AGENDA - IHAP

Meeting:

Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)

Date:

Thursday, 18 May 2017

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Kogarah

Participants:

Adam Seton (Chairperson)

Gabrielle Morrish (Panel Member)

Juliet Grant (Panel Member)

Erin Sellers (Community Member)

Additional Invitees:

Meryl Bishop (Director – Environment and Planning)

Tina Christy (Manager – Development and Building)

Catherine McMahon (Manager – Strategic Planning)

Cathy Mercer (Admin Assistant)

Monica Wernej (Admin Assistant)

 

   1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm –   3.30pm

a)    37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville

b)    296 Forest Road Hurstville

c)    35 and 40 River Road Oatley (Former Oatley Bowling Club)

d)    96 Queens Road Connells Point

 

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

2. Public Meeting – Consideration of Items 4.00pm 6.00pm

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – 6.00pm)

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

 

 

Item:

DA No:

Address:

Description:

 

3.1

PP2016/0004

Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 to rezone and reclassify  Lots 14-20, Sec 3, DP7124; Lots 3-7, Sec 4, DP 4124 and Lot 1, DP 1159269 (known as the former Oatley Bowling Club) to enable future development for seniors housing and public open space

 

3.2

DA2016/0177

96 Queens Road Connells Point

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool

 

3.3

DA2017/0049

296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

Construction of a new public plaza including landscaping, paving, seating and public amenities

 

3.4

 P2015/0006

37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the Treacy Street Car Park Site (37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville) to zone B4 Mixed Use and increase the maximum building height and FSR development standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 18 May 2017

Page 4

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 18 May 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.1

Application No

PP2016/0004

Site Address & Ward Locality

Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 to rezone and reclassify  Lots 14-20, Sec 3, DP7124; Lots 3-7, Sec 4, DP 4124 and Lot 1, DP 1159269 (known as the former Oatley Bowling Club) to enable future development for seniors housing and public open space.

Report Author/s

Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner and Manager Strategic Planning, Catherine McMahon

Owners

Georges River Council

Applicant

Georges River Council

Zoning

RE1 – Public Recreation

Date Of Lodgement

2/11/2016

Submissions

 N/A

Cost of Works

 N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

To seek endorsement to present the Planning Proposal report to Council

 

 

Recommendation

1.   That the Georges River IHAP acknowledges that the Planning Proposal to reclassify and enable the development of part of the former Oatley Bowling Club (Lots 14 to 20 Section 3 DP 7124, Part of Lots 3 to 7 Section 4 DP 7124 and Lot 1 DP 1159269) for seniors housing has sufficient merit to proceed to Gateway Review.

2.   That the Planning Proposal be referred to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review subject to the project timeline at Part 6 being updated to reflect the decision making timeframes in Council’s decision of 7 November 2016.

3.   Before public exhibition of the Planning Proposal:

a.   The Planning Proposal be amended as necessary to reflect the Council decision of 7 November 2016 (reduced site boundary) and to include the separate information provided on the planning proposal’s compliance with the draft South District Plan;

b.   The Traffic and Access Assessment be updated to reflect the indicative concept proposal and to specifically address emergency access requirements arising from the bushfire hazard;

c.   The Detailed Site Investigation be updated to specifically address the suitability of the proposed SP2 land (reduced site boundary) in terms of contamination risk; and

d.   Relevant reports are updated as necessary.

4.   The Planning Proposal is placed on formal public exhibition in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment and a public hearing be arranged in the manner described in the Council decision of 7 November 2016.

 

5.   That Council prepare an amendment to the Hurstville DCP to address interface issues with adjoining sites which may include, but may not be limited to height, interface and transition, setbacks and any other relevant issues.

 

6.   That a report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report has been prepared by City Plan Strategy and Development Pty Ltd (the consultant) on behalf of Georges River Council.

 

2.      The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level assessment of a Planning Proposal for part of the former Oatley Bowling Club to determine whether it has sufficient strategic merit to warrant a Gateway Review, and subsequent public exhibition.

 

3.      The Planning Proposal has been prepared by the Georges River Council after considerable investigation and deliberation by the former Hurstville City Council regarding the most appropriate future use of the disused Bowling Club.

 

4.      The effect of the current Planning Proposal would be to permit the development of a five storey residential aged care facility in the north eastern corner of the site.  The balance of the site, representing approximately half of the site area, would remain zoned for public recreation purposes and able to be developed for recreation and community purposes.

