited), subject to confirmation from Sydney Airport that a maximum building height of 65m will not protrude into the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). Whilst the Applicant has demonstrated that no part of the proposal will protrude into the OLS, confirmation is required from Sydney Airport prior to the matter being considered by Council.  These recommended height increases are consistent with the maximum heights proposed in DA2016/0218 and on which Sydney Airport is being consulted.

 

10.       The proposed amendment to the Building Height Map for part of the East Quarter site from 60m to 65m (central area on which the existing Building E is located) (as exhibited) is not supported as the site already accommodates a 63m building (19 storeys).

 

11.       In summary, this report recommends that the IHAP note the issues raised in submissions and support the proposed amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the East Quarter site:

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map for the entire East Quarter site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1

·    Amend the Building Height Map for part of the East Quarter site (eastern side) from 23m to 30m and 40m to 65m subject to confirmation from Sydney Airport that a maximum building height of 65m is acceptable.

 

12.       The Planning Proposal (August 2016) is accompanied by an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement. This Offer will be reported to a future Georges River Council meeting. Discussions with the Applicant at the writing of this report are ongoing.

 

13.       The Department issued a Gateway determination on 22 June 2015 and a revised Gateway determination on 12 October 2016 advising the finalisation of the Planning Proposal by end of May 2017. 

 

14.       Subject to the IHAP consideration and support of the Planning Proposal (as amended) the next steps include Council consideration and if supported, a report to the Department of Planning and Environment under section 59 of the Act requesting the draft Hurstville LEP 2012 amendment be finalised.

 

Report in Full

Background

15.       The former Hurstville City Council received a Planning Proposal request (PP2014/0003) for the ‘East Quarter’ site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road, Hurstville on 19 September 2014 for amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 to:

·    increase the maximum building height from 23m to 30m (Building X), 40m to 65m (Building F) and 60m to 65m (Building E)

·    increase the maximum FSR on the entire East Quarter site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1.

 

16.       Council at its meeting on 18 March 2015 considered a report on the Planning Proposal request that recommended its refusal due to the proposed development controls exceeding those adopted by Council in the draft City Centre LEP and the existing controls under ‘DCP No.2’; inconsistency with the floor space recommendations in the adopted Hurstville City Centre TMAP Report 2013; unacceptable urban design outcome, specifically related to the overall height and bulk of Building F on the Site. Council resolved at the meeting to:

Support the Planning Proposal request for 93 Forest Road, Hurstville to amend the height and floor space ratio controls under the Draft Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (Hurstville City Centre) 2014 as outlined in the report. 

Request the applicant to consolidate all the documents submitted for the Planning Proposal into one Planning Proposal document to assist in processing the proposal.

Forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

17.       Council forwarded the Planning Proposal request to the Department of Planning and Environment (“the Department”) on 15 May 2015,  the Department issued a Gateway determination on 22 June 2015 and a revised determination on 12 October 2016 which conditioned:

·    a minimum 28 days of consultation

·    finalisation of the Planning Proposal by 29 May 2017

·    updating the Planning Proposal to incorporate the outcomes of a traffic and transport study which examines the full impact of additional residential and commercial floorspace, inclusive of the proposed supermarket and consideration of the recommendations of Council’s TMAP, and

·    consultation with key transport authorities (Roads and Maritime Services, Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains) and former Kogarah Council.

 

18.       A condition of the Gateway determination was that the Planning Proposal should be updated to incorporate the outcomes of a traffic and transport study which examined the full impact of additional residential and commercial floorspace inclusive of the proposed supermarket. The study should also consider and respond to the recommendations of Council’s Hurstville City Centre TMAP. In addition, consultation with the transport agencies was also required to comply with relevant S117 Directions (refer below).

 

19.       In October/November 2015, Council commissioned GHD Pty Ltd to undertake traffic modelling analysis using the model developed for the TMAP. This work was to assess the cumulative impact on the local road network of a number of Planning Proposal requests along with a number of major development approvals in the vicinity of the subject site, including:

·    Planning Proposal for site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville (PP2015/0001)

·    Planning Proposal request for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville (PP2014/0004)

·    Planning Proposal for East Quarter Stage 3 at 93 Forest Road, Hurstville (PP2014/0003)

·    Development Application for 23-35 Treacy Street, Hurstville (Major Project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act)

·    Development Application for 1-5 Treacy Street, Hurstville (DA2014/1083).

 

20.       Council’s Modelling Report identified that the intersection of Forest Road/ Wright Street/ Durham Street would operate over capacity, in particular for right turns from Forest Road into Durham Street. The recommendation of this Report is that the intersection of Forest Road/ Wright Street/ Durham Street must be signalised.

 

21.       The July 2016 Traffic Report (the Transport Planning Partnership) accompanying the revised Planning Proposal (August 2016) noted that the level of additional traffic in East Quarter Stage 3 development is considered to be acceptable in terms of overall traffic impact, however the Report concurred that the Forest Road-Durham Street intersection would need to be upgraded to operate under signal control with additional traffic lanes on Forest Road as recommended by the Hurstville City Centre TMAP. This is being negotiated as part of the Planning Agreement Offer (discussed below).

 

22.       The joint public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and the Development Application (DA2015/0274) was undertaken from 13 January to 10 February 2016 in accordance with the conditions in the Gateway Approval. Fifteen (15) community submissions were received and six (6) submissions from public authorities.

 

 

 

 

 

23.       DA2015/0274 was withdrawn on 12 August 2016 and a new Development Application (DA2016/0218), and an updated Planning Proposal to reflect the urban form of this new development application, was lodged on 12 August 2016. The Planning Proposal (PP2014/0002) (August 2016) documents included additional information and was updated to reflect the design concept in DA2016/0218. The Planning Proposal did not amend the proposed increases to height and FSR on the site. DA2016/0218 proposes 556 apartments, 4345m2 of retail including a supermarket and a private communal open space and is currently under assessment. The Sydney South Planning Panel (which will replace the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel) will be the determining authority for DA2016/0218.

 

24.       DA2016/0218 was notified from 1 to 30 September 2016. Nine (9) community and one (1) public authority submissions were received. A joint public exhibition of the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) (August 2016) and DA2016/0218 was undertaken from 28 September to 28 October 2016. Ten (10) community submissions were received and three (3) submissions from public authorities. The proposed building height and FSR amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 which were placed on public exhibition are shown in the maps in Attachments 3 and 4.

 

SITE DESCRIPTION

Subject Site

25.       The Site is located on the southern side of Durham Street at its intersection with Forest Road; which is known as ‘East Quarter site’ at Nos. 93 - 103 Forest Road, Hurstville, as shown in the figure below.

 

26.       Development within the East Quarter Site has been approved in stages, with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 (located in the western and central area of the East Quarter Site) being completed. Stage 3 is located on the eastern side of the East Quarter site (adjacent to Kempt Field) and is the land subject to the proposed height increases.

 

27.       The total area of the East Quarter site is approx. 2.844ha and the area for Stage 3 is approx. 13,927m2.

 

28.       The East Quarter Site is located on the eastern edge of the Hurstville City Centre and is adjacent to large area of open space at Kempt Field (approx. 31,500m2). Both Allawah and Hurstville Railway Stations are walking distance to the site being approx. 500m and 750m respectively.

 

29.       The Site is in the Eastern Bookend precinct identified within the Hurstville City Centre Concept Masterplan 2004 and DCP 2 - Hurstville City Centre. The desired future character for Eastern Bookend is to define and create a sense of entry. This will be achieved through strong built form and feature public domain treatment. Residential use will dominate upper levels of development.

 

Site Context (Source: Urban Design Report, Fridcorp, July 2016)

 

30.       The northern boundary of the East Quarter Site adjoins Durham Street and the southern boundary adjoins the Illawarra Railway Line. Opposite the East Quarter Site on the northern side of Durham Street, are a number of industrial uses accommodated in one and two storey buildings (this area is the subject of a Planning Proposal).  Adjoining the Site to the east is Kempt Field, an area of public open space which is managed by Georges River Council.

 

Drone Image of the East Quarter Site showing Stage 3 (“site”) (Source: DKO)

 

31.       The western boundary of the East Quarter Site is a property which was previously used as a pub that is now vacant, but has approval for the construction of a 13 storey mixed use development.

View from Durham Street (Source: Google Maps November 2016)

Eastern elevation of Building A in Stage 2, which abuts the subject site

(Source: Mecone, 2016)

Aerial View Northeast (Source: Urban Design Report, Fridcorp, July 2016)

 

32.       Beyond Kempt Field, and approximately 500m to the east of the Site, are single dwelling houses and on the southern side of the Illawarra Railway Line is mixed development comprising single dwellings and older style residential flat buildings.

 

Current Planning Controls

33.       The Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the Subject Site. The following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal; extracts of which are shown in the figures below:

·    Land zoning: B4 Mixed Use

·    Height: range 23m, 35m, 40m and 60m

·    FSR: 2.5:1

·    Active Street Frontages: active frontage along the Forest Road frontage

·    Heritage: no heritage items located on the Site

·    Airspace Operations: must be considered

 

Current zoning under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Hurstville LEP 2012

Maximum Building Height (m)

 

Current height under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Hurstville LEP 2012

Maximum Floor Space Ratio (n: 1)

Current FSR under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Current Active Street Frontages under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Current Heritage under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS

34.       Joint Public Exhibition January/February 2016

 

The Planning Proposal was initially placed on public exhibition jointly with Development Application DA2015/0274 from 13 January to 10 February 2016 for a period of 29 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation. During this exhibition, twenty one (21) submissions were received.

 

DA2015/0274 was withdrawn and a new Development Application (DA2016/0218) was lodged on 12 August 2016 with an updated Planning Proposal (August 2016) to reflect the urban form of this new Development Application. As noted above, no change was made to amendments (increases in FSR and height) being sought in the Planning Proposal.

 

35.       JRPP notification of DA2016/0218

As noted above, the Sydney South Planning Panel is the determining authority for DA2016/0218 as the development is categorised as “Regional Development” under State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional) Development 2011. Development Application DA2016/0218 was notified from 1 to 30 September 2016 for a period of 30 days. This notification period overlaps with the second joint public exhibition (refer below). There were ten (10) submissions received during this notification.

 

36.       Joint Public Exhibition September/October 2016

The Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) was jointly placed on public exhibition with Development Application DA2016/0218 from 28 September to 28 October 2016, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation. The re-exhibition took place as the new DA2016/0218 proposed more apartments (556), 4345m2 of retail including a supermarket and a private communal open space and the Planning Proposal included additional information to reflect the amended design concept. The proposed building height and FSR amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 which were placed on public exhibition are shown in the maps in Attachments 3 and 4.

During this exhibition, thirteen (13) submissions were received and the comments raised which specifically relate to the Planning Proposal are considered in this report.

37.       The notification for the public exhibitions included the following:

·    Statutory notices in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (13 January 2016, 1 September 2016, 28 September 2016 and 12 October 2016)

·    Dedicated pages on Council’s website (under Public-Notices)

·    Facebook update (paragraph on project information linking to further details)

·    Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries including

the public exhibition information, the Planning Proposal and appendices, draft Hurstville LEP 2012 Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio Maps, Gateway determination, relevant Council Report and other legislative documents and information (e.g. section 117 Directions compliance table, State Environmental Planning Policy compliance, Hurstville LEP 2012 written instrument and Maps).

·    Approximately 958 letters were sent to the affected and adjoining land owners and key transport agencies and the former Kogarah Council (in accordance with the Department’s Gateway determination)

·    Telephone contact with Strategic Planning and Council’s Duty Planner

·    Face-to-face consultation in the form of Counter enquiries by Strategic Planning and Duty Planner.

 

38.       Public Authority Consultation

In accordance with the Gateway Determination (dated 22 June 2015) Condition No. 2, consultation was required with the following public authorities under sections 56(2) (d) of the Act and /or to comply with the requirements of relevant S117 Directions:

a)   Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

b)   Transport for NSW - Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

c)   Transport for NSW - Sydney Trains

d)   Former Kogarah Council.

 

39.       Council consulted with the above Public Authorities, Sydney Airport and Ausgrid during the public exhibitions / notifications and the responses received are considered in the Summary of Submissions below and in Attachment 2.  The former Kogarah Council advised that they would not be making a submission to the first public exhibition.

 

40.       Acknowledgement letters/emails were sent to all submitters following the end of each public exhibition/notification period.

 

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

41.       A summary of all submissions received during the public exhibitions (January/February 2016, September/October 2016) and Notification (September 2016) is provided in Attachments 1 and 2. As detailed in the Attachments, many of the issues raised in submissions are detailed design issues which relate to the Development Application rather than the Planning Proposal. The Table in Attachment 1 clearly identifies where this is the case, and notes that these detailed issues will be addressed in a future assessment report on DA2016/0218 to the Sydney South Planning Panel - the determining authority. All submitters to DA2016/0218 will be notified of the date and invited to attend this future Sydney South Planning Panel meeting.

 

42.       A total of thirty four community submissions and ten public authority submissions were received during the exhibition periods (as detailed in the Table below). The majority of the community submissions were from existing East Quarter residents. Public authority submissions were received from:

·    Roads and Maritime Services

·    Transport for NSW

·    Sydney Trains

·    Sydney Airport

·    Ausgrid

·    Former Kogarah Council

Submission

Number received

Community

15 (first joint exhibition) + 9 (JRPP DA notification) + 10 (second joint exhibition) = 34

Public Authority

6 (first joint exhibition) + 1 (JRPP DA notification) + 3 (second joint exhibition) = 10

Total

44

43.       A detailed summary of all submissions, the key issues raised and whether the issue raised relates to the Planning Proposal or the Development Application, and therefore will be considered in the future assessment of DA2016/0218 by the Sydney South Planning Panel, is included in Attachments 1 and 2.

 

44.       For the purpose of reviewing and summarising the key issues raised, the submissions received during the two exhibitions and notifications are grouped in the following categories: community submissions and public authority submissions.

 

45.       Community Submissions

A total of thirty four (34) community submissions were received to the two joint exhibitions and one DA notification. These submissions predominately came from existing residents in the East Quarter Stage 2 development (Buildings A and E) and included issues related to residential amenity, urban design, traffic and parking issues, child safety issues, overcrowding/overdevelopment, view loss, compromise of landmark presence of focal building and lack of retail. These issues are related to the development application and will be addressed in the assessment report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

46.       The following is a summary of issues raised in the community submissions (note that an individual submission may raise more than one topic):

·    Focal Building E (6 submissions) -  concerns that Building E will no longer be an iconic / landmark building

·    Overcrowding / overdevelopment (16 submissions) - concerns over the density of the development

·    View loss (15 submissions) - concern over loss of view from Buildings A and E

·    Loss of property value (10 submissions) - this is in conjunction with the loss of view

·    Traffic and parking issues  (14 submissions) - concerns over excessive traffic on roads and parking problems

·    Residential amenity (12 submissions) - concerns over solar access, privacy, overlooking and overshadowing issues

·    Design issues (4 submissions) - concern over bulky design of Building F

·    Children Safety (2 submissions) - concern regarding children safety due to a number of schools present in the vicinity

·    Infrastructure upgrades (1 submission) - concern regarding lack of Infrastructure upgrades

·    Fire safety (2 submissions) - concern regarding fire risk due to the density of development

·    Acoustic amenity (2 submissions) - concern over noise from railway and road traffic

·    Wind mitigation (2 submissions) - concern over noise from wind tunnel effect due to significant heights of proposed towers

·    Building height - SACL approval (2 submissions) - concern regarding lack of referral to Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL)

·    Lack of retail (2 submissions) - concern regarding lack of convenience shopping within East Quarter area

·    Inclination to have a meeting (3 submissions) - some of the submitters would prefer to voice their concerns with Council staff personally

·    Amenities/Facilities - (I submission) - concern regarding lack of amenities like swimming pool, gym and the like.