 

5.      The proposal to facilitate the provision of seniors housing is consistent with the draft South District Plan and the Georges River Council Community Strategic Plan 2025 and in this regard has strategic merit.

 

6.      At this stage of investigation there are no identified environmental constraints that render the land unsuitable for the proposed use.

 

7.      As such, the Planning Proposal has sufficient merit overall to proceed to formal public exhibition and in this regard it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be referred to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

 

Report in Full

 

Site Location and Context

8.      The Planning Proposal relates to the site of the former Oatley Bowling Club on River Road, Oatley (the site).  The current legal description of the site is Lots 14 to 20 Section 3 DP 7124, Part of Lots 3 to 7 Section 4 DP 7124 and Lot 1 DP 1159269 (being the unmade part of River Road).

 

9.      The site has an area of approximately 1.1 hectares. It contains two disused bowling greens which are terraced with a height difference of approximately 4 metres.  All other building structures associated with the former Bowling Club have been demolished, apart from a small metal shed in the north-eastern corner of the site.

 

10.    The site is nestled between the T4 Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Rail Line on its eastern boundary, and the Myles Dunphy Bushland Reserve on its western and southern boundaries.  Two detached dwelling houses adjoin the northern boundary.  These houses are contained within a pocket of five dwelling houses that are also bound by the Illawarra Rail Line and Myles Dunphy Reserve, and the former Oatley Bowling Club and Mulga Road to the north.  Road access to the site is available from the partially constructed River Road.

 

11.    The site is located adjacent to the Oatley Train Station, which has recently been upgraded with the provision of lift access.  The surrounding area is characterised by a predominantly low density residential suburb on the western side of the railway line, with a strip of neighbourhood shops approximately 200m from the site on Mulga Road. 

 

12.    On the eastern side of the railway line, approximately 300m walking distance from the site, is the Oatley local centre containing a variety of shops and services and the Oatley RSL and Community Club.  The Oatley local centre is surrounded by a precinct of mostly older style 3 storey walk-up apartment buildings. (refer to Figure 1).

 

 

Existing Planning Controls

13.    The site is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Hurstville LEP 2012 (refer to Figure 2 below). The site is surrounded by a mix of land uses including the R2 - Low Density Residential to the north of the site. To the east of the site, on the opposite side of the Oatley train station is a mix zones including land zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential and B2 - Local Centre (Kogarah LEP 2012).

 

Figure 2 – Land Use Zoning Map

 

Background to the Planning Proposal

14.    The former Oatley Bowling Club ceased operations in 2006 and in 2011 the disused club house was demolished.

 

15.    There have been extensive investigations by the former Hurstville City Council regarding the most appropriate future use of the site culminating in a decision by the now Georges River Council on 7 November 2016 to proceed with the current Planning Proposal subject to the following:

 

“(c)     That the Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from ‘community’ land to ‘operational’ and to rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated land use of seniors housing (nursing home) and community facilities be amended to apply only to that part of the site which would accommodate the seniors housing (aged care component) and ancillary support requirements, i.e. approximately 50% of the site.

 

(d)      That extensive public consultation commence immediately and a report be submitted to Council in March 2017 detailing the outcomes of the public consultation (including any proposed amendments to the Planning Proposal arising from such consultation) prior to any Gateway submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

 

(e)      That an independent peer review of the community consultation results ((d) above) be undertaken.

 

(f)       That the Planning Proposal be assessed by an independent expert who will make recommendations to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for endorsement or otherwise prior to any Gateway determination.

 

(g)      That if the Planning Proposal proceeds, i.e. after independent assessment, approval by IHAP and Department of Planning and Environment, the reclassification Public Hearing be undertaken by a former Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court or a person with equivalent standing and experience, and that a post Gateway exhibition report be prepared by an independent consultant for consideration by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and the newly elected Council panel prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning.”

 

16.    The Planning Proposal has not been amended at this stage to give effect to the above items.

 

17.    With regard to item (c), we are advised that a reduced site boundary is to be formalised via a land subdivision application.  When the new site boundary is known the proposed FSR will be adjusted to account for the reduced site area.  The proposal, as far as the scale and configuration of the indicative seniors housing development goes, remains unchanged.  The land subdivision application is currently being prepared.

 

18.    With regard to item (d), public consultation comprising three community information and feedback sessions, a community survey and a telephone survey was undertaken by an independent facilitator between November 2016 and February 2017.  A progress report was considered by Council on 6 March 2017 and a further report including a peer review of the community consultation results and a recommendation regarding any further amendments to the Planning Proposal was considered at the Council Meeting of 1 May 2017. 

 

19.    The peer review of the community consultation results was undertaken by Cred Consulting.  The review found that the consultation methodology was robust and did not recommend any further amendments to the planning proposal.  It should be noted that further public consultation will be undertaken once the planning proposal has been amended as required by (c), and the recommendations of this report, and issued with a gateway determination.  In our opinion, there are no outstanding matters arising from the preliminary community consultation that warrant further amendment of planning proposal prior to the gateway review.

20. As such, this assessment of the merits of the planning proposal has been undertaken as though the planning proposal had been amended in accordance with item (c).  No assumptions have been made regarding the outcome of item (d).

 

21.    As such, this assessment of the merits of the Planning Proposal has been undertaken as though the Planning Proposal had been amended in accordance with item (c). 

 

Preliminary Assessment of the Planning Proposal

22.    In addition to the above matters, on 15 March 2017, City Plan Strategy and Development Pty Ltd wrote to Council advising that a preliminary assessment of the Planning Proposal had been undertaken. This letter identified a number of outstanding issues which were required to be considered, and included the following:

 

§  Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) - The TIA provided was prepared prior to the development of the indicative concept plans.  It is recommended that the TIA be updated to provide a high-level traffic, parking and access analysis of the proposal, specifically in relation to the indicative concept plans.

 

§  Phase 2 Contamination Assessment - A Phase 1 Contamination Assessment has been provided and states that the site could be made suitable for the proposal subject to additional investigations being undertaken. A Phase 2 Contamination Report should therefore be prepared and provided to ensure consistency with the State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land.

 

§  Acoustic, Hydraulic and Geotechnical Reports which accompany the PP are out-of-date as they were prepared between 2006 and 2007. An updated Hydraulic report should be provided to ensure the site can be adequately serviced. Given this is a PP, updated acoustic and geotechnical reports are not currently required.

 

§  District Plans - It is acknowledged that the PP was submitted to Council prior to the release of the draft South District Plan. A statement should however be provided outlining whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant aims and priorities of the draft plan.

 

23.    On 6 April 2017, TPG Town Planning and Urban Design (TPG) provided a written response to Council in response to the issues raised in the letter from City Plan. A copy of the response from TPG is included at Attachment 1. In summary, the advice states:

 

“In addition to any changes that may be required as a result of this feedback, it is important to note that the following factors are likely to result in amendment to the PP prior to its consideration by a future elected Council, these being:

 

1.   Outcomes of the Phase 2 contamination assessment undertaken by Douglas Partners, which was not available prior to lodgement of the PP.

 

2.   The 7 November 2016 resolution by Council to amend the PP area to approximately 50% of the site.

 

3.   Outcomes of the public exhibition process and assessment of submissions.  It is considered the most appropriate time to amend the PP is at a point where the outcomes of all of the above matters are known and all matters can be addressed holistically and comprehensively.”

 

Preliminary Public Exhibition of the Planning Proposal

24.    Georges River Council’s (Council) undertook preliminary public exhibition of the Planning Proposal prepared on Council’s behalf by TPG. Council sought feedback from the community on the Planning Proposal from November 2016 to February 2017.

 

25.    As part of this process, Council also conducted Community Information and Feedback sessions held on Wednesday 23 November 2016 (one session) and Saturday 26 November 2016 (two sessions), facilitated by Elton Consulting.

 

26.    A separate report was presented to Council on 1 May 2017 on the preliminary public exhibition phase. Attachment 2 is a copy of that report. The Administrator adopted the recommendations of the report which were:

 

a.   That the results of the independent peer review, undertaken by Cred Consulting, of the community consultation process for the future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site are noted, particularly that the report “is considered to be a high-quality report based on a robust methodology and wide ranging activities”.

b.   That Council acknowledge the ongoing community support for aged care facilities as an important issue for Council as outlined in the Elton Consulting report.

c.   That the Elton Consulting report and the Cred Consulting report be provided to City Plan Services for consideration during the assessment and review of the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

d.   That the Georges River community be updated on the community consultation results via the Council website and usual communications and media channels.

e.   That the draft Georges River Council Community Engagement Policy be reviewed having regard to the feedback from the Elton Community Consultation report, prior to adoption by Council.

 

Intended Outcomes and Proposed Amendment

27.    In summary, the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal (as amended by Council’s resolution of 7 November 2016) is to facilitate the development of seniors housing in the north-western corner of the site to meet a community need identified in the Georges River Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2025; and to retain the balance of the site for public recreation and community purposes.