 

47.       Of the total 34 submissions, one submission (signed by 28 people) concurs with the issues raised by the Poppy, Marigold and Lotus Building Management Committee which raised issues of loss of characteristics, traffic congestion and children safety, noise pollution, wind mitigation, building height, overshadowing/loss of view and limited business opportunities.

 

48.       A detailed summary of all submissions, a planning response to the issues as they relate to the Planning Proposal and recommendations are included in Attachment 1 of this report. As previously noted, and detailed in the summary table, the majority of comments raised in the community submissions relate to detailed built form issues. These issues will be considered in the assessment of DA2016/0218 and its consideration and determination by the future Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

49.       As considered below, the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) and Development Application DA2016/0218 were both considered by the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) on 6 October 2016. A number of comments in relation to the built form in DA2016/0218 and the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development were identified by the DRP; these issues will be addressed in the assessment of DA2016/0218.

 

50.       Public Authority Submissions

The following public authorities were consulted and submissions received during the joint public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and Development Application and notification of the DA for East Quarter Stage 3 Development:

·    Roads & Maritime Services

·    Transport for NSW

·    Sydney Trains

·    AusGrid

·    Sydney Airport

·    Former Kogarah City Council.

 

51.       A detailed summary of the comments received and a response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 2 – Summary of Public Authority Submissions.

 

52.       The main issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

 

53.       Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) (Three submissions to the first and one to the second exhibition received raising the following issues)

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has reviewed the planning proposal to amend the planning controls for the subject site and raises no objection, as the proposed amendments will not have a significant traffic impact on the classified arterial road network.

 

54.       However, RMS notes that the Applicant proposes traffic control signals at the Forest Road / Durham Street / Wright Street intersection, which requires approval of RMS under Section 87 of the Roads Act, 1993. Prior to the determination of any development application (post gazettal of the planning proposal) requires:

 

·    Submission of traffic analysis demonstrating that the provision of traffic signals complies with the warrant criteria as outlined in the Roads and Maritime Traffic Signal Design Guide - Section 2 (Warrants)

·    Electronic copies of the intersection modelling supporting the layout and phasing of the proposed signalised intersection

·    Geometric concept design of the proposed signalised intersection overlayed on a survey plan to ensure that the footprint of the intersection layout can be accommodated within the existing road reserve

 

 

55.       Response: Comment noted in relation to the Planning Proposal. The RMS comments which relate to Development Application (DA2016/0218) will be considered in the assessment of DA2016/0218 and its consideration and determination by the future Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

56.       The Applicant has been informed about the dedication of the area specified by RMS and the Applicant will need to keep this area clear of buildings and structures.

 

57.       RECOMMENDATION: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of RMS comments.

 

58.       Transport for NSW (Two submissions to the first and two submissions to the second exhibition received raising the following issues)

Transport for NSW provides the following comments:

 

59.       Proposed Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street Intersection Arrangement

TfNSW note that the proposed upgrade of the Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street intersection includes signalisation of the intersection with provision of additional traffic lanes.

 

60.       TfNSW note that Forest Road and Durham Street are regular bus routes and no detailed information has been provided in the planning proposal to assess the performance and the feasibility of the proposed intersection arrangement. TfNSW requests that the applicant provides detailed information in relation to the proposed intersection upgrade, in particular:

·    Proposed phasing arrangements;

·    Detailed SIDRA output;

·    Proposed intersection arrangement overlaid on an aerial map; and

·    Confirmation that the proposed intersection arrangement caters bus movements along Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

61.       Road Safety Audit for the Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street Intersection Upgrade

TfNSW note that the earlier a project is audited the more likely that the road safety issues or risks identified can be significantly reduced or eliminated. This would have the potential to reduce costly treatments at later stages of the project. Therefore, TfNSW requests that a Stage 2(Concept Plan) Road Safety Audit be carried out for the proposed Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street intersection design in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Road Safety Audit;  by a TfNSW accredited road safety auditor. Based on the results of the road safety audit, the applicant needs to review the design drawings and implement safety measures as required.

 

62.       Pedestrian and Cyclists

TfNSW note that the traffic report prepared to support the planning proposal includes limited information in relation to pedestrian and cyclists. TfNSW requests that the traffic report for the development application includes the following:

·    Provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for pedestrian and cyclists in accordance with Hurstville City Council development control plans, standards and guideline documents;

·    Provision of bicycle facilities in secure, convenient, accessible areas close to the main entries incorporating adequate lighting and passive surveillance and in accordance with Austroads guidelines;

·    Details of connectivity, safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicycle riders to existing pedestrian and bicycle networks/road networks and public transport; and

·    Details of wayfinding strategies and travel access guides to assist with increasing the mode share of walking and cycling.

 

63.       Response: The TfNSW requirements in relation to provision of traffic signals at the Forest Road / Durham Street / Wright Street intersection in form of a Traffic Report and SIDRA modelling, bus Swept Path analysis and requirement for a Road Safety Audit relate to the detailed design of the development in Development Application (DA2016/0218) and will be considered in the assessment of DA2016/0218 and its consideration and determination by the future Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

64.       RECOMMENDATION: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of the TfNSW comments.

 

65.       Sydney Trains

Sydney Trains raised no objection to the Planning Proposal proceeding and noted that any issues related to the actual development will be dealt with as part of the concurrence review under Clause 86 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

66.       Former Kogarah City Council

Former Kogarah Council advised that they would not be making a submission on the Planning Proposal and Development Application for East Quarter.

 

67.       Ausgrid

Ausgrid have provided conditions of consent that will be incorporated, if the application is approved. This submission specifically relates to DA2016/0218.

 

68.       Sydney Airport

Sydney Airport has provided initial comment and a request for additional information and clarification on the proposed building height in DA2016/0218. The Applicant and Council are currently providing additional information to Sydney Airport in relation to the proposed development’s height. 

 

Whilst the Applicant has demonstrated that a building height of 65m will not protrude into the OLS, consultation will continue with Sydney Airport in respect of the Planning Proposal, prior to the matter being considered by Council. The response from Sydney Airport in relation to the maximum building height and the OLS will be included in the report to Council on the Planning Proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:  THAT advice be obtained from Sydney Airport that a proposed maximum building height of 65m on Stage 3 of the East Quarter site will not protrude into the Obstacle Limitation Surface, and this advice be included in the report to Council on the Planning Proposal.

 

 

 

 

69.       PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

70.       There is a current Planning Agreement that applies to the entire East Quarter site which contains Stages 1, 2 and 3. This Planning Agreement provides for landscaping works, Kempt Field works, monetary contributions to Hurstville Public School and public access links within the site. These works and contributions are required to be provided for each Stage of the site.

 

71.       As part of the Planning Proposal and Development Application for Stage 3, the Applicant (Hville FCP Pty Ltd) submitted an Offer to enter into a new Planning Agreement with Council in accordance with section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It proposed that this Planning Agreement will replace the obligations under Stage 3 of the current Planning Agreement and provide additional public benefits for the community.

 

72.       A Planning Agreement is a mechanism which allows for negotiation and subsequent agreement between planning authorities and developers to extract public benefits from the planning process and ensure that development produces targeted public benefits over and above measures to address the impact of development on the public domain.  Agreements provide a flexible means of achieving tailored development outcomes and targeted public benefits, including a means by which communities can agree to the redistribution of costs and benefits of development. Planning agreements provide enhanced and more flexible infrastructure funding opportunities for planning authorities.

 

73.       The proposed Planning Agreement for Stage 3 provides for the following public benefits:

 

a.   Construction works at the Forest Road and Durham Street intersection that includes the signalisation of the intersection.

 

b.   Completion of the outstanding obligations under the current East Quarter Planning Agreement. This includes the following:

i.    a monetary contribution to landscaping works,

ii.   a monetary contribution to Hurstville Public School,

iii.  a monetary contribution to Kempt Field embellishment works,

iv.  the provision of an easement for public access across the site (this easement is for a continuous public access link along the landscape corridors connecting Stage 3 plaza area/open space with Kempt Field and Stage 2 plaza area and Forest Road)

 

c.   A monetary contribution for the embellishment of Kempt Field.

 

74.       It is proposed that these works and contributions are over and above the section 94 contributions that would be payable for the proposed development.

 

75.       The proposed Planning Agreement will be considered in a separate report to Georges River Council at its meeting on 5 December 2016. This report will assess the Offer in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements (2016) and in relation to the “acceptability test” which would require that the Planning Agreement:

 

a. is directed towards proper or legitimate planning purposes, ordinarily ascertainable from the statutory planning controls and other adopted planning policies applying to development,

b. provide for public benefits that bear a relationship to development that is not de minimis (that is, benefits that are not wholly unrelated to development),

c. produce outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the public and protect the overall public interest,

d. provide for a reasonable means of achieving the relevant purposes and outcomes and securing the benefits,

e. protect the communities reasonable planning expectations and avoid environmental harm,

f. ensure the quantum of the public benefit is commensurate with the value of the development contributions which the Council considers are reasonably due.

 

76.       If supported by Council, public notice of the proposed Planning Agreement will be undertaken in accordance with the legislation and Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements (2016).

St George Design Review Panel

77.       The St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) considered the updated Planning Proposal (August 2016) and DA2016/0218 on 6 October 2016.

 

The DRP acknowledged that the density and height controls of the Planning Proposal are considerably in excess of the Council’s current planning controls. The DRP did not raised issues with the Planning Proposal. 

 

The DRP provided a number of comments on the built form in DA2016/0218 in relation to the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. These comments are specifically related to the development application and will be addressed in the assessment report to the Sydney South Planning Panel. The comments relate to:

·          through site link and access to Kempt Field,

·          development interface with Kempt Field

·          activation of building facades on the interface with the park,

·          overshadowing, solar access and communal open spaces,

·          lack of deep soil areas,

·          visual interface with the park,

·          treatment of Jack Brabham Drive reserve,

·          clear way finding and lighting.

 

78.       The DRP also recommended that the Applicant work with Council for the delivery of the full length of the western boundary of Kempt Field opposite Building X and Building F which should be a high quality proposal that facilitates improved park amenity (furniture, lighting and the like), improved pedestrian connections through the development and to the wider neighbourhood and to the rail station. The Applicant has been made aware of the DRP comments and will need to be considered as part of the DA assessment. This issue will be addressed in the future assessment report for DA2016/0218 to the Sydney South Planning Panel. In addition, it is noted that the Planning Agreement under negotiation (as referred to above) includes a monetary contribution for the embellishment of Kempt Field.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

79.       Council has exhibited the Planning Proposal jointly with the Development Application on two occasions and has received submissions from the community and public authorities. Many of the issues raised in the community submissions are design issues relating to the Development Application rather than the Planning Proposal. These issues will be addressed in a future assessment report on the development application to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

80.       In light of the comments raised during the two (2) public exhibitions, this report recommends that the IHAP support the following proposed changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the Subject Site (Nos. 93-103 Forest Road, Hurstville):

 

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the height on part of the eastern side of the East Quarter site from 23m to 30m, consistent with the Planning Proposal as exhibited (refer Attachment 5)

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the height on Stage 3 of the East Quarter site from 40m to 65m, subject to further consultation with Sydney Airport (refer Attachment 5).

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum FSR on the entire site from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 (refer Attachment 6)

 

81.       The following proposed changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“LEP 2012”) are not supported due to comments raised by Sydney Airport regarding the “prescribed airspace” and that development is already completed (Building E) on that part of the Site:

·    Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the height on part of the central side of the East Quarter site (Building E) from 60m to 65m. As shown in Attachment 5, this area of the site is to retain a maximum building height of 60m.

 

82.       The advice from the Department of Planning and Environment at the issuing of the Gateway Determination (22 June 2015) confirmed that Council will request the Department to draft and finalise the Local Environmental Plan under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

83.       A report will be prepared for the next Georges River Council meeting to advise the outcomes and recommendations of this IHAP meeting and request that Council (as the “relevant planning authority”) resolve to support the Planning Proposal (as amended) and the finalisation of the draft amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as recommended above.

 

84.       Subject to the IHAP consideration and support of the Planning Proposal (as amended), the next steps include:

 

 

 

 

24 Nov 2016

IHAP consideration (this Report)

24 Nov 2016

Feedback from Sydney Airport on proposed height increase and Obstacle Limitation Surface (“OLS”)

5 Dec 2016

Council consideration

Dec 2016

Subject to the resolution of Council, a report under section 58 of the EP&A Act will be provided to the Department of Planning & Environment advising of Council’s resolution and any amendments to the Planning Proposal and requesting the draft Hurstville LEP 2012 amendment be finalised.

 

Operational Plan Budget

85.       Within budget allocation.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Summary of General Submissions - East Quarter site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville

Attachment View2

Summary of Public Agency Submissions for East Quarter site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville

Attachment View3

East Quarter - Proposed Height of Buildings Map - Exhibited

Attachment View4

East Quarter - Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map - Exhibited

Attachment View5

East Quarter - Proposed Height of Buildings Map - Recommended

Attachment View6

East Quarter - Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map - Recommended

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 1]         Summary of General Submissions - East Quarter site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 226

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 2]         Summary of Public Agency Submissions for East Quarter site at Nos. 93-103 Forest Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 254

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 3]         East Quarter - Proposed Height of Buildings Map - Exhibited

 

 

Page 266

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 4]         East Quarter - Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map - Exhibited

 

 

Page 267

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 5]         East Quarter - Proposed Height of Buildings Map - Recommended

 

 

Page 268

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.3                          93-103 Forest Road Hurstville - East Quarter Site

[Appendix 6]         East Quarter - Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map - Recommended

 

 

Page 269

 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 270

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.4

Development Application No

DA2016/0026

Site Address & Ward Locality

35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposal

Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer, Bernard Moroz

Owners

Mr M Briglia

Applicant

Mr W. Karavelas

Zoning

R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012

Date Of Lodgement

18/02/2016

Submissions

Five (5)

Cost of Works

$2,400,000.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Non-compliance, not sympathetic to the character of the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation area and proposal is contrary to the sites future direction as outlined in the New City Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused subject to the reasons outlined in the report.

 

 

 

Site Plan

 


 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

 

1.    Council is in receipt of an application for demolition of the existing dwellings at 35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision on the subject site.

 

Site and Locality

 

2.    The subject site comprises of three allotments and is located on the south-western side of Ocean Street. The site presents an overall frontage width of 36.57m, side boundary widths of 36.57m resulting in an overall site area of 1337m².

 

Zoning and KLEP 2012 Compliance

 

3.    The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012. The proposal is currently a permissible form of development. The proposal does not satisfy Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) as contained within KLEP 2012 as it does not appropriately respond to and conserve the heritage significance of the conservation area and the environmental heritage of Kogarah.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

 

4.    The proposed development does not comply with Councils controls for front and side setbacks, private open space and impervious area. 

 

Submissions

 

5.    The application was neighbour notified on two separate periods. During the second stage of notification in which potentially affected neighbours were invited to comment on the plan amendments, three submissions were received raising concern to privacy, shadowing, incompatibility with New City Plan rezoning, heritage impacts, increase in noise levels and DCP non-compliances. 

 

Conclusion

 

6.    Having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment of the proposal Development Application No. 26/2016 should be refused for the following reasons: 

 

·    The proposed development is contrary to the sites future direction as outlined in New City Plan which includes the rezoning of numbers 13-57 Ocean Street, Kogarah from R3 – Medium Density Residential to R2 – Low Density Residential as the area is within the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area.

 

·    The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) of KLEP 2012 as it does not appropriately respond to and conserve the heritage significance of the conservation area and the environmental heritage of Kogarah.

 


 

·    The proposal is not sympathetic to the character of the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area as it does not complement the scale, form, materials, colours, and general appearance of existing original buildings and landscape features in the streetscape, and will not preserve and be sympathetic with those special qualities which define the historic character of the locality.

 

·    The proposal fails to comply with the DCP controls related to front and side setbacks, private open space and impervious area.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

 

7.    Council is in receipt of an application for demolition of the existing dwellings at 35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision on the subject site.

 

The Site and Locality

 

8.    The subject site comprises of three allotments and is located on the south-western side of Ocean Street. The site presents an overall frontage width of 36.57m, side boundary widths of 36.57m and overall site area of 1337m². Existing on the site are two single storey weatherboard cottages and a single storey brick dwelling with ancillary fibro garage and shed.

 

9.    The subject site is located within the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area  The Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area is associated with the first wave of residential development in the railway suburbs of the Kogarah district.

 

10.  The precinct possesses streetscape significance due to the high level of continuity of housing styles, landscaping and fencing while the majority of buildings in the area are well maintained and of a consistent scale with some demonstrating a high degree of intactness.

 

 


 

Background

 

11.  This application was submitted with Council on 18 February 2016 and was neighbour notified from 2 March to 16 March 2016 where six submissions were received.

 

12.  Plan amendments were carried out and these were submitted with Council on 20 September 2016. This application was renotified from 5 October to 19 October 2016 where three submissions were received.

 

13.  This report has been prepared giving consideration to the plans and details submitted with Council on 20 September 2016.

 

Section 79C Assessment

 

14.  The following is an assessment of the application with regard to Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(1)     Matters for consideration – general

 

In determining an application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)       the provision of:

(i)      any environmental planning instrument,

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) 

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

 

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

 

15.  The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012. The proposal is currently a permissible form of development. Having said this, under the future zoning provisions outlined in the New City Plan where the zoning of the site is being changed from R3-Medium Density Residential to R2-Low Density Residential, the development will become a prohibited form. This is discussed in more detail later in this report.

 

 

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

 

Clause 4.1A - Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and seniors housing

 

16.  A minimum site area of 800m² is required for all multi-dwelling housing within the R3-Medium Density Zone. The proposal incorporates an overall area of 1337m² complying with this standard.

 

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

 

17.  The proposed development was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who raised no objection to the removal of a number of trees on the site subject to replacement planting. It was also recommended that a number of street trees located adjacent to both the subject and the neighbouring site be preserved and protected. 

 

Tree removal/retention

 


 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation 

 

18.  The dwellings currently presented on the subject sites are not listed as heritage items in Schedule 5. However, the site is located within the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area. Upon receipt of the original proposal, this application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment who made the following comment:

The proposal in its current form will not improve nor is sympathetic to the character of the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area, and is not supported. With respect to the Ocean Street buildings, their identical design, two-storey scale, and proportion of façade elements are out of character with older Contributory development in Ocean Street and the HCA overall. As previously noted, the Ocean Street buildings are to be redesigned to be predominantly single-storey with a part-two storey built form located to the rear.

 

19.  The rear building is overly large and in its current form would adversely impact the amenity of neighboring properties. Although the multi-unit two-storey building is not typical of the HCA, a revised design which includes part one and part two storey built forms, appropriately articulated and detailed elevations and predominantly pitched roof forms will be considered given it is not prominent in the streetscape”.

 

20.  As proposed, Council’s Heritage Advisor was not in support of the application as it was considered to be out of character with older Contributory Items located along Ocean Street and the Conservation Area as a whole.

 

21.  In response to the concerns/recommendations outlined by the Heritage Advisor, architectural plan amendments were undertaken. These amendments were again forwarded to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment who again reiterated that the architectural response and the associated design outcomes fell well short of what is considered to be an acceptable built form for the area. As already outlined, an acceptable built form is one where the dwellings fronting Ocean Street are to be predominantly single-storey with a part-two storey built form located to the rear. This design response was not reflective of this as it proposed a two storey scale throughout.

 

22.  In respect to the proposal satisfying Clause 5.10 in terms of objectives, the development is not consistent with the desired outcomes. The proposal does not appropriately respond to and conserve the heritage significance of the conservation area and the environmental heritage of Kogarah.

 

23.  As a result, the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 5.10 of KLEP 2012.

 

Kogarah South- Heritage Conservation Area

 

Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

 

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

 

24.  The subject site is not shown as being affected by acid sulfate soils as identified on the Acid Sulfate Soil Map.

 


 

Clause 6.2 – Earthworks 

 

25.  The proposed earthworks are considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of this clause as the works are not likely to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. The extent of excavation proposed is the minimum required for the provision of basement garaging.

 

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

 

26.  The subject site has not been identified as a flood planning area on the Flood Planning Maps.

 

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

 

27.  A BASIX Certificate has been issued for the proposed development and the commitments required by the BASIX Certificate have been satisfied.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

 

28.  All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and would satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment. The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Stormwater Engineer who outlined that all stormwater can be treated in accordance with the provisions outlined in Kogarah Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

(ii)       any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, and

 

29.  The New City Plan includes changes to zoning and the introduction of development standards in parts of the City to deliver a range of new housing options.

 

30.  Specifically, the New City Plan proposes to rezone the sites forming part of this development from R3-Medium Density Residential to R2- Low Density Residential and introducing development standards for floor space and height of 0.55:1 and 8.5m respectively.

 

Proposed Zoning under New City Plan

 

31.  This application was submitted with Council after the New City Plan was exhibited. The New City Plan was exhibited from 30 March 2015 until Friday 29 May 2015 and this application was submitted with Council on 18 February 2016. As a result, the draft standards must be given consideration in this assessment.

 

32.  The proposal is inconsistent with the future zoning provisions applicable for the site where “multi dwelling housing” will be a prohibited form of development. In respect to height, the proposal will be consistent with the draft provisions where all dwellings will present a maximum height within the 8.5m height limit. In respect to floor space, the current proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.67:1 (899.26m²). The draft standard outlines an FSR of 0.55:1 for each individual lot and an FSR of 0.37:1 (493m²) in the case where all lots were to be amalgamated. Under the provisions of the R2-Low Density Residential Zone, this proposal would be a prohibited form of development so the FSR applicable to amalgamated lots would not be applicable. As a result, comment as to whether or not the proposal would result in a FSR that is consistent with the draft standards cannot be established.

 

33.  There are no other draft planning instruments that are applicable to this site.

 

(iii)      any development control plan,

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

 

Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area Assessment Guidelines

 

34.  As outlined in the discussion earlier in this report under Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation, the proposal is not consistent with the guidelines and the resulting outcome is one which will not enhance the distinctive historic character of the locality.

 

35.  The overall guiding principle for the design of any new development in the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area is that it complements the scale, form, materials, colours, and general appearance of existing original buildings and landscape features in the streetscape, and will preserve and be sympathetic with those special qualities which define the historic character of the locality. In this case, the proposal does not achieve these design outcomes.

 

Part C - Medium Density Housing

 

Performance Criteria

 

Design Solution

Proposed

Complies

Site Requirements

 

Minimum Frontage

 

20m

36.573m

  Yes

Density (used as guide)

Site density not identified in Appendix 4 of DCP

(site area/dwelling)

636m²

(2.1m² site area per m² dwelling area)

899.26m²

 

   No


 

General Controls

 

Setbacks

       Front

 

     

       Side (N/W):

       Side (S/E):

       Rear (S/W):

 

75% at 6m and 25% at 7m

 

Detailed in report

 

4.12m -5.5m

 

 

1.5m-3m

1.5m-6m

3.98m-4.17m

 

 

No

 

 

No

No

Yes

 

Height

 

       H1

       H2

 

 

 

7.4m

9m

 

 

 

6.23m

8.1m

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Max Site Coverage

 

40% or 534.8m²

42.6% or 570m²

No

Max Impervious Area 

55% or 735.7m²

 74% or 989.9m²

 

 

 

 

No

Private Open Space

        Ground floor

       

       Min dimension

       (south side)

 

40m² p/unit

 

4m

3m+h = 9.27m

req. for unit 8

 

30.71m²-91.37m²

 

2.3m

4m

 

No

Car Parking

        Resident

        Visitor

(1.5 per dwelling)

12 spaces

2 spaces

 

19 spaces

2 spaces

 

Yes

Adaptable Units

1

1

Yes

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013- Compliance Table

 

Minimum Frontage width

 

36.  Council’s DCP outlines that a 20m frontage width is required for multi-dwelling housing in the R3-Zone. In this case, a 36.57m width is presented complying with this control. In respect to density, the site has not been identified within Appendix 4 of the DCP. This Appendix refers to the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Guidelines which itself does not specifically provide any density requirements for this form of development.

 

Floor Space Ratio/Density

 

37.  The site density requirement of 2.1m² of site area per m² of dwelling which is the applicable control for other related multi-dwelling housing in the R3 Zone will be used as a guide to density in this case. As a result, a maximum density on this site would be 636m². The proposal results in a density of 899.26m² failing to comply with this control. As a result, it is considered that the overall scale of the development is inconsistent with that of equivalent development types in this zone. 

 

Height and Building Envelope Requirements

 

38.  Multi-dwelling housing of a two storey scale is to comprise of a maximum H1 height of 7.4m and H2 Height of 9m. The proposed dwellings comply with the height requirements.

 

Building Setbacks:

 

Front setback

 

39.  For residential flat development and multi dwelling housing, a maximum of 75% of the width of the building must be setback a minimum of 5m, with the remainder 25% being setback a minimum of 7m.

 

40.  In this case, the street setback to the building ranges from 4.12m to 5.5m failing to comply with the DCP controls.

 

Side/rear setbacks

 

41.  In respect to side setbacks, where the dwellings front the street setbacks are as per the requirements for single dwellings which in this case equates to 1.2m for both dwellings 1 and 4. Side and rear setbacks for dwellings not fronting the street are 3m plus ¼ the amount that the wall exceeds 3m which in this instance equates to 3m for dwellings 5 and 8. Rear setbacks are to be a minimum of 3.85m for dwellings 5 through to 8.

 

42.  In response, dwellings 1 and 4 facing the street present side setbacks of 6m and 3m respectively complying with Council controls. Side setbacks of a minimum of 1.5m are proposed to dwellings 5 and 8 failing to comply with Council controls of 3m.

 

Required side setbacks to units 5 and 8

 

43.  The rear setbacks which range from 3.98m to 4.17m comply with Council controls of 3.85m.

 

Site Coverage

 

44.  Multi-dwelling housing is to incorporate a maximum site coverage of 40% or 534.8m². In this instance, a site coverage of 42.6% or 570m² is proposed failing to comply with Council DCP controls.

 

Open Space

 

45.  DCP controls require 40m² of open space per dwelling at ground level with minimum dimensions of 4m. These areas must be larger on the southern side and incorporate a dimension of 3m + dwelling wall height in this location. As a result, a 9.7m minimum dimension is required to be incorporated to dwelling 8.

 

46.  In response, dwellings 4 and 5 provide suitable private open space areas and dimensions. Units 6 and 7 provide a minor shortfall to the overall amount of area and dimension. Dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 8 provide adequate area but do not provide the minimum dimensions. Further, the roof structures proposed over the paved outdoor areas accessed off the dining rooms from dwellings 5 though to 8 will further reduce the amount of available solar access into the private open space areas associated with these units.

 

Impervious Area

 

47.  The proposal results in 989.9m² or 74% of impervious area failing to comply with Council controls of 735.7m² or 55%.

 

Vehicular access, parking and circulation

 

48.    Council DCP controls outline the required provision of 1.5 spaces/dwelling, plus one (1) visitor space/5 dwellings or part thereof, and 1 designated car wash bay which may also be used as a visitor space.

 

49.  The proposal provides in excess of the required parking numbers. In respect to vehicular access and egress into the site, concern was raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers in respect to the transitional grades allowing for suitable vehicular access into the basement carpark without scraping. These were currently unacceptable. Having said this, minor design changes could be made to the proposal in order to ensure compliance with the appropriate vehicular grades without it being to the detriment of the development.

 

Privacy

 

50.  The proposal appears to be generally well resolved in relation to privacy.

 

Solar Access

 

51.  In this case, a minimum of 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas will receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on the winter solstice (21 June). In respect to resulting shadowing impacts to the subject development, the rear courtyard area of dwelling 8 will be adversely impacted by shadowing which is not an ideal design outcome and fails to comply with Council DCP controls.

 

Views and view sharing

 

52.  The proposal will not result in any adverse view impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Adaptable & Accessible Housing

 

53.  Where 3-10 units/dwellings are proposed 1 adaptable unit is required. In this case, dwelling 5 has been nominated as the adaptable unit.

 

(iv)      any matters prescribed by the regulations, that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

 

54.  Not applicable.

 

(b)       the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,


 

 

55.  The proposed development is of a scale that is incompatible with the future desired character. The sites forming part of this development in addition to a number of other sites located along Ocean Street are being rezoned from medium to low density development. This “downzoning” will initiate a reduction in both the size and scale of any development in order to complement the scale, form, materials, colours, and general appearance of existing original buildings and landscape features in the streetscape while preserving those special qualities which define the historic character of the locality.

 

(c)     the suitability of the site for the development,

 

56.  It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is unsuitable for the site as it will detract from and will not be sympathetic with the special qualities which define the historic character of the locality.

 

(d)    any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

 

57.  In accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of KDCP 2013, the application was placed on neighbour notification from 2 March to 16 March 2016 and again from 5 October to 19 October 2016 once plan amendments were undertaken. When the application was amended and renotified three submissions were received that raised concern to heritage impacts, privacy, DCP non-compliances, overshadowing and downzoning of sites. The objectors felt that the proposal was not in character with the conservation area and that its overall scale would result in amenity impacts particularly in relation to privacy.

 

58.  The objectors also outlined that the DCP non-compliances were unacceptable and that overshadowing would result. Concern was also raised to the future downzoning of the sites and the unsuitability of this form of development in a proposed low density zone.

 

 

Map indicating location of objectors.

 

59.  The issues raised in these submissions were considered valid and have been discussed in the detailed assessment of the impacts throughout the body of this report. The issues raised by the residents form part of the reasons that the application could not be supported and is recommend for refusal. Further to this, phone discussions were held with the objectors on 18 October 2016 and the issues outlined in their submissions were discussed, clarified and largely concurred with.

 

(e)     the public interest.

 

60.  The proposed development is of a scale and character that is considered to detract from the scale and setting of the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area and is therefore not considered to be in the public interest.

 

Conclusion

 

61.  The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of KLEP 2012 and KDCP 2013. 

 

62.  Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No 26/2016 should be refused.

 

Development Refusal

 

That Council as the Consent Authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, refuse to Development Application No 26/2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a multi-dwelling housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision at 35-39 Ocean Street Kogarah for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed development is contrary to the sites future direction as outlined in New City Plan which includes the rezoning of numbers 13-57 Ocean Street, Kogarah from R3 – Medium Density Residential to R2 – Low Density Residential as the area is within the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area.

 

·    The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) of KLEP 2012 as it does not appropriately respond to and conserve the heritage significance of the conservation area and the environmental heritage of Kogarah.

 

·    The proposal is not sympathetic to the character of the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area as it does not complement the scale, form, materials, colours, and general appearance of existing original buildings and landscape features in the streetscape, and will not preserve and be sympathetic with those special qualities which define the historic character of the locality.

 

·    The proposal fails to comply with the DCP controls related to front and side setbacks, private open space and impervious area.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

A4 Plans

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.4                          35-39 Ocean Street, Kogarah

[Appendix 1]         A4 Plans

 

 

Page 286

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 296

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.5

Development Application No

DA2016/0078

Site Address & Ward Locality

19-23 Bembridge Street, Carlton

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposal

Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a five storey residential apartment building with (23) units, basement parking and strata subdivision

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer, Bernard Moroz

Owners

Mr J Carigliano & Ms E Briglia

Applicant

Cafer Investments Pty Ltd

Zoning

R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012

Date Of Lodgement

2/05/2016

Submissions

Five (5)

Cost of Works

$5,795,000.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Nature of development, non-compliances and unresolved objections

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with conditions included in the report.