 

28.    The proposal is to be achieved by the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP):

 

§  An amendment to the Land Zoning Map to rezone approximately half of the site (indicatively shown in Figure 3 below) from RE1 – Public Recreation to SP2 Infrastructure, with the designated uses of ‘seniors housing’;

 

§  An amendment to the Height of Buildings Map to introduce a maximum building height of 18.5m on that part of the site proposed to be zoned SP2 Infrastructure; and

 

§  An amendment to the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to introduce a maximum FSR sufficient to allow 6,020m2 of gross floor area on the proposed SP2 land (approximately 1.2:1); and

 

§  An amendment to Schedule 4 – ‘Classification and reclassification of public land’ to reclassify the land proposed to be zoned SP2 - Infrastructure from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land.

 

Figure 3 – Indicative Site Plan

 

 

Strategic Merit

29.    Planning Circular PS16-004 (dated 30 August 2016) clearly articulates the considerations for determining whether or not a Planning Proposal should be submitted for a gateway determination (under section 56 of the EP&A Act). Although this circular is technically directed at a rezoning review undertaken by the relevant Planning Panel, the process outlined provides a useful frame of reference for Council to examine a Planning Proposal when first submitted. 

 

30.    A Planning Proposal will meet the strategic merit test if it is:

 

§  Consistent with the relevant draft district plan or corridor/precinct plan released for public comment; or

 

§  Consistent with a relevant local strategy that has been endorsed by the Department; or

 

§  Responding to a change in circumstances, such as the investment in new infrastructure or changing demographic trends that have not been recognised by existing planning controls.

 

31.    The circular notes that a proposal that seeks to amend controls that are less than 5 years old will only be considered where it clearly meets the Strategic Merit Test.

 

Consistency with Strategic Studies or Reports[1]

32.    The draft South District Plan was released by the Greater Sydney Commission on 21 November 2016.

 

33.    The draft South District Plan sets out the aspirations and proposals for Greater Sydney’s South District, which includes the local government area of Georges River. Whilst the draft South District Plan has only recently completed formal exhibition and will not be finalised until the end of 2017, it is an important document to consider as it sets out the vision, priorities and actions for future development of the South District.

 

34.    The Planning Proposal was lodged before the release of the draft South District Plan.  However, the following additional commentary has subsequently been provided by the authors of the Planning Proposal which demonstrates that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the vision and priorities of the draft District Plan:

 

Oatley is identified in the Greater Sydney Commission’s South District Plan 2036, which outlines a 20 year vision, priorities and actions for the South District.

 

The plan envisages:

 

§  By 2036, people living in the South District will have greater access to healthier rivers, bays, beaches and bushland. Increased tree cover will better integrate urban areas with these natural areas. People will have access to a greater number of parks and playing fields, particularly in northern communities, and safe walking and cycling links. This culturally diverse community … will thrive as new food and dining hubs and community events spread a new energy throughout the District…

 

§  …With planned investments, Sutherland Hospital and private hospitals in Hurstville will create employment in health care and allied services. Protecting land for existing employment and urban services will provide opportunities for start-up businesses and allow jobs to grow in the urban services that support the District.

 

§  The draft District Plan notes that the Georges River Local Government Area will see significant increase in people aged over 65. The Planning Proposal is consistent with following aspects of the draft District Plan:

 

-        4.2 Liveability priorities, which seeks to improve housing diversity and affordability by supporting planning for adaptable housing and aged care.

 

-        4.4.1 Plan for housing diversity, which notes that the South District’s projected growth in people aged 65 and over in the South District means that there must be more emphasis on planning for housing diversity particularly seniors housing and aged care options that allow people to age in place.

 

-        4.4.2 Support planning for adaptable housing and aged care, which notes the best way to provide seniors housing and aged care is to co-locate them in places that have a mix of different uses and services, with good quality footpaths and pedestrian connections that make it easy for people to meet their day to day needs, or visit health services and community and cultural facilities.

 

-        4.8 Respond to people’s need for services, which notes the full range of service needs must be realised including child care, schools, hospitals, health centres and aged care.

In delivering land for seniors housing, the Planning Proposal will assist Council and the NSW government to deliver key priorities relating to the ageing population.”

 

Relevant Local Strategy

35.    As discussed in the Planning Proposal, there are two local strategies which are relevant to the Planning Proposal.