 

 

 

Site Plan

 


 

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

 

1.           Council is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a five storey residential apartment building containing (23) units, basement parking and strata subdivision on the subject site.

 

Site and Locality

 

2.           The site consists of three regular shaped allotments and is located on the north-western side of Bembridge Street. The site presents an overall frontage width of 36.575m, site lengths of 37.285m (north-eastern) and 36.9m (south-western) and overall site area of 1,356.9m².

 

Zoning and Permissibility

 

3.           The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses contained within KLEP 2012.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

 

4.           The proposed development satisfies the provisions of Section 1.1 – Streetscape Character of KDCP 2013 and complements the existing streetscape character. However, the proposal does not comply with Councils controls for density, height, front setback, common open space and impervious area.

 

Submissions

 

5.           Five submissions were received raising concerns related to the scale of the building, traffic, shadowing and privacy.

 

Conclusion

 

6.           Having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment of the proposal Development Application No. 78/2016 should be approved subject to conditions.

 


 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

 

7.           Council is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a five storey residential apartment building containing (23) units being (20) two bedroom and (3) three bedroom units, basement parking and strata subdivision on the subject site.

 

The Site and Locality

 

8.           The site consists of three regular shaped allotments and is located on the north-western side of Bembridge Street. The site consists of three regular shaped allotments and is located on the north-western side of Bembridge Street. The site presents an overall frontage width of 36.575m, site lengths of 37.285m (north-eastern) and 36.9m (south-western) and overall site area of 1356.9m². The site presents a crossfall from the south-west to the north-east and is sporadically vegetated throughout. A 2.135m wide drainage easement traverses the site along the along the length of the north-eastern perimeter while three single level brick dwellings and ancillary structures currently exist on the site.

 

 

Background

 

9.           The application was submitted with Council on 2 May 2016 and was neighbour notified from 17 to 31 May 2016 where five objections were received.

 

10.         The application was reviewed by the St George Design Review Panel on 7 April 2016 where the application was generally supported subject to the carrying out of minor design changes in accordance with the panel’s recommendations.

 

11.         Architectural plan amendments were undertaken with a final revision submitted with Council on 26 October 2016. This report has been prepared giving consideration to both the architectural plans and details submitted on 26 October 2016.

 

Section 79C Assessment

 

12.         The following is an assessment of the application with regard to Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(1)     Matters for consideration – general

 

In determining an application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

(a)       the provision of:

(i)      any environmental planning instrument,

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) 

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

 

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

 

13.         The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential Zone under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. 

 

 

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

 

Clause 4.1A - Minimum lot sizes for Residential Flat Buildings

 

14.         Residential Flat Buildings within the R3 Zone are required to be constructed on a lot/s where the area is equal to or greater than 1000m2. The proposed residential flat building will be constructed over three lots that comprise of a total area of 1356.9m2. 

 

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

 

15.         The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who raised no objection to the removal of a number of trees on the site subject to replacement planting. It was also recommended that a number of trees located on neighbouring sites to be preserved and protected. Conditions will be imposed with any development consent in relation to the retention of these trees. In addition, consideration has been given to the provisions of Section B2 – Tree Management and Greenweb of KDCP 2013 and the proposed development satisfies the relevant controls tree and greenweb management.

 

Map depicting tree removal and retention

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation 

 

16.         The subject site is not listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5, is not within a Heritage Conservation Area, nor are there any heritage items located nearby.

 

Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

 

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

 

17.         The subject site is not shown as being affected by acid sulfate soils as identified on the Acid Sulfate Soil Map.

 

Clause 6.2 – Earthworks

 

18.         The proposed development will require significant excavation works in order to accommodate the basement car park. This excavation ranges in depth from 2.3m (northern corner) to 3.8m (southern corner).The proposed excavation is the minimum necessary to achieve a basement and it has been designed to allow for substantial deep planting areas around the perimeter of the building.

 

19.         It is considered that the proposed earthworks are considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of this clause as the works are not likely to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

 

Section indicating depth of excavation

 

 

Floor plan of basement depicting excavation depth

 

 

 

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

 

20.         The subject site is identified on the Flood Planning Maps as being affected by flooding. However, it is considered that the proposed development satisfies the provisions of this clause in terms of compatibility, affect on flood behaviour, risk to life, impact on the environment and social and economic costs.

 

21.         In addition, consideration has been given to the provisions of Section B6 – Water Management of KDCP 2013 and the proposed development satisfies the relevant controls related to flooding and drainage.  

 

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

 

22.         A BASIX Certificate has been issued for the proposed development and the commitments required by the BASIX Certificate have been satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat

Development (SEPP No 65)

 

23.         The proposed development is subject to the provisions of SEPP No 65, which aims to improve the quality of residential flat design in NSW.

 

24.         The application has been accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer that verifies that:

 

a)         He or she designed or directed the design of the modification, and

 

b)         The modifications achieve the design quality principles as set out in Part 2 of SEPP No 65, and

 

c)         The modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise the design intent of the approved development.  

 

25.         The application was referred to the St George Design Review Panel for consideration at their meeting of 7 April 2016.  The following comments were provided with respect to the design quality principles set out in the Policy:

 

26.         It should be noted that at the time this application was reviewed by the DRP, Council had exhibited the New City Plan and consideration of the reports on the New City Plan were adopted during an Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Monday 4 April 2016. This Plan has since been lodged with the Department of Planning for gazettal. The New City Plan proposes to rezone land and increase gross floor space ratios and height on certain sites. It has been recommended to increase the floor space and height on the subject site to 1.5:1 and 15m respectively.

 

27.         Additionally, Council at its meeting on 26 April 2015 resolved that the process for dealing with development applications reliant on elements within the New City Plan be endorsed as outlined in the Council report. This report outlined that where there is no change in the zone and where the use is permitted under the current land use table but there is a variation to development standards (KLEP 2012) or Kogarah DCP 2013 controls, Council will accept, assess and determine Development Applications. 

 

28.         The Design Review Panel based a proportion of its comments/recommendations on the draft provisions of the New City Plan which are detailed below. 

 

Context

 

29.         The context is characterised by typically three (3) storey apartment buildings and remaining single storey residential dwellings. Given the new LEP controls which permit greater height and density it is likely that all the latter will be replaced by apartments in the near future. It is noted that there is a new four (4) storey apartment building across the street from the site.

 

30.         The landscape character is formed by large mature trees in both the verge and established front gardens. Recent development has detracted from a strong street planting pattern and as such it is important that the subject development make a positive contribution to retaining and reinforcing the street character. Overhead power lines run along the verge at the front of the development site and inhibit planning of large trees on the public land.

 

Comment

 

Acceptable

 

Built Form and Scale

 

31.         Generally satisfactory with the exception of the fifth level which is unduly prominent in the streetscape. The Panel recommends that the subject development and all future developments along the street should emphasize a four (4) storey street frontage scale, with any forms above this height setback so that they are not visually assertive. The fifth level in this development should be setback no less than 4m from the Bembridge Street front building line.

 

32.         As proposed the ground floor residential units are set approximately 1m below the footpath and the western side boundary which has adverse consequences:

 

·    Apparent flooding risk, specifically the relationship between FFL, OSD and site boundary levels do not appear to be successfully resolved.

·    Reduced amenity of ground floor units.

·    FFL necessitates stairs and ramps within the front setback, compromising the opportunity for large tree planting as well as the presentation of the development to the street.

 

Comment

 

33.         The 4m setback for the fifth level beyond that of the Bembridge Street primary building line is unwarranted. The proposed design has already incorporated an increased setback to the fifth level that ranges between 1.955m - 2.380m from the fourth level below. This outcome is already considered to reduce the visual assertiveness of the uppermost level. Additionally, the solid balustrade to the top floor balcony and the proposed planting between the balcony area off Unit 21 and this parapet perimeter solid balustrade further obscures the uppermost part of the building when viewed from the street. It is anticipated that any future redevelopment of neighbouring sites will reflect the built form and scale of that of the current proposal.

 

34.         The ground floor level of the building has been raised 500mm resulting in a 500mm increase to the overall building height. As a result, the ground floor level relationships with the existing ground levels are more coherent providing an improved relationship with the front entry and access to the common open space area. Level access is now provided from the foyer to the primary common open space area along the rear of the building. As a result, the ground floor units will now offer an improved amenity while the overall extent of stairwells and ramps proposed within the front setback have been minimised resulting in the increased availability of area for deep soil planting.

 

35.         In regards to building separation, the Panel did not raise any concern with the separation of the proposed building in relation to that of neighbouring buildings. The building is considered to be well resolved in regards to separation where only a minor deviation away from the outcomes outlined in the ADG are presented to the fifth storey north-eastern perimeter wall associated with bedroom number 2. In this instance, an 8.42m setback has been incorporated which is a shortfall from the 9m outlined in the ADG.

 

36.         While inconsistent with the guidelines of the ADG, the proposed separation is considered to provide appropriate massing and space between the proposed building and the existing flat building located to the north-east. Further, it is unreasonable to utilise an identical ADG separation guide for buildings of both a five and eight storey scale when such a disparity is presented with the two scales. It is more appropriate to utilise the guide in order to achieve a desired outcome that addresses the objectives of the ADG rather than that of a strict numerical standard. As such, it is more appropriate to pro rata the separation in accordance with the scale of the building rather than implementing a “one size fits all” approach.

 

37.         Having said this, the proposal has incorporated frosted glazing to the perimeter bedroom windows (Unit 23) in order to ensure adequate privacy between the buildings. Further, both the visual massing and spaces between buildings is appropriate for both the current and future character.

 

38.         The minor shortfall will not restrict the ability to provide visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight, daylight access and outlook for both the subject and neighbouring buildings while suitable areas of deep soil zones and landscaping are still provided along the sites perimeters. As a result, the minor deviation away from the ADG guidelines in relation to building separation should be supported.

 

Density

 

39.         It complies with the New City Plan and acceptable subject to the design issues above being resolved.

 

Comment

 

40.         The New City Plan outlines a density of 1.5:1 or 2035m² which would be the applicable for the subject site. This proposal results in a density consistent with the maximum anticipated.


 

 

Sustainability

 

41.         Appears to comply. A development of this scale should also consider adequate provision for the storage and re-use of water for landscape irrigation, as well as solar energy generation.

 

42.         The basement should be setback a minimum of 3m from each of the side boundaries to meet minimum deep soil dimensions and allow for appropriate tree planting. Infrastructure such as stairs and ramps located in potential deep soil zones should be minimised or removed. The OSD tank should be moved from the deep soil zone and located under the driveway.

 

Comment

 

43.         As a result of the site constraints and the required provision of car parking, it is difficult to provide 3m setbacks from the basement to the side boundaries without providing a dual level basement which is not considered an appropriate design outcome as a result of the additional significant excavation that would need to be undertaken. Having said this, areas with deep soil widths ranging from 2.2m - 2.5m are provided along the side boundaries which are adequate in size and width to allow for appropriate tree planting.

 

44.         Additionally, as a result of the increase in height of the ground floor level as stated above, the extent of the stairs and ramps located within the deep soil zones have been minimized or removed in their entirety. In regards to the position of the OSD tank, this relates to the position of the stormwater line and cannot be relocated to under the driveway as the outlet level would then be located below street level.

 

Landscape

 

45.         There are a number of significant trees located on the adjoining site to the north which have tree canopies that extend onto the development site. The Tree Protection Zones for these trees must be shown on all drawings. Structures such as basement walls, retaining walls, paving and other structures must not be proposed within the Tree Protection Zones and ground levels must remain as existing in these areas.

 

46.         The location of the drying lines, proposed under the existing Eucalypt tree should be reviewed. The front setback should be landscaped in a form that complements and enhances the existing streetscape, including the planting of large trees.

Comment

 

47.         Tree Protection Zones are now depicted on the amended landscaping plans and the ground levels are retained as existing. The clothes drying lines have been relocated to the western corner of the site while two additional trees are proposed within the front setback to enhance the existing streetscape. Also, as a direct result of the amended floor levels, the extent of paving along the front of the site has been minimised allowing for additional deep soil planting area.


 

 

Amenity

 

48.         The following issues should be addressed:

 

·    Provide natural light and ventilation to the car park

·    Provide natural light and ventilation to internal corridors

·    Redesign main entrance area to be more generous and allow space for seating, etc in lobby and desirably also in the entrance forecourt

·    The deeply recessed entrance door is of concern

·    Adequate basement storage should be confirmed

 

Comment

 

49.         Due to the basement being located largely below the natural ground lines of the site, mechanical ventilation has been incorporated which is a typical outcome of this development type. Natural light and ventilation has been provided to the internal corridors by means of doors and windows (ground floor), borrowed light from the stairway (middle levels), and vented skylights (top level). The main entry is considered to be of a reasonable width ranging in between 2.0m- 2.37m which is adequate for the provision of a comfortable entry-exit point in addition to seating. Additional seating has also been included adjacent to the letter boxes at the front of the building.

 

50.         Storage requirements as required under the provisions of the ADG have been incorporated both within the basement and the apartments.

 

Safety and Security

 

51.         The deeply recessed main entry doors are a potential security hazard.

 

Comment

 

52.         In respect to the main entrance door, this has been brought forward to reduce its distance from the street.

 

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

 

53.         Communal open space where indicated at the rear of the property would be of very poor quality. It is not visually accessible from the majority of the units. It is below ground level, substantially overshadowed in winter months and a very limited value. Some part of this area could potentially be useful for a children/toddlers play space, provided that it is immediately accessible and clearly visible from the entrance lobby. It is essential to provide an additional communal area elsewhere which will receive good solar access during winter. It is strongly recommended the communal area be relocated on the fourth floor, with a small enclosed room opening to an attractive terrace which would receive good winter sunlight.


 

 

Comment

 

54.         The revised height of the ground floor and the subsequent revised height of the common open space, addresses the majority of issues raised. The majority of the space is now either at or above ground level while the area located along the rear boundary is orientated to the north/ north-west receiving excellent solar access. The ADG stipulates that common open space is to have a minimum width of 3m which has been achieved in this case.

 

55.         As already outlined, the ground floor has been raised by 500mm in order to better address the natural ground level at the rear of the site while also ensuring that appropriate solar access that provides good amenity for the residents has been provided. A toddlers play space has also been provided which has been noted on the amended landscape plan.

 

Aesthetics

 

56.         Subject to addressing the issues discussed above under ‘Built Form’ and ‘Landscape’, the design is acceptable.

 

Comment

 

57.         These issues have been addressed and have been discussed under the relevant headings above.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

 

58.         All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and would satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

 

(ii)       any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority, and

 

59.         The New City Plan includes changes to zoning and the introduction of development standards in parts of the City to deliver a range of new housing options.

 

60.         Specifically, the New City Plan proposes to introduce height and FSR standards while the zoning of the site will remain as existing. A floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and height of 15m is proposed in this case which this application has been prepared subject to.

 

61.         A floor space ratio of 1.499:1 or 2034.89m² is proposed complying with the future standard. In respect to height, the building will comprise of a maximum height of 15.926m failing to comply with the future 15m height standard as outlined in the New City Plan. The extent of non-compliance ranges from 50mm to 926mm. The extent of non-compliance has been hatched on the building elevations below for ease of interpretation.

 

 

 

62.         While non-compliant with Council’s future standard, the non-compliance in relation to height was exacerbated by the comments made by the Design Review Panel who recommended that the building be raised in order to address a number of design issues. These issues were related to the relationship between the proposed FFL of the building, OSD and site boundaries which result in a reduced amenity to the ground floor units necessitating the need for stairs and ramps within the front setback. The issues have been addressed with the raising of the building by 500mm.

 

63.         Further, the building itself has been well articulated and provides a range of materials and finishes that will ensure that visual interest when viewed towards the building from both the street and neighbouring properties is maintained. Generous separation between the subject and neighbouring buildings has been provided while suitable landscaping has been incorporated along the sites perimeters in order to soften the buildings built form.  


 

 

64.         Furthermore, the draft objectives of the clause related to height are as follows:

 

·    to establish the maximum height for buildings,

·    to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas.

·    to provide appropriate scales and intensities of development through height controls.

 

65.         It is not envisaged that the minor height non-compliance will result in any perceivable visual increase to the scale of the building nor is it considered to result in any additional amenity impact over what would be anticipated from a complying building height. In respect to scale and intensity, the proposed building does present an increased scale and intensity to that currently presented along Bembridge Street; however, the future scale of development anticipated to be carried out on the numerous undeveloped sites within the immediate context will present a scale and intensity that are reflective of that being proposed in this case.

 

(iii)      any development control plan,

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

 

66.         The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013). The relevant controls are discussed below:

 

Frontage

 

67.         Council’s DCP outlines that a 20m frontage is required for residential flat building. In this case, an overall frontage width of 36.575m is provided complying with Council DCP controls.

 

Number of Storeys

 

68.         Council’s DCP permits three (3) storey residential flat buildings on the subject site.

 

69.         The proposal involves the construction of a five (5) storey building failing to comply with this numerical control. The non-compliance should be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The New City Plan outlines a scale of five stories on both the subject and neighbouring undeveloped sites within the local context.

·    The proposal generally satisfies the design principles contained within SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide.

·    The building facades have been suitably articulated and modulated in order to reduce the visual scale of the building when viewed from both the neighbouring properties and the street.

·    No unreasonable level of amenity impact related to either privacy or overshadowing will result.


 

 

Height

 

70.         The proposed development has a maximum height of 15.926m that fails to comply with the maximum height limit of 10.5m (H1) and 12m (H2) for residential flat buildings with a three (3) storey height limit. The non-compliance in relation to height was discussed earlier in this report.

 

Density

 

71.         Council’s DCP permits a density of 1.1m² of site area per m² of dwelling which in this instance equates to 1221m². In light of this, this development proposes a density of 2034.89m² or 1.5:1 that fails to comply with the above noted control. While non-compliant it should be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The New City Plan outlines a density of 1.5:1 or 2035m² which would be the applicable for the subject site. This proposal results in a density consistent with the maximum anticipated.

·    The building maintains a suitable level of modulation and articulation throughout ensuring that any visual bulk is dispersed throughout the facades.

·    The building will hold visual interest when viewed from Bembridge Street by providing a well-balanced façade that incorporates a range of materials and finishes in order to crate visual interest while also reducing the perceivable scale of the building.

·    The proposal satisfies the design principles contained in SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Setbacks

 

Front

 

72.         The DCP requires a front setback of 5m to 7m for residential flat buildings. A maximum of 75% of the width of the building must be a minimum 5.0m with the remaining 25% setback a minimum of 7.0m. The proposed development provides a staggered front setback where 33% of the front wall is setback 5m, 27% is setback 5.87m and 40% is setback 7m. The proposal complies with Council DCP controls.

 

Side/Rear

 

73.         In respect to side and rear setbacks, the proposal far exceeds the minimum setbacks as outlined in the DCP which stipulates the provision of 3m plus ¼ the amount that the wall height exceeds 3m. If applying the DCP, the building would require setbacks ranging from 3m to 6.3m. The proposal has been design in accordance with the ADG separation guidelines. It should be noted that building setbacks refer to the building line above the natural ground surface and are not applicable to basements. Council’s DCP does not provide controls in relation to basement setbacks from side boundaries. While the Design Review Panel did seek to provide a 3m side setback from the basement to the side boundaries, this was in order to the meet minimum deep soil dimensions and allow for appropriate tree planting. This has been achieved without the provision of a 3m setback and has been discussed earlier in this report.


 

 

Site Coverage

 

74.         A maximum site coverage of 45% is applicable to residential flat buildings equating to 610m2 in this instance. The proposal provides 596m2 of site coverage or 44% complying with Council controls.

 

Impervious Area

 

75.         Residential flat buildings are to have a maximum impervious area of 55% equating to 745m2 in this case.

 

76.         The proposal does not comply with this requirement, having 68% (922m2) of impervious areas on the site. The variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·    Suitable deep soil landscaping is provided along the external perimeters of the site allowing for the planting of suitable trees and shrubs. 

·    The building footprint of the proposed development is comparable to surrounding residential flat buildings ensuring that the proposal will not appear as an overdevelopment of the site.

·    A 3,000L rainwater tank is proposed as part of the stormwater plan that will reduce the amount of water from the site into Council’s stormwater system.

 

Common Open Space

 

77.         Common open space for residential flat building developments shall be provided at a rate of 30m² per dwelling for those units that have balconies as their only form of private open space. Therefore, a minimum of 540m² is required.

 

78.         The proposed development incorporates 280m² of common open space area which it provides within both the rear and front of the site. The non-compliance should be supported as the scale of development is such where the total amount of common open space area provided is considered appropriate in both size and scale and would appropriately cater for the needs of future residents. Further, the ground floor has been raised by 500mm in order to better address the natural ground level at the rear of the site providing level access form the foyer to the primary common open space area along the rear while also ensuring that appropriate solar access that provides good amenity for the residents has been provided. A toddlers play space has also been provided which has been noted on the amended landscape plan

 

Private Open Space

 

79.         The DCP requires a minimum area of 35m² of private courtyard space be provided for ground floor units with a minimum dimension of 3m. All ground floor units comply with this requirement. The upper level units provide minimum balcony area sizes that range from 10.12m² to 12m² with minimum dimensions that range from 2.15m to 2.83m. While non-compliant with the DCP controls, the balcony areas are adequate in both size and dimension to allow for appropriate use of the areas.


 

Other Requirements:

 

Solar Access

 

80.         The DCP states that at least 50% of the primary open space area of the proposed development should have access to a minimum of 4 hour hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. All units will receive the required amount of solar access. In addition, the DCP requires at least 50% of the neighbouring existing principal open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal satisfies this requirement.

 

Building Separation

 

81.         As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed separation is considered to provide appropriate massing and space between the proposed building and the neighbouring dwelling/residential flat buildings. The proposed separation will not restrict the ability to provide visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight, daylight access and outlook for both the subject and neighbouring buildings while suitable areas of deep soil zones and landscaping are still provided along the sites perimeters.

 

Privacy

 

82.         The building separation combined with appropriate window placement and screening devices will ensure that there are no significant adverse visual privacy impacts resulting from the development. While concern was raised to the potential impact the proposal would have to the dwelling located to the south-west of the site, the balconies located off the living areas off units 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are oriented either towards the street or the rear while the existing garage/carport located within the north-western corner of the neighbouring property at 23A Bembridge Street further reduces the ability of direct viewing into this property.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

83.         In accordance with Council DCP controls a total of 41 spaces being 36 residential and 5 visitor spaces are required to be provided. Currently, the proposal provides 27 spaces being 23 residential and 4 visitor spaces resulting in a non-compliance with Council controls.

 

84.         While a parking shortfall is presented, the NSW Government has recently adopted the "Apartment Design Guide" which will be used in conjunction with the State Environmental Planning Policy NO.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). Objective 3J-l of the Design Guide states that sites within 800m of a railway station are to satisfy the minimum parking requirements specified in the RMS "Guide to Traffic Generating Developments" (October 2002).

 

85.         The RMS Guidelines nominate that a high density residential flat building refers to a building containing 20 or more dwellings. As the proposed development contains 23 dwellings, the following parking requirements for high density residential flat buildings in Metropolitan Sub-Regional Centres have been adopted:

 

1 bedroom units    0.6 space per dwelling

2 bedroom units    0.9 spaces per dwelling

3 bedroom units    1.4 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking        1 space per 5 dwellings

 

86.         Application of those requirements to the proposed development yields a parking requirement of 27 car parking spaces being 23 residential and 4 visitor. The proposal provides 27 spaces being 23 residential and 4 visitor complying with the RMS Guidelines.

 

Adaptable and Accessible Housing

 

87.         The proposal includes three (3) adaptable units complying with Council controls.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 

88.         The following table outlines the proposals compliance with the primary controls contained within KDCP 2013.

 

Standard

 

DCP Requirement

Development Proposal

Compliance

 

Site Area

 

1000m2      

1356.9m2

Yes

Min Frontage Width

20m

36.57m

Yes

No. Storeys

3

5

No

Density

(1.1m2 of site area per m² dwelling)

1221m2

2034.89m2

No

Building Envelope

 

Height

10.5m (upper most habitable)

12m (overall)

15.96m

No

Setbacks

 

 

Front

 

A maximum of 75% of the width of the building must be a minimum 5.0m with the remaining 25% setback a minimum of 7.0m

 

Side and rear

 

3m plus ¼ the amount of wall height exceeds 3m (south-eastern elevation)

 

 

 

 

 

See report

 

 

 

 

Yes

Other

 

Adaptable Units

3

3

Yes


 

Common Open Space

540m²

 

280m²

 

No


Car Parking

Resident

Visitor

 

36 spaces

5 spaces

 

23 spaces

4 spaces

 

No

Section 94 Contributions

 

89.         The proposed development requires payment of $214,110.02 of Section 94 contributions based on the provisions of Council’s Section 94 Plan for Precinct 2- Carlton.

 

(iv)      any matters prescribed by the regulations, that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

 

90.         Not applicable.

 

(b)       the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

 

91.         The proposed development is of a scale and character that is in keeping with other dwellings being constructed in the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on the natural and built environment of the locality.

 

(c)     the suitability of the site for the development,

 

92.         It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography, vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

 

(d)    any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

 

93.         In accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of KDCP 2013 application was placed on neighbour notification for a period of fourteen (14) days adjoining property owners were notified in writing of the proposal and invited to comment.  Five submissions were received raising the following concerns:

 

Incompatibility with the built form along Bembridge Street

 

Comment

 

94.         It is acknowledged that the proposed building will be of an increased height and scale to that currently presented along Bembridge Street. Having said this, the numerous undeveloped sites in both the immediate and local context will eventually present a built form and scale comparative to that being proposed.

 


 

DCP non-compliances

 

Comment

 

95.         The proposal was prepared giving consideration to the height and floor space standards outlined in the New City Plan which is currently with the Department of Planning for final gazettal. In respect to non-compliances with the DCP, variations to major controls being FSR, height and setbacks were considered minor in nature. Variations to the minor controls related to common open space and impervious area and details as to why these variations should be should be supported have been detailed in the body of this report.

 

Amenity issues

 

Comment

 

96.         As discussed in the body of this report, the proposal is well resolved in relation to both privacy and shadowing. The proposed building is appropriately separated from the neighbouring residential flat buildings located to the north-east and north-west and the single level dwelling located to the south-west. The introduction of appropriate window placement and screening devices will ensure that no privacy impacts will result. Further, at least 50% of the neighbouring existing principal open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal satisfies this requirement.

 

Parking

 

Comment

 

97.         As discussed in the body of this report, in accordance with the RMS Guidelines for Traffic Generating Development, the proposed development yields a parking requirement of 27 car parking spaces. The proposal provides 27 spaces complying with these requirements.

 

Tree Planting

 

Comment

 

98.         In respect to the concern raised to the planting of the Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine) within the northern corner of the site, Council’s Tree Management Officer outlined that a more suitable tree will need to be planted in this location which is to be of a native or exotic species. A consent condition will be imposed reflecting this.

 

Impact on garbage collection

 

Comment

 

99.         The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Waster Officer who reviewed the proposal and found that the bin storage room is of suitable size to accommodate the required number of bins. It was also outlined that the transport of bins is satisfactory in being transported from the bin room, up the vehicle access driveway or alternatively, a caretaker/cleaner can transport them up the access lift.

 

 

(e)     the public interest.

 

100.       The proposed development is of a scale and character that does not conflict with the public interest.

 

Conclusion

 

101.       The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of KLEP 2012 and KDCP 2013.

 

102.       Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No 78/2016 should be approved subject to conditions.


 

 

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

 

SECTION A - General Conditions

 

The conditions that follow in this Section A of the Notice of Determination are general conditions which are imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the development consent.

 

(1)       Approved Plans of Consent

 

The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and details listed below and any supporting information submitted with the Development Application except as amended by any conditions attached to the Development Consent:

 

(i)         Architectural plans- Prepared by Cornerstone Design Drawing numbers DA01 through to and including DA11 and DA14 Issue B submitted with Council on 26 October 2016

(ii)        Landscape plans – Prepared by Zenith Landscape Designs Drawing numbers 15-3148 L01 and L02 Dated 12 October 2016

(iii)       Stormwater plans- Prepared by United Consulting Engineers drawing number 08MB3290/D01, D02, D03 and D04 Issue G dated 27 October 2016

 

SECTION B –Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate or Demolition Conditions

 

The conditions that follow in this Section B of the Notice of Determination relate to the payment of fees, amendments being made to the proposal, further investigation being undertaken or the preparation of documentation that must be complied with prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or Demolition.

 

Note:  A copy of the Construction Certificate shall be forwarded to Council prior to commencement of construction where Council is not the certifier who issued the Construction Certificate.

 

(2)       Asset & Building Fees

 

Payment of the following amounts as detailed below:

 

·   Damage Deposit of                                         $37,200.00

·   *Builders Long Service Levy of                    $20,282.00

·   Driveway Design and Inspection Fee
(Dwelling) of                                                    $     750.00

·   Parking Bay modifications Fee of                $  2,450.00

·   Asset Inspection Fee of                                 $     110.00

 

*Note: The Builders Long Service Levy quoted is based on the market value of the proposed building works and the Levy Rate applicable at the time of assessing the Development Application and may be subject to change prior to payment.

 

 

 

(3)       Section 94 Index

 

Section 94 Contributions are to be paid as detailed below in the following condition, and until paid all contributions will be indexed four (4) times a year (on the following dates) to allow for the cost increases: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October.

 

(4)       Section 94 Contributions

 

As at the date of Development Consent the following contributions have been levied on the subject development under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the nominated Section 94 Contributions Plans:

 

No.1 – Roads and Traffic Management – Residential

$    3,009.72

No.5 – Open Space 2007

$203,227.71

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries – Buildings

$    4,595.80

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries – Books

$    3,276.80

 

TOTAL

 

$214,110.02

 

Any of the above Section 94 Contributions Plans may be inspected at the Georges River Council Customer Service Centres.

 

(5)       Dilapidation Report

 

Prior to issue of any construction certificate or commencement of any demolition or earth works on site, the applicant shall submit, for acceptance by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), with a copy forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA, a full dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of the following properties;

 

(i)         All neighbouring buildings likely to be affected by the excavation as determined by the consulting engineer.

 

The report must be completed by a suitably qualified consulting structural/ geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal, the subsoil conditions and any recommendations of a geotechnical report for the site. The report shall have regard to protecting the applicant from spurious claims for structural damage and shall be verified by all stakeholders as far as practicable.”

 

Reports relating to properties that refuse access to carry out inspections to complete the dilapidation report, after being given reasonable written notice to request access (at least 14 days) at a reasonable time (8.00am-6.00pm), are not to hold up the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

(6)       Soil and Water Management

 

A Soil and Water Management Control Plan, incorporating contour levels and prepared in accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy shall be submitted to Council detailing all measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation runoff from the site during excavation and construction activities.