 

36.    The Hurstville Positive Ageing Strategy and the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 both recognise the demographic changes which are increasing the demand for seniors housing.  The Hurstville Positive Ageing Strategy also identifies that the preference of the majority of older residents is to find appropriate housing in their own neighbourhoods.  Both strategies include commitments to increase the provision of aged care facilities.  The Delivery Program and Operational Plan associated with the Community Strategic Plan include commitments to provide seniors housing on the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

 

Changing Circumstances, Investment and/or Demographic Trends

37.    As noted already, the draft South District Plan observes that the projected growth in people aged 65 and over in the South District means that there must be more emphasis on planning for housing diversity particularly seniors housing and aged care options that allow people to age in place.  This demographic trend is the primary driver for the Planning Proposal.

 

38.    The Planning Proposal was precipitated by the demise of the former Oatley Bowling Club (which is part of a wider trend observed with reduced participation in lawn bowls) and the need to consider appropriate alternate uses of the land that will serve the interests of the wider Oatley and Georges River communities.

 

Site Specific Assessment

39.    Having met the strategic merit test, Planning Circular PS16-004 specifies that a Planning Proposal must then pass a site-specific merit test regarding:

 

§  The natural environment;

 

§  Existing uses, approved uses and likely future uses of land in the vicinity of the proposal; and

 

§  The services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

Ecology

40.    The Planning Proposal is informed by an Ecological Constraints Assessment prepared by Molino Stewart and dated September 2016, and a further report by Molino Stewart titled Integrated Response to Rezoning Proposal dated April 2017.

 

41.    The assessment identified Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (an endangered ecological community) in the Myles Dunphy Bushland Reserve to the west of River Road, as well as two species of threatened micro-bats to the south of the site.  It is possible that habitat for the micro-bats may be present in the retaining walls that support the bowling greens.

 

42.    The further report gives more detailed consideration to the likely impact to the widening of River Road (to 8m) and provision of equitable access.  The report finds that the widening would most likely require the removal of a small area of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest from the road reserve, although because of a number of factors that already impact on the viability of that particular vegetation, it could be offset by compensatory measures to improve the existing habitat within the Myles Dunphy Reserve.

 

43.    The further report also observes that the widening of River Road would require extending an existing culvert into a first order stream.  This would necessitate the provision of additional measures to compensate for the loss of a small area of the vegetation riparian zone associated with the creek.

 

44.    The Assessment makes a number of recommendations which are primarily relevant to any future development application for the site and concludes that the impact of redevelopment on the site can be mitigated through appropriate measures.

 

Bushfire

45.    Myles Dunphy Bushland Reserve is bushfire prone land and as such a Bushfire Constraints Assessment was undertaken for the Planning Proposal by Travers Bushfire and Ecology.

 

46.    Seniors housing is identified as a ‘special fire protection purpose’ by the Rural Fires Act 1997 and is therefore subject to more stringent bushfire planning requirements.

 

47.    The result is that only a relatively small part of the site (approximately 2,000m2) can be developed for the purpose of seniors housing, resulting in the compact indicative building form illustrated in the Planning Proposal.

 

48.    According to the Integrated Response to the Planning Proposal by Molino Stewart, the Asset Protection Zone that would be required for the senior housing facility would be entirely located within the boundaries of the land proposed to be rezoned SP2.

 

Contamination

49.    A detailed site investigation (Phase 2 Site Investigation) has been undertaken by Douglas Partners of the entire site.

 

50.    The investigation has raised concern with apparently uncontrolled fill in the south and south western parts of the site reaching an estimated depth of 9 metres. This fill, apart from lacking stability to support buildings and structures, has been found to be contaminated by asbestos fragments.

 

51.    The investigation recommends that a remedial action plan be prepared for this area.  Because of the volume of material present, it is likely that remediation would involve capping the contaminated fill with clean soil.

 

52.    The south and south western parts of the site are the areas which are now proposed to retain their existing RE1 - Public Recreation Zone and to be developed for open space purposes.  The findings of the Phase 2 Site Investigation are relevant to any future planning of this area including future development applications and/or Part 5 assessments.

 

53.    With regard to that part of the site now proposed to be rezoned SP2 - Infrastructure, the investigation found “The fill beneath the former bowling greens was assessed to be relatively free of anthropogenics and visual indicators of potential contamination”.

 

54.    It is recommended that the site investigation be updated before the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal to reflect the Council decision of 7 November 2016 and specifically to determine whether or not the proposed SP2 land is contaminated, and if it is, whether it is suitable in its contaminated state for the proposed use (with or without remediation).