 

 

(7)       SEPP No 65 Certification

 

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted that verifying that the plans and specifications achieve the design quality of the development for which consent was granted having regard to the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

(8)       Adaptable Housing Compliance

 

The proposed development including the three nominated adaptable units shall comply with the adaptable housing provisions of AS4299 – Adaptable Housing and AS1498 – Access and Mobility (Parts 1 and 2). The Adaptable Housing checklist and circulation diagram demonstrating compliance shall be submitted.

 

(9)       Ausgrid Sub Station

 

The applicant is to confer with Ausgrid to determine if an electricity distribution substation is required. If so, shall be incorporated within the Construction Certificate and it will be necessary for the final film survey plan to be endorsed with an area having dimensions 5m x 4m over the location of the proposed electricity distribution substation to be dedicated to Council as public roadway, or as otherwise agreed with Ausgrid. Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met prior to release of the occupation certificate.

 

(10)     Clearances to Overhead Mains

 

If any part of the proposed structure, within 5m of a street frontage, is higher than 3m above footway level, the applicant is to confer with Ausgrid to determine if satisfactory clearances to any existing overhead mains will be affected. If so, the applicant is to make arrangements with Ausgrid for any necessary modification to the electrical network in question.

 

These works to be at the applicant’s expense and Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met prior to actual construction commencing on site or as agreed with Ausgrid.

 

(11)     Sydney Water (DA Only)

 

The approved plans must be processed through Sydney Water to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water asset’s (sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements) and if any further requirements need to be met.  An approval receipt will be issued by Sydney Water which is to be submitted to Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for;

 

·    Sydney Water Tap in – see Plumbing, building and developing and then Sydney Water Tap in; and

·    Building over/adjacent to a Sydney Water Asset - see Plumbing, building and developing, building then Building Approvals or telephone 13 20 92.


 

 

(12)     Landscape Plan

 

The proposed tree species (Syncarpia glomulifera) as noted in the tree species schedule is to be changed to a different less intrusive species being native or exotic.

 

SECTION C – Prior to Commencement of Construction Conditions

 

The conditions that follow in this Section C of the Notice of Determination are specific to the proposed development and must be complied with prior to the commencement of construction on the site.

 

(13)     Geotechnical Report

 

Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.  In this regard, all excavated waste materials shall be disposed of at an approved Waste Depot.

 

No rock breaking or other machinery for the excavation, drilling, cutting or removal of rock shall be used on the site prior to the acceptance by the principal certifying authority of the following documentation:

 

(i)         A report by a geotechnical engineer detailing the measures recommended in undertaking the works so as to prevent damage to any adjoining or nearby buildings.

(ii)        The type and size of machinery proposed.

(iii)       The routes of all trucks to convey material to and from the site.

 

(14)     Certification of Detailed Plan

 

The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed and approved as a concept plan only. No detailed assessment of the design has been undertaken. A Detailed Stormwater Plan and supporting information of the proposed on-site stormwater management system is to be submitted. The required details in this Plan and the relevant checklist are presented in Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

The design parameters and the general concept of the proposed on-site stormwater management system are to be the same as documented in the approved Concept Stormwater Plan for the proposed development. Any conceptual variations to the stormwater design will require written approval from Council and will require to be justified and supported by appropriate details, calculations and information to allow for proper assessment.

 

(15)     Rainwater Tank – Required for other than BASIX.

 

A 5m3 rainwater tank for rainwater storage and reuse is to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow from the tank is to be directed to the site drainage system. The mains top-up system is to be installed according to Sydney Water’s guidelines entitled Guidelines for rainwater tank on residential properties: Plumbing Requirements April 2003 and its amendment November 2003.

 

(16)     On-Site Detention

 

A 31.1m3 On-Site Detention system with a Maximum Site Discharge of 18.1 Litres per Second is to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow is to be directed to the site drainage system.

 

(17)     Certification by Mechanical Engineer

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for ventilation of the building, mechanical and /or natural ventilation shall be provided. These systems shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of:-

 

a)   The Building Code of Australia;

b)   Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 1 - 1998;

c)   Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 2 - 2002;

d)   The Public Health Act 2010;

e)   The Public Health Regulation 2012;

f)    Australian Standard 3666.1 - 2002;

g)   Australian Standard 3666.2 - 2002;

h)  Australian Standard 3666.3 - 2000.

 

Details of all mechanical and /or natural ventilation systems, along with specific certification, provided by an appropriately qualified person, verifying compliance with the abovementioned requirements.

 

(18)     Structural Engineer’s Details

 

Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns & other structural members.  The details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to construction of the specified works.

 

A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA.

 

(19)     Tree Protection

 

Prior to the commencement  of any works on the site the tree protection measures required for the established Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of the trees to be retained shall be installed in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 - Protection of trees on development sites.

 

Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009 a protective fence consisting of 1.8m high fully supported chainmesh shall be erected around the base of the tree. The distance of the fence from the base of each tree is to be in accordance with the TPZ listed below. A layer of organic mulch 100 millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and no soil or fill should be placed within the protection area.

 

There shall be no services installed within the drip line TPZ of the tree. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying “Tree Protection Zone” attached to the fence, this must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

 

(20)     Protection of Site – Hoarding

 

A hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place if:

 

·    the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause obstruction or inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place; or

·    if it involves the enclosure of a public place.

 

If necessary an awning is to be erected which is sufficient to prevent any substance from or in connection with the work from falling into a public place.

 

Any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

 

If the work site is likely to be hazardous to persons in a public place, it must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise.

 

(21)     Ground Anchors

 

Should the proposed development require the installation of ground anchors to a road reserve the following must be complied with:

 

·    The appropriate Roads Act 1993 approvals shall be obtained.

·    The anchoring is to be de-stressed once no longer required.

·    The work is to be clear of all services contained within the public roadway and the required dial before you dig investigations are to be undertaken in relation to any services that may be in the proposed anchor locations.

·    Public liability insurances being held by the builder/ developer with a copy being submitted to Council.

·    A works-as-executed plan showing the exact location of all anchoring points being submitted to Council upon their installation.

 

It is to be noted that if anchoring into adjacent private properties is required any such approval would need to be obtained from the owners of this property.

 

(22)     Driveway

 

In respect to vehicular access to the proposed development the gutter crossing and driveway are to be reconstructed between the kerb and street alignment to Council’s specifications.

 

In this regard a separate driveway application is to be lodged with Council for works outside the property boundary.  Furthermore the design boundary level is to be received from Council prior to construction of the internal driveway.

 

(23)     Council Infrastructure Inspection

 

Prior to the commencement of any works an authorised representative of the applicant is to organise and attend a meeting on site with Council’s Infrastructure Compliance Co-ordinator to discuss protection of Council’s infrastructure. To organise this meeting contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on 9330 6400.

 

(24)     Public Liability Insurance

 

All nominated contractors / applicants carrying out driveway and/or restoration works on Council property must carry public liability insurance with a minimum cover of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). In this regard, prior to commencement of works, the principal contractor is to lodge an “Application for the Construction of Work by Private Contractor” to Council, which includes submitting evidence of their current insurance. The principal contractor must ensure that sub-contractors are also adequately insured.

 

(25)     Soil Erosion Controls

 

Prior to commencement of any site works, erosion and sediment controls are to be installed in accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy and any approved Soil & Water Management Plan and shall incorporate:

 

·    Measures to prevent sediment and other debris escaping from the cleared or disturbed areas into drainage systems or waterways;

 

·    Controls to prevent tracking of sand, soil, aggregates, etc, by vehicles onto adjoining roadways.

 

(26)     Protection of Council’s Drainage system

 

Protection of the Council’s Drainage system will be the responsibility of the applicant. Sufficient asset protection measures must be undertaken by the applicant during construction. A security bond of $37,300 will be required for the duration of all building works on and in association with the site.

 

(27)     Pre development dilapidation report

 

A Pre-Development Dilapidation Report of the Council stormwater asset is to be submitted to Council. The dilapidation report is to include CCTV footage of the full extent of the Council stormwater asset within the property and is to include the inspection and notation of all visible defects and joints along the asset. This Dilapidation report is to be submitted to Council. Written approval of these requirements being met is to be received from Council’s Stormwater section prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(28)     Footing, piers and other load bearing structures

 

Footings, piers and any other load bearing structures in the vicinity of the Council stormwater asset are to be located so that all loads are transferred below the zone of influence of the stormwater asset or to bed rock. All load bearing structures must be located outside of the drainage easement. The footing schedule must be documented on the Detailed Structural plans and certification to this effect shall be provided by a suitably qualified structural engineer.

 

Prior to commencement of construction works on site the following are required to be submitted to Council:

 

i.    A statement from a suitably qualified Structural Engineer. The statement is to include:

a)   a work procedure statement for the construction of the development to allow for protection of Council's Stormwater assets.

b)   specifying of the required setback distance (exclusion zone) for heavy vehicles or machinery from Council’s Stormwater assets.

ii.   A copy of the current Product and Public liability insurance of 20 million dollars of the principal contractor undertaking the works is to be forwarded to Council.

 

(29)     Stormwater junction

 

The existing Council stormwater junction pit and access cover within the new driveway shall be modified to suit the design driveway levels with all costs to be borne by the applicant. The junction pit and access cover are to meet or exceed Class Rating D in accordance with AS3996 : 2006 - Australian Standard Load Classifications & Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) Specification WSA PS-290. The applicant is required to contact Council’s Stormwater Section on 9330 9470 to organise a site meeting prior to these works commencing. No works are to be carried out on the pit until the applicant has received written approval from Council’s Stormwater Section.

 

(30)     Redundant driveways

 

The existing redundant driveways shall be removed and the adjacent paved parking bays extended in accordance with design plans issued by Council.  The paved parking bay bricks are to be installed by Council with all associated costs to be borne by the applicant. Total Cost $2,450.00.

 

SECTION D – Construction and Operational Conditions

 

The conditions that follow in this Section D of the Notice of Determination are imposed to ensure the development is constructed and operates having regard to relevant legislation and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or environment during the construction phase or the operation of the use.

 

(31)     Inspections -Multi Unit

 

The following lists of inspections are the MANDATORY CRITICAL STAGE INSPECTIONS that MUST be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA).

 

(a)    at the commencement of building works

(b)    prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, for a minimum of 10% of rooms with wet areas within a building, and

(c)    prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and

(d)    after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

Certificates from your engineer or subcontractor are NOT acceptable in the first instance for the above inspections.  Failure to have your PCA carry out these inspections could result in a delay or refusal to issue an Occupation Certificate.

 

In addition to the above, it is recommended that the following inspections be carried out for the subject development;

 

Ž          Erosion Control

Ž          Earthworks/Excavation

Ž          Building setout

Ž          Concrete reinforcement

Ž          Timber and/or steel framework

Ž          Mechanical/Hydraulic work

Ž          Driveways

Ž          Landscaping

Ž          External Finishes

 

(32)     Storage of materials on Public Road

 

All building materials or waste containers must be stored within the confines of the site.  The storage of such building materials, waste containers or equipment associated with the project upon the public roadway, including the pedestrian footway or unpaved verge, is prohibited.

 

(33)     Use of Crane on Public Road

 

Prior approval must be obtained from Council a minimum of 24 hours before the use on any site of a crane, hoist or similar machinery that will be used to transfer materials across Council’s footpath.  This includes cranes that are situated on roadways, footpaths and road reserves.

 

Any application for approval must be accompanied by the following information:-

 

·    Site sketch indicating the proposed location of the crane, pedestrian controls and traffic controls;

·    A copy of current public liability insurance with minimum cover of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) indemnifying Council in the event of an incident;

·    A copy of an RMS accredited traffic control plan;

·    Proof that the local area command of the NSW Police have been advised of the proposal.

 

The use of a crane, hoist or similar machinery on any site without prior approval is prohibited.

 

(34)     Building Height - Surveyors Certificate

 

The proposed building is not to be erected at a height greater than that indicated on the approved plan.  A certificate from a Registered Surveyor verifying the correct Reduced Level of the ground floor slab and boundary clearances shall be submitted prior to inspection of the steel reinforcement.

 

(35)     Excavation of Site

 

Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans.  All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.  In this regard, all excavated waste materials shall be disposed of at an approved Waste Depot (details are available from Council).

 

All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

 

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

 

If the soil conditions require it, retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil shall be provided and adequate provision shall be made for drainage.

 

(36)     Stormwater to Kerb

 

Any stormwater connections to the kerb and gutter are to be in accordance with Council's 'Specification for Construction by Private Contractors'.

 

(37)     Redundant Driveway

 

All existing vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject premises that have become redundant shall be removed and the footway and kerb and gutter reinstated at the developer/applicants expense.

 

(38)     Work within Road Reserve

 

A Development Consent or any related Construction Certificate does not allow for the erection of a structure or to carry out work in, on or over a public road.  Should a structure or work be required a separate approval under S138 of the Road Act 1993 must be granted by Council prior to the commencement of any works within the road reserve. Applications may be made at Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

(39)     Damage within Road Reserve & Council Assets

 

The owner shall bear the cost of restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site.  This may include works by Public Utility Authorities in the course of providing services to the site.

 

(40)     Public Utility & Telecommunication Assets

 

The owner shall bear the cost of any relocation or modification required to any Public Utility Authority assets including telecommunication lines & cables and restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site.

 

(41)     Stormwater Drainage

 

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas being disposed of to the street gutter by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3.2.  The line must pass through a silt arrestor pit, a standard design is available within Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

(42)     Garbage Room

 

The proposed garbage room being provided with the following:-

 

a)         A smooth concrete floor graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer of the Water Board.

 

b)         The walls being cement rendered with the intersection of the walls and floor being coved to a radius of not less than 25mm.

 

c)         The door being close fitting to prevent the access of rats and mice.

 

d)         A cold water hose cock being provided for the cleaning of containers and the room itself.

 

e)         Ventilation being provided by means of direct connection to the outside air to the satisfaction of Council.

 

f)          A sign, minimum size 600mm x 600mm, directing residents not to place recyclables in garbage carts and encouraging residents to recycle.  Details of an acceptable wording for the sign are available from Council.

 

(43)     Hours of Construction

 

Construction may only be carried out between 7.00 am and 5.00 pm on Monday to Saturday and no construction is to be carried out at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday.

 

(44)     Restriction on Hours of Excavation (other than single residential dwelling)

 

Despite the general hours of construction above,

 

a)         The hours where rock breaking, cutting, hammering and drilling occur shall be limited to 9:00am – 4:00pm on weekdays only.

 

b)         A noise management plan for the above works, prepared by a suitably qualified acoustical practitioner in accordance with the Interim Noise Construction Guidelines prepared by the Department of Environment & Climate Change NSW, must be submitted to Council prior to commencement of any excavation works.

 

(45)     Provision of Amenities

 

Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site or as specified by Workcover requirements .

 

·    each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet and must be connected:

·    to a public sewer; or

·    if connection to a public sewer is not practicable, to an accredited sewage management facility approved by the Council; or

 

·    if connection to a public sewer or an accredited sewage management facility is not practicable, to some other sewage management facility approved by the Council.

 

The provision of toilet facilities must be completed before any other work is commenced.

 

(46)     Letter Boxes

 

Suitable letter box facilities (including Owner's Corporation in the case of strata units) shall be provided in accordance with Australia Post specifications.

 

(47)     Oil/Silt Separator

 

An oil/silt separator sized to the catchment area must be specified on the Stormwater Detailed Plans and located downstream of the proposed basement car park and prior to discharge to councils stormwater system.

 

(48)     Car Wash

 

To ensure that waste water is treated in an acceptable manner the car wash bay shall be designed and constructed to ensure that waste water is discharged to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water. Evidence of a permit issued by Sydney Water shall be submitted.