 

Existing and Likely Future Use of Land in the Vicinity

 

55.    As described above, the site is tucked away between the Illawarra Rail Line and Myles Dunphy Reserve.  Because of bushfire constraints, any future seniors housing development must be located at least 50 metres from the Bushland Reserve, which would also serve to provide a visual buffer to the development.

 

56.    The adjacent pocket of five dwelling houses, two of which adjoin the northern boundary of the site, present challenges in terms of maintaining an appropriate scale relationship with the proposed 18.5 metre (five storey) aged care facility.  

 

57.    The indicative concept plans submitted with the Planning Proposal suggest that the interface between the aged care facility and the adjoining low density dwellings can be managed by arranging a three storey building form nearest to the boundary (approximately 3.5 metres) which then increases to five storeys approximately 10 metres from the boundary.  The proposal would have no overshadowing impact on these properties and provided the operations of the aged care facility were oriented away from the neighbours, no adverse noise impacts would be anticipated. 

 

58.    In this regard, the relationship of the proposal with the existing uses in the immediate locality is considered satisfactory. However, it is recommended that an amendment to the Hurstville DCP be prepared to address any potential future impacts from the development to the existing residential development on the adjoining sites.

 

Services and infrastructure

 

59.    The Planning Proposal observes that public transport and utility services infrastructure are available in the locality and adjacent to the site.  It is anticipated that there is adequate services and infrastructure capacity to service the proposal subject to minor augmentation (such as the provision of an electrical substation).  Consultation with infrastructure agencies is expected following Gateway which will confirm any additional infrastructure requirements.

 

Transport and Access

 

60.    A Transport and Access Assessment was prepared by GTA Consultants.  In relation to traffic the Assessment found that the relatively low trip generation associated with the residential care facility would have no adverse impact on the performance of the local road network.

 

61.    The Assessment also considered the particular requirements to ensure equitable access to the site for people with disabilities.  In this regard, the existing grade and cross fall of River Road does not comply with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard. 

 

62.    The Assessment suggests that compliant access could be provided by constructing an elevated boardwalk on the western side of the River Road carriageway within the existing road reserve.  Alternatively, the Assessment proposes that a boardwalk could be considered within Myles Dunphy Bushland Reserve.

 

63.    The Ecological Constraints Assessment observes that although an elevated boardwalk on the western side of River Road has the potential to harm the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest endangered ecological community; this can be avoided with thoughtful design.

 

64.    One aspect that the Transport and Access Assessment has not considered is whether redevelopment of the site for the purpose of aged care accommodation will require improved emergency access.  The Integrated Response to Rezoning Proposal report by Molino Stewart indicates that River Road would need to be widened to provide an 8m wide carriageway to satisfy the performance criteria in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.  We recommend that the Transport and Traffic Assessment be reviewed and revised as necessary to address this issue before public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

65.    The proposal to rezone part of the former Oatley Bowling Club site to facilitate the development of an aged care facility is consistent with the vision and priorities of the NSW Government’s draft South District Plan and the local strategies of the former Hurstville City Council. 

 

66.    Based on the assessment so far, there are no site constraints that are unable to be managed through careful design of the proposed facility. 

 

67.    Community consultation has been undertaken on behalf of Georges River Council to inform the planning proposal, resulting in a reduction in the area to be rezoned and a more thorough assessment of ecological and potential bushfire constraints. 

 

68.    The recommendation has identified that a number of the outstanding issues be addressed prior to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, including:

 

a.   Reference to the draft South District Plan;

b.   An update to the Traffic and Access Assessment to specifically address any emergency access requirements arising from the bushfire hazard;

c.   An updated Detailed Site Investigation to specifically address the suitability of the proposed SP2 land in terms of contamination risk; and

d.   The update of any other reports as considered necessary and which may arise as a recommendation from the report presented to Council on 1 May 2017 on the outcomes of the preliminary public exhibition.

 

69.    It is also recommended that controls be prepared to address the impact of any proposed future development on the site in the context of the adjoining residential development. These new controls will require an amendment to the Hurstville DCP. The controls will include, but not limited to height, transition between zones and setbacks.

 

70.    In this regard, the Planning Proposal (as amended) has sufficient merit, in the opinion of the consultant, to be referred to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Review, prior to formal public exhibition.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Response to Preliminary Assessment by Independent Planner

Attachment View2

Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 17

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 47

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 49

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 53

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 55

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 65

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 67

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 197

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 199

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 200

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]          Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

 

 

Page 202

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 203

 

Item:                   CCL059-17        Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club 

Author:              Executive Manager, Rebekah Schulz

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 


 


 

Recommendation

(a)     That the results of the independent peer review, undertaken by Cred Consulting, of the community consultation process for the future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site are noted, particularly that the report “is considered to be a high-quality report based on a robust methodology and wide ranging activities”.

(b)     That Council acknowledge the ongoing community support for aged care facilities as an important issue for Council as outlined in the Elton Consulting report.

(c)     That the Elton Consulting report and the Cred Consulting report be provided to City Plan Services for consideration during the assessment and review of the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

(d)     That the Georges River community be updated on the community consultation results via the Council website and usual communications and media channels.

(e)     That the draft Georges River Council Community Engagement Policy be reviewed having regard to the feedback from the Elton Community Consultation report, prior to adoption by Council.

 


Executive Summary

1.      The results of a detailed community consultation process from Elton Consulting and independent peer review by Cred Consulting are provided in this report. This follows a Council Meeting on 7 November 2016, where it was resolved that Georges River Council would undertake extensive community consultation on the Planning Proposal and future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

Background

2.      At a Meeting of Council on 7 November 2016 it was resolved:

a.   That Council not proceed with the 2014 resolution of the former Hurstville City Council to rezone the site to residential to facilitate a 7-9 storey, mixed use residential and seniors housing development.

b.   That it be noted that if the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway determination, any plan making (re-zoning and reclassification) is unlikely to occur before December 2017, and would require the prior approval of the Council elected in September 2017.

c.   That the Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from ‘community’ land to ‘operational’ and to rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated land use of seniors housing (nursing home) and community facilities be amended to apply only to that part of the site which would accommodate the seniors housing (aged care component) and ancillary support requirements, i.e. approximately 50% of the site.

d.   That extensive public consultation commence immediately and a report be submitted to Council in March 2017 detailing the outcomes of the public consultation (including any proposed amendments to the Planning Proposal arising from such consultation) prior to any Gateway submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

e.   That an independent peer review of the community consultation results ((d) above) be undertaken.

f.    That the Planning Proposal be assessed by an independent expert who will make recommendations to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for endorsement or otherwise prior to any Gateway determination.

g.   That if the Planning Proposal proceeds, i.e. after independent assessment, approval by IHAP and Department of Planning and Environment, the reclassification Public Hearing be undertaken by a former Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court or a person with equivalent standing and experience, and that a post Gateway exhibition report be prepared by an independent consultant for consideration by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and the newly elected Council panel prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning.

 

3.      At the Council Meeting on 6 March 2017, Council resolved:

a.   That the progress report on the community consultation process for the former Oatley Bowling Club site is received and noted.

b.   That respondents to the community survey are sent an update on the community consultation process contained in this report.

Consultation Process

4.      In accordance with point (d) above, Council undertook extensive community consultation on future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site.  The consultation process sought to understand the Georges River community’s support for the development of the former Oatley Bowling Club site, their attitude towards the need for seniors housing and preferences for community uses on the site. This consultation included:

c.   Three (3) community information sessions held on Wednesday 23 November 2016 and Saturday 26 November 2016

d.   A community survey available on the Council website and in hard copy at the community information sessions

e.   A telephone survey

5.      The consultation was additional to that which is legally required to be undertaken as part of the Planning Proposal gateway process.   Council is committed to ongoing community consultation on the Planning Proposal for this site. The community consultation was undertaken by an independent facilitator, Elton Consulting, between November 2016 and February 2017. Elton Consulting has extensive communications and community engagement experience.

 

6.      The independent facilitator designed the sessions to provide residents with an opportunity to find out more about the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The sessions were an opportunity for the community to talk to Council staff and experts in a range of areas. The independent facilitator captured feedback from members of the community.

7.      A community survey was available in hardcopy format at the information sessions and on Council’s website. The independent facilitator developed the survey to explore, amongst other things: 

a.   If the provision of aged care (seniors housing), as identified by the community and former Hurstville City Council since 2006, in the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2021 and the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025, continued to be a priority for the Georges River community;

b.   Preferences for the types of seniors housing proposed at the former Oatley Bowling Club site;

c.   Options for community facilities proposed for the site; and

d.   Ideas for improving access to the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve.

8.      The independent facilitator also arranged a telephone survey to be conducted with randomly selected residents from the Georges River Local Government Area.  Participants were recruited and sent an information pack prior to a one-on-one interview.  The information pack contained copies of the information panels used in the community information sessions and a short introductory letter.

9.      Following the community consultation process, an independent peer review was undertaken by Cred Consulting. Cred Consulting has extensive experience in community engagement processes and social planning.

10.    In the interests of transparency, Council also publicly released the OBC Planning Proposal in order to obtain community feedback early in the rezoning process.  The submissions were analysed by Elton Consulting and a series of key themes were determined by the independent consultant.

Promotion and Participation Results

11.    The community information sessions were promoted on Council’s website and in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. An invitation to the sessions was delivered to 1,200 homes and businesses in streets located close to the former Oatley Bowling Club site. Information panels, on display at the sessions, explained the Planning Proposal and background to the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The survey was available in hardcopy format at the sessions and was also available for completion online, on Council’s website.

 

12.    Background information on the former Oatley Bowling Club site was available on the Council website and as hardcopy information panels at the Hurstville Service Centre. The Planning Proposal was also available in hardcopy format at local libraries and customer service centres.

 

13.    There was strong community participation in the consultation process with:

·        149 participants at the 3 community information sessions

·        146 community surveys completed at the community information sessions or online

·        501 residents participated in a phone survey, of which 30% were from Oatley

·        52 submissions were received in response to the Planning Proposal

 

14.    Participants of the telephone survey included 194 males and 307 females. 154 participants were from the suburb of Oatley, representing 30% of the overall telephone participants.

 

15.    Participants in the community survey indicated that their preferred methods of engagement include, in order of preference:

·        Community information sessions

·        Surveys

·        Open days

·        Newsletters

·        Presentations

 

Community Consultation Results

16.    Three reports are attached to this report:

·        Outcomes Report by Elton Consulting

·        Submissions Report by Elton Consulting

·        Peer Review by Cred Consulting

 

17.    These reports provide further detail on the results of the community consultation process, results and subsequent peer review.

18.    Elton Consulting found that “Generally, those people who participated in the phone survey, both within the suburb of Oatley and those in surrounding suburbs, were supportive of the proposal” (Outcomes Report, p.4). The telephone survey found that:

·        92% of surveyed respondents consider the provision of aged care facilities was an important issue for Council and 47% felt that they or a family member would be interested in aged care accommodation at the Oatley Bowling Club site.

·        Most respondents felt that self-contained dwellings would be most appropriate to the site.

·        58% of respondents felt that the proposed three-five storey aged care facility was appropriate for the site

·        71% felt that the proposed rezoning would result in an appropriate intensity of development for the site

 

19.    Those participants who expressed concerns about the proposal provided insights into their concerns which are summarised in the Outcomes Report as:

·        The scale of the development and setting a precedent for the area

·        Visual impact of the development

·        Preserving the character of Oatley’s built environment

·        Privatisation of public land

·        Desire for the site to be preserved for open space, passive recreation and environmental value

·        Road access to the site, including clearing to widen the road and turn off into the site

·        Risk of bushfire to residents, the Myles Dunphy Reserve and the proposed development site

·        Parking for the site

 

20.    Respondents of the telephone survey provided a range of preferred uses for the community facilities, including:

·        Community gardens (88%)

·        Walkways (86%)

·        Public toilets (75%)

·        Picnic shelters (75%)

 

21.    A review of the 52 submissions received in relation to the Planning Proposal were themed in the following key categories:

·        General comments: 13% of submissions expressed a view that the community survey was skewed towards supporting the planning proposal.

·        Site location: 6% suggested the site be located close to Oatley.

·        Scale and impact of development: 71% were opposed to commercial development of the site while 2 submissions supported the proposed reduction in heights of the planning proposal.

·        Environmental concerns: 37% objected to the rezoning and advocated that the site be reserved for native fauna and flora. Some submissions were concerned that the proposal would negatively impact the Myles Dunphy Reserve.

·        Traffic and parking: 19% of submissions were concerned about the impact on traffic and parking on the existing road networks. Several submissions called for a more detailed analysis of traffic and parking issues.

22.    The submissions provided a mix of suggestions for the community uses of the land, including:

·        Parkland (10%)

·        Bike/pedestrian paths, signs, public amenities and facilities (10%)

·        Native habitats are preserved (6%)

 

Independent Peer Review Results

23.    The independent peer review of the community consultation process for the future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site noted that the Outcomes Report