 

(49)     Basix Certificate Details – DA Only

 

Construction of building works given Development Consent must be carried out in accordance with a valid and current BASIX certificate and all required commitments must be satisfied.

 

(50)     Air Conditioning / Offensive Noise

 

Air conditioning plant and equipment shall be installed and operated so as to not create an offensive noise as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2008.

 

(51)     Building Finishes

 

The building finishes are to be constructed in accordance with the colour board and perspective submitted with the Development Application.

 

(52)     Allocation of Car Parking Spaces

 

A minimum of twenty seven (27) off street car parking spaces shall be constructed, drained, marked and maintained at all times in accordance with the approved plans.  These spaces shall be allocated as follows:

 

a)         Twenty three (23) are to be allocated to the residential units.

b)         Four (4) are to be allocated as visitor parking spaces.

 

(53)     Residential Car Parking Spaces

 

A minimum of one (1) unrestricted car parking space shall be allocated to each residential unit. Where a three (3) or more bedroom residential unit is provided within the development it is to be allocated two parking spaces in the first instance.

 

(54)     Visitor Parking

 

A directional sign shall be provided at the front of the site indicating the availability of visitor and/or customer parking on site.  Those visitor and/or customer spaces shall be marked or signposted.


 

 

(55)     OSD Markers

 

All on-site stormwater storages that experience permanent or temporary ponding shall be indicated on the site by fixing a marker plate.

 

(56)     Tree Protection - Excavation

 

Excavations around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root system will not adversely be affected.

 

Where the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees on site or adjoining sites become compromised by any excavation works, the Project Arborist shall be consulted to establish the position of any major roots and determine the necessary measures to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist shall be submitted to Council prior to any further demolition or construction works taking place.

 

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes or services installed in this area. Any structures proposed to be built in this area of the trees are to utilise pier and beam or cantilevered slab construction.

 

(57)     Tree Retention

 

The trees identified in the table below shall be retained and not damaged, pruned or removed without the prior approval of Council. These trees shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 - Protection of trees on development sites.

 

Tree Species

Location of Tree/Tree No

TPZ

Callistomen viminalis

Street Tree outside 21 Bembridge Street/ Tree 1

3.6 metres

 Callistomen viminalis

Street Tree outside 23 Bembridge Street/ Tree 16

3.6 metres

Chamaecyparis sp (pine)

23A Bembridge Street/ Tree 3

3.6 metres

Eucalyptus sp

11-17 Bembridge Street /Tree 4

2.4 metres

Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor laurel)

11-17 Bembridge Street/ Tree 5

2.4 metres

Eucalyptus sp

8-18 Shaftsbury Street/ Tree 6

4.8 metres

 


 

 

(58)     Tree Removal

 

The trees identified in the table below may be removed:

 

Tree Species 

Location on Site/Tree No

Work Required

Chamaecyparis obtusa (Pine)

19 Bembridge Street/ Tree 7

Removal

Moros nigra (Mullberry Tree)

19 Bembridge Street/ Tree 8

Removal

Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor laurel)

19 Bembridge Street/ Tree 9

Removal

Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum)

21 Bembridge Street/ Tree 10

Removal

Plumeria acutifolia (Frangi panni)

21 Bembridge Street/ Tree 11

Removal

Araucaria hetrophylla (Pine)

23 Bembridge Street/ Tree 12

Removal

Moros nigra (Mullberry Tree)

23 Bembridge Street/ Tree 13

Removal

Photenia sp

23 Bembridge Street/ Tree 14

Removal

Araucaria hetrophylla (Pine)

23 Bembridge Street/ Tree 15

Removal

 

All tree removals are to be carried out by a certified Tree Surgeon/Arborist to ensure that removal is undertaken in a safe manner and complies with the AS 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees) and Tree Works Industry Code of Practice (Work Cover NSW 1.8.98).

 

No trees are to be removed on the site or neighbouring properties without the prior written approval of Council.

 

(59)     Tree Replacement

 

Six (6) canopy trees are to be planted within the subject site and not within 3 metres of any existing or proposed structures. The replacement tree/s should have a minimum pot size of 75 litres.

 

All replacement trees are to be planted, protected and maintained prior to the issue of the final occupation certificate.

 

(60)     Roof and surface water

 

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas are to be disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Plan by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2015.

Connection to Council stormwater pit

 

The connection to Council’s stormwater pit is to be made as high within the pit as practical. The connection is to be neat and shall not protrude into the pit. The applicant is required to contact Council’s Stormwater Section to inspect the connection to Council’s stormwater pit prior to backfilling. A minimum of 24 hours notice is required for inspections. A Road Opening Permit will need to be lodged with Council for these works.

 

SECTION E – Prior to Occupation or Subdivision Certificate Conditions

 

The conditions that follow in this Section E of the Notice of Determination relate to conditions that ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the requirements of the Development Consent prior to the issue of either an Occupation Certificate or a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(61)     Adaptable Housing Certification

 

Certification shall be provided by a person suitably accredited by the Association of Consultants in Access Australia, verifying that the development has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of AS4299 - Adaptable Housing and AS1428 - Design for Access and Mobility and in accordance with the report and checklist submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

(62)     SEPP No 65 Certification

 

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted verifying that the development achieves the design quality of the development as shown in the plans and specifications in respect of which the construction certificate was issued, having regard to the design quality principals of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

(63)     Completion of Landscaping

 

Certification shall be provided from a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape Designer or Landscape Architect.  This Certification shall verify that the landscape works have been completed in accordance with the approved detailed landscape plan and relevant conditions of this consent.

 

Note:   A Landscape Designer is a person eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Landscape Designers and Managers and a Landscape Architect is a person eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects as a Registered Landscape Architect.

 

(64)     Consolidation of Lots

 

The lots covered by this development consent shall be consolidated into one lot and proof of registration of the consolidation shall be submitted to Council.

 

(65)     Section 73 Compliance Certificate

 

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act, 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water / sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.


 

 

(66)     Stormwater Compliance Certificate

 

A Stormwater Compliance Certificate is to be obtained for the constructed on-site stormwater management systems in conjunction with the works-as-executed drawings and the final inspection. This Certificate is to be signed by an accredited hydraulic engineer (preferably be the original design consultant) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. Copy of the standard Stormwater Compliance Certificate is shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

If the proposed works involve Council owned stormwater infrastructure (or infrastructure to be owned by Council), then the applicant should organise inspection with Council and pay Council the appropriate inspection fee. Inspection is to be carried out at the following specified stages:

 

·     Prior to backfilling of pipelines trenches.

·     Prior to backfilling of drainage connection to pipeline or channels.

·      Prior to casting pits and other concrete structures including kerb and gutter, aprons, pathways, vehicular crossings, dish crossings and pathway steps.

 

(67)     Positive Covenant

 

A Restriction on Use of the land and Positive Covenant shall be created and registered on the title of the property, which places the responsibility for the maintenance of the on-site stormwater management system on the owner of the land. The terms of the instrument are to be generally in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions for Restriction on Use of the land and Positive Covenant shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

(68)     Maintenance Schedule

 

A Maintenance Schedule for the proposed on-site stormwater management measures is to be prepared and submitted. The Maintenance Schedule shall outline the required maintenance works, how and when these will be done and who will be carrying out these maintenance works.

 

(69)     Fire Safety Schedule

 

Certain items of equipment or forms of construction shall be nominated as "fire safety measures" within the building.

 

Upon completion of works, and before occupation of the building, each of the fire safety measures is required to be certified by an appropriately competent person (chosen by the owner of the building).  The certificate is to state that the measure was inspected and found to be designed, installed and capable of operating to a standard not less than that required by the relevant regulations.

 

Further, it is the responsibility of the owner of the building that each fire safety measure is again inspected and certified as to its condition every twelve (12) months following the submission to Council of the original certification.


 

 

(70)     BASIX Completion Receipt

 

In accordance with clause 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, prior to issuing a final occupation certificate the certifying authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX completion receipt.

 

(71)     Post construction Dilapidation report

 

A post-construction Dilapidation Report of the Council stormwater asset is to be submitted to Council.  The dilapidation report is to include CCTV footage of the full extent of the Council stormwater asset within the property and is to include the inspection and notation of all visible defects and joints along the asset. The Security Bond may be released after a final inspection by Council’s Stormwater section and upon Council’s review and satisfaction of the submitted Dilapidation Report. The Dilapidation Report is to be carried out after all building works on and in association with the site have been completed.

 

SECTION F – Prescribed Conditions

 

The following are prescribed conditions of development consent pursuant to s.80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cl.98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(72)     Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

 

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

(73)     Insurance Requirements under Home Building Act 1989

 

The builder or person who does the residential building work must comply with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act, 1989.  This means that a contract of insurance must be in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act, 1989.

 

If Council is the Principal Certifying Authority it will not carry out any inspections until a copy of the insurance certificate is received.

 

(74)     Erection of Signs

 

A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

 

(a)       showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

(b)       showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(c)        stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

 

(75)     Notification of Home Building Act 1989 Requirements

 

Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

 

(a)       in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i)      the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii)     the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

(b)       in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i)      the name of the owner-builder, and

(ii)     if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

 

(76)     Shoring and Adequacy of Adjoining Property

 

If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

 

(a)       protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

 

(b)       where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

 

The above condition does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

(77)     Council Notification of Construction

 

The erection of a building which is the subject of a Development Consent must not be commenced until:

 

a)         Detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a construction certificate by Council or an accredited certifier.

 

b)         the person having the benefit of the development consent has:

 

·    appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA),and

·    notified Council (if Council is not the PCA) in writing of the appointment, and

·    given at least 2 days notice to Council of their intention to commence the erection of the building. The notice may be in writing or by phone.

 

SECTION G – Demolition Conditions

 

The following conditions are imposed to ensure the demolition associated with the proposed development is carried out having regard to relevant legislation and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or environment.

 

(78)     Demolition Conditions-Asbestos

 

(a)       Demolition of buildings where asbestos is determined to be present should only occur 7am – 5pm Monday to Saturdays, and must not occur on Sundays or Public Holidays, to ensure that the persons carrying out the work have access to WorkCover professionals if required.

 

(b)       All asbestos removal shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover’s ‘How to Safely Remove Asbestos’ Code of Practice and Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

(c)        Written notice must be provided to Georges River Council five (5) working days (excluding public holidays) prior to commencement of any works.

 

Written notice is to include the following details:

·    Date the demolition will commence

·    Name, address, contact details (including after hours) and licence number of the demolisher and asbestos removalist (if different)

 

Work must not commence prior to the nominated demolition date.

 

Note: it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

(d)       The owner is to notify all owners and occupiers of premises on either side, opposite and at the rear of the development site five (5) working days prior to demolition.  Such notification is to be clearly written on A4 size paper stating the date the demolition will commence and is to be placed in the letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any). The demolition must not commence prior to the date and time stated in the notification.

 

(e)       A demolition or asbestos removal contractor licensed under the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).

 

Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by a contractor that holds a current AS1 Friable Asbestos Removal Licence.


 

 

(f)        Demolition sites that involve the removal of asbestos must display a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm is to be erected in a prominent visible position on the site to the satisfaction of Council’s officers. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility.

 

(g)       All asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. All receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be submitted to Council as evidence of correct disposal.

 

(h)       A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified occupational hygienist must be provided to Council upon completion of demolition and asbestos related works, which confirms that the relevant legislative requirements in relation to safe removal and disposal have been satisfied.

 

(i)         A Work Cover Licensed Demolisher is to be engaged to carry out any demolition works using mechanical equipment where the structure is over 4 metres in height or to carry out any manual demolition works on a structure over 10 metres in height.

 

(j)         The provision of temporary fences and footpath crossing pads prior to commencement of demolition operations.  Further, no waste materials or bins are to be placed on Council's roadways or footpaths.

 

(k)        No waste materials are to be burnt on site.

 

(l)         No trees as defined by Council's Tree Preservation Order being removed or damaged on the site without the prior written approval of Council.

 

(m)      Compliance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-1991:"The Demolition of Structures", which requires notification of demolition to be submitted at least seven (7) days prior to demolition to the NSW Workcover Authority.

 

(n)       Effective erosion and sediment control measures are to be undertaken during the course of demolition and building works in accordance with Council’s ‘Environmental Site Management Policy’.  Failure to implement appropriate measures may result in a $750 Penalty Infringement Notice (individual) and/or $1,500 (corporation) being issued and/or the incurring of a maximum penalty of $250,000 (corporation) or $120,000 (individual) through the Land and Environment Court.

 

(o)       Appropriate measures are to be implemented on site to control dust and other air borne matter and demolition material is to be stored and stacked in a manner so as to minimise the risk of damage or nuisance to neighbouring properties.

 

(p)       Council being notified upon completion of the demolition works so that an inspection can be made of the roadway and footpath.

 

(q)       All non-recyclable demolition material being disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot. Details as to the method and location of disposal of demolition materials (weight dockets, receipts, etc.) should be kept as evidence of approved method of disposal.

 

(r)        A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

 

(a)       showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

 

(b)       showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(c)        stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed

 

END CONDITIONS

 

Advisory Notes

 

(i)        Worksite Safety

 

It is usually the owner/applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the development site is a safe working environment.  This may be by the engagement of an appropriately competent principal contractor.  There are various legislative and WorkCover requirements with respect to maintaining a safe work-site.  Details of these requirements and legislation, as well as, guidance and advisory material, can be found on the WorkCover Website www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

 

(ii)       Worksite Safety Scaffolding

 

Council is committed to worksite safety and requiring that all scaffolding is installed by competent and qualified professionals with the relative appropriate standards.  The applicable Australian Standards for the scaffolding is AS/NZS1576 in respect of the design of the scaffolding and AS/NZS4576 with respect to the erection of the scaffolding.  Also, you should ensure that those erecting scaffolding are appropriately qualified and have the appropriate qualifications to erect scaffolding.  For further information regarding this please see www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

 

(iii)      Kid Safe NSW

 

Kidsafe NSW has produced Safer Homes for Children Design and Construction Guidelines for builders, renovators and home owners.  The guidelines identify common hazards for children and recommended practical design applications to improve child safety for all areas of the home.  Free copies of the Guidelines are available from Council’s Customer Service Centre, or contact Kidsafe on (02) 9845 0890 or their website http://www.kidsafensw.org/homesafety/index.htm for more information.


 

 

(iv)      Dial Before You Dig

 

Underground pipes and cables may exist in the area.  In your own interest and for safety, telephone 1100 before excavation or erection of structures.  Information on the location of underground pipes and cables can also be obtained by fax on 1300 652 077 or through the following website www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au.

 

(v)       Disability Discrimination Act

 

This authorisation does not imply that the proposal complies with Disability Discrimination Act 1992.  The Proponent is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.  The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS 1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility.  AS1428 Parts 2, 3 & 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under The Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

(vi)      Demolition Waste

 

Sorting your construction and demolition waste will save you money.  For pricing and disposal options for sorted loads of tiles, bricks, timber concrete or asphalt call Waste Service NSW on 1300 651 116.

 

(vii)     Property Address

 

Property addresses shall be allocated by Council in accordance with the Addressing Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

A4 Plans

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 24 November 2016

3.5                          19-23 Bembridge Street, Carlton

[Appendix 1]         A4 Plans

 

 

Page 340

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 24 November 2016

Page 344

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report No

3.6

Development Application No

DA2015/0355

Site Address & Ward Locality

23 Marine Drive Oatley

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Demolition of existing, tree removal, construciton of two-three storey dwelling with swimming pool and outbuilding to rear

Report Author/s

Team Leader Major Projects, Laura Locke

Owners

Mr M Moussa

Applicant

Zoabi Twadros Architect

Zoning

 Zone R2 - Low Density Residential

Date Of Lodgement

12/10/2015

Submissions

Originally - Ten (10) submissions received, Amended plans - Four (4) submissions received

Cost of Works

$1,520,000.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Resubmitted tiem from IHAP, and four (4) submissions received to amended plans

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report

 

 

 

Site Plan

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.         Development consent is sought for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new multi-level single dwelling house with swimming pool and outbuilding to the rear.

2.         The proposal development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning instruments and Development Control Plans. With the exception of a variation to parapet height, the application complies in full subject to conditions of consent.

3.         The bulk and scale of the development would be compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the development would not result in any significant detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

4.         The application was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 on three (3) occasions due to amended plans being received. Following the most recent notification of the proposal, four (4) submissions were received.

5.         The application was deferred from the IHAP meeting on 27 October 2016 for additional information relating to retaining walls, consistency in plans and geotechnical information  relating to the proposed absorption trenches

6.         The applicant has provided additional information which responds to the IHAP’s reasons for deferral. Council’s Team Leader Subdivision and Development has reviewed the information and considers it to be satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION   

THAT the application be granted approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

1.         Development consent is sought for demolition of the existing structures, tree removal, construction of new part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling, with swimming pool and a detached outbuilding to rear.

 

HISTORY 

2.         12 Oct 15                   Application lodged

31 Oct 15                   Application notified

12 Apr 16                   Information requested

5 May 16                    Information provided

7 Jun 16                    Application renotified

5 Jul 16                      Applicant advised of issues with drainage

5 Sep 16                    Additional information provided

12 Sep 16                  Application renotified

27 October                 Application considered at IHAP meeting where it was deferred for further information

 

IHAP DEFERRAL

3.         The application was reported to the IHAP meeting of 27 October 2016 with a recommendation for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions. The decision of the IHAP was as follows:

 

The Georges River Council IHAP as the delegate of the Georges River Council defers determination of Development Application No. 2015/0355 for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of new two/three storey dwelling with swimming pool and detached outbuilding to rear at 23 Marine Drive, Oatley and invites the applicant to submit the following for consideration by the IHAP:

 

·    Amended plans showing full details of any retaining structures and ensuring consistency between plans, elevations and dimensions.

 

·    A Geotechnical report prepared by a suitably qualified practising geotechnical engineer that demonstrates the ground conditions are suitable for the proposed absorption trenches for the driveway surface runoff and roof waters from the proposed outbuilding.  The Geotechnical report must include the permeability of the soil at both absorption trench locations, and make recommendations for the use of the absorption trenches when the soil is saturated.

 

In response to the IHAP deferral the applicant has provided additional information including amended retaining wall detail and information from a Geotechnical Engineer stating that the proposed absorption trenches are adequate.  The information incudes results of borehole infiltration testing.

 

The Geotechnical Engineer has also advised the following:

 

The falling head permeability test is a common method used to determine the permeability of soils and rock. The results are then correlated to published data.

 

Based on the DCP test results and our observations during drilling, we expect that sandy/gravelly fill encountered in BH2 to extend down to a depth of 2m. Based on our experience and published data, the sandy/gravelly fill at BH2 location (Absorption Tank 1) will have a permeability in the order of at least 1 x 10­-5 m/s.

 

The falling head test completed in BH1 indicates that the sand have a permeability of 1.29 x 10-5 m/s/m2.

 

Note that the permeability values provided above are for fully saturated conditions and absorption trenches are considered suitable for this type of subsurface conditions provided that they are appropriately designed by a hydraulic engineer.

 

For the information of the Panel the following provides a summary of the proposed drainage system:

 

Main House:

 

(a) Roof water from the main house will be connected to a rainwater tank of 5000 litre capacity and overflow from the rainwater tank will be discharged to the street gutter within the property frontage by way of a charged stormwater line.

 

Hydraulic grade line analysis of the charged stormwater line is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority approval to ensure the satisfactory operation of the proposed charged stormwater drainage system.

 

(b) Surface runoff from the driveway and other paved area will be connected to a properly sized absorption trench located at the rear of the main house. This system is to be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by eiaustralia and dated 4 November 2016 (Ref: E22990 GB_Rev4). Final drainage plan will be certified by both the applicant’s hydraulic engineer and the geotechnical engineer.

 

 

Outbuildings:

 

(a) Roof water from the proposed outbuildings will be connected to a rainwater tank of 5000 litre capacity. Overflow from this rainwater tank will be connected to an absorption trench located at the rear of the outbuilding.

 

(b) This system is to be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by eiaustralia and dated 4 November 2016 (Ref: E22990 GB_Rev4). Final drainage plan will be certified by both the applicant’s hydraulic engineer and the geotechnical engineer.

 

(c) Overflow from the pool will be connected to Boards’ sewer in accordance with Sydney Water regulations.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

4.         The site is a regular shaped site located on the eastern side of Marine Drive in Oatley. The site has a frontage of 20.08m and narrows to a width of 10.985m at the rear. The site is also very steep with a fall of 11m from front to rear. The total site area is 864.50sqm and is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

A dwelling house and garage are currently located at the front of the site. The remainder of the site is vegetated by eleven (11) significant trees.

 

The surrounding properties are occupied by single dwelling houses with outbuildings and swimming pools. The area is characterised by similar low density residential development.

 

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

5.         The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

6.         The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 is outlined in the table below.

 

Clause

Standard

Assessment Under HLEP 2012

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

R2 Low Density Zone

The proposal is defined as a dwelling house. Dwelling houses are permissible in the zone.

 

Objectives of the Zone

The proposal complies with the objectives of the zone

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

8.2m maximum

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

Site = 864.5sqm

 

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

 

 

 

 

FSR = 0.53:1 (complies)

4.6 – Exception to Development Standards

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard (Cl 4.6 variation)

N/A

5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Trees to be removed are specified in DCP No 1 Section 3.11 – Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

The application requires the removal of eleven (11) trees from the site. Council’s Tree Management Officer has assessed the proposal and raised no objections subject to replacement planting of six (6) mature trees.

6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made of the following:

 

(3)(a) affect the natural environment, including topography, rock formations, canopy vegetation or other significant vegetation, and

(b) affect the visual environment, including the views to and from the Georges River, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places, and

(c) affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville, and

(d) contribute to the scenic qualities of the residential areas and the Georges River by maintaining the dominance of landscape over built form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal will not impact on views to the foreshore, given the site topography and location of the dwelling in relation to the surrounding developments.

The proposal is not likely to result in any impacts on any significant topographical feature or environmental heritage subject to conditions of consent.

Significant vegetation removal is proposed, however this has been considered by Council’s Tree Management Officer and no objections are raised subject to replacement planting.

The proposal provides adequate useable landscaped areas on site.

And maintains to the scenic qualities of the locality.

6.5 – Gross Floor Area of Dwelling House

> 630sqm ≤ 1000sqm

 

(Site Area minus 630) x 0.3 + 346.5 = 416.85sqm

 

 

 

 

 

GFA  of dwelling house = 367.65sqm

 

6.7 – Essential Services

The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required:

·    Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage

 

 

·    Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

·    Suitable vehicular access

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land.

·    Stormwater design acceptable.

 

·    Driveway access is accessed from Marine Drive and is satisfactory.

 

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

7.         The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment.  The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 - REMEDIATION OF LAND

8.         The subject site is zoned residential and has a history of residential uses as a dwelling house. As such it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

 

Based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities.  As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

9.         A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application. A condition has been included in the recommendation of this report requiring compliance with the commitments indicated in the BASIX Certificate.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

10.       No Draft Environmental Planning Instruments affect the proposed development.

 

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

11.       The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

 

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

 

Development Control Plans

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

12.       Parking is provided for two (2) vehicles within a double garage in accordance with the Development Control Plan.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

13.       The extent to which the proposal complies with the requirements of this section of Development Control Plan No 1 is outlined in the table below.

 

Section 3.4

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

3.4.1.1 – Fencing

Front fence: preferred height of 1m

No details of front fencing have been proposed. Conditions recommended limiting any fencing to that permitted under exempt development.

Yes, subject to condition

3.4.1.4 – Entrances

Clearly visible and not confusing

Entrance is clearly visible

Yes

3.4.1.5 – Site and building layout

·    Provide surveillance opportunities

·    Dwelling addresses street

·    Habitable rooms are directed towards the front of the building

Dwelling complies with these requirements

Yes

 

 

3.4.1.6 – Landscaping

Avoid medium height vegetation with concentrated top to bottom foliage

Landscape plan prepared by qualified landscape architect or consultant will be required as a condition of consent.

Yes

3.4.1.8 – Building identification

Dwellings to be clearly numbered

Yes, can be provided

Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

14.       The proposal has achieved a BASIX Certificate and therefore complies with the objectives of Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1. The proposed development also complies with the solar access requirements of Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 4.1 SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES

15.       The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of Section 4.1 of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as shown below.

 

Section 4.1

Standard

Proposed

Complies

4.1.3.1

Max. Floor Area

> 630sqm ≤ 1000sqm

(Site Area minus 630) x 0.3 + 346.5 = 416.85sqm

GFA  of dwelling house = 367.65sqm

Yes

 

4.1.3.2

Landscaped Areas (min. width 2m)

 

 

 

Private Open Spaces

FSPA 25% of Site Area

 

15sqm of landscaped area to be provided in the front yard

 

 

Principal Private Open Space Min. dimension of 4m x 5m

28%  (241.8sqm)

 

>15sqm

 

 

 

 

7m x 13.2m

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

4.1.3.3

Building Height

Max. ridge height = 9m

 

Max. ceiling height to

external wall = 7.2m

 

Max. parapet height 7.8m (for flat roof and other roof designs)

8.2m

 

7.2m

 

 

Max 8m

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

No (1)

 

 

4.1.3.4

Setback Controls

 

Front Setback (Building Line):

4.5m

(to front wall of  dwelling)

 

5.5m to garage/carport or on-site parking space

5.5m

 

 

7.44m

Yes

 

 

Yes

Side Boundary Setbacks:

900mm – ground floor level

 

1.5m – first floor level (FSPA)

0.9m – 1.5m 

 

1.5m

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Rear Setback:

 

Ground floor level – 3m

 

First floor level – 6m

>3m

 

>6m

Yes

 

Yes

Foreshore Building Line

May require greater setback. Refer to Clause 6.3 and associated maps in HLEP

N/A

N/A

 

4.1.3.5 Basements

Basements are < 1m above ground (otherwise assess as ground floor)

 

 

 

 

 

Within the footprint of the house

 

Internal Floor to Ceiling min. 2.1m, max. 2.7m

 

> 1.5m excavation requires Geotech Report

Part basement only due to fall of the site to be used as habitable spaces. Where basement exceeds 1m above ground level, it has been assessed as ground floor level.

 

Yes

 

 

2.7m

 

 

Geotechnical report provided

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

4.1.3.6

Balconies & Terraces

Direct access from a  habitable room

(at same floor level)

 

Overlooking impacts can be minimized with the use of privacy screens between 1.5m-1.8m high

 

Terraces must not be visible from the street

Complies

 

 

 

Privacy screens provided

 

 

 

 

Rear terraces are not visible from the street

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4.1.3.7

Façade Articulation

Dwellings must have a front door or window to a habitable room fronting the street.

 

Garage doors facing the street max. 40% of site width (sites > 12m wide)

 

Must have two building elements of

- Entry feature / portico

- Awning / feature over window

- Eaves and sun shading

- Window planter box

- Bay windows or similar features

- Wall offsets, balconies, verandas, pergolas

Provided

 

 

 

 

35% 

 

 

 

 Complies

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

4.1.3.8

Car Parking

Min. 2 spaces for 3 bedrooms or more

 

Garages must not extend further towards the front boundary than the front wall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driveway / access lanes / car park spaces max.40% of site width (sites < 12m wide)

 

Driveway crossing width: between 2.7m and 4.5m

 

 

AS2890.1 (2004) – Max. gradient of domestic driveway is 1 in 4 (25%)

2 spaces provided

 

 

Due to the angle of the front boundary, although on plan it appears the garage projects forward of the front wall, the wall of the proposed study is actually closer to the front boundary. Garage setback 7.44m, front study setback 5.46m.

 

(20.08m frontage)

35%

 

 

4.686m but conditioned to comply.

 

 

Conditioned to comply

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes, subject to condition

 

 

Yes, subject to condition

4.1.3.9

Visual Privacy

Windows to be offset by 1m. Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed living areas.

Satisfactory

Yes

4.1.3.10

Solar Design

Principal private open space of both the subject lot and adjoining lot must receive a minimum of 3hrs direct solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid winter (June)

Subject lot is satisfactory.

 

Only the property to the south of the site at 25 Marine Drive is affected by the development. The primary private open space receives more than the minimum requirement of three hours sunlight midwinter which complies with the controls. It is noted that the swimming pool is overshadowed from midday mid winter but in summer is only overshadowed from 3pm onwards.

Yes

4.1.3.11 Stormwater

Refer to Stormwater Assessment Table

Concept submitted

Yes

 

(1) Building Height - Maximum Parapet/Flat Roof Height

16.       At the rear of the building, the parapet height is 8m above natural ground level which exceeds the 7.8m requirement by 0.2m.  The variation is a result of the topography of the site and does not result in any amenity impacts on adjoining properties. The variation is minor and is acceptable.

 

Stormwater Assessment

 

Stormwater Assessment

 

Existing Stormwater System

Gravity to Councils system

Proposed stormwater system

Dwelling charged to street

Remainder of site to absorption trench at the rear

Stormwater objectives

Yes, subject to geotechnical information

Slope to rear (measured from centreline of site)

Yes

Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)

Yes

Discharge to same catchment?

Partially

Easement required

No

 

17.       The application proposes to charge the roof waters of the dwelling house to the street, the driveway surface waters are proposed to drain to an absorption trench in the middle of the site, and the roof and surface waters from the outbuilding are proposed to drain to a second absorption trench at the rear of the property. Council’s Team Leader Subdivision and Development is satisfied with the proposal based on the additional information submitted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.6 OUTBUILDINGS

 

Section 4.6 - Cabana

Standard

Proposed

Complies

4.6.2.3 External Finishes

Low reflectivity

Complies

Yes

4.6.2.4 Maximum Height 

3m from ceiling or top plate height to natural ground level

3m in south eastern corner

Yes

4.6.2.6 Stormwater

To comply with relevant Council policy, BCA and Australian Standard

Conditioned to comply

Yes, subject to condition

4.6.3.1  Garages, Gyms, Cabanas and Sheds

Must be setback 500mm from any boundary

Side setbacks: min 0.9m

 

Rear setback: min

5.36m

Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 5.7 SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS

 

Section 5.7

Standard

Proposed

Complies

5.7.2.1 - Pool Siting

On steeply sloping sites, Council may consider allowing one point or along one side to extend up to 1m above NGL, provided that the exposed face of the pool is treated to minimise impact

Pool is up to 3m below ground level as it is excavated into the site

Complies

Filling is not permitted between the swimming pool and property boundary

Complies

Yes

Drainage not to affect natural environment or adjoining properties

Subject to condition

Yes, subject to condition

Swimming pools are permitted on land affected by a foreshore building line subject to their design complementing the surrounding area and minimising visual impact from waterways

N/A

N/A

5.7.2.1 – Side Setbacks

Pool edge must be setback at least 1.5m from any side or rear boundary

Min.1.5m

Yes

5.7.2.2 - Noise Control and Nuisances

The position of the swimming pool and ancillary equipment must be minimised to reduce the impact of noise on adjoining neighbours

Pool equipment is to be located underneath the deck.

Standard conditions have been included in this report for noise attenuation measures

Yes

5.7.3 – Landscaping

Tree and shrub planting is to be provided along the adjoining property boundary lines to achieve a reasonable level of privacy

As the pool is excavated into the site, there would be no unreasonable privacy impacts and planting is not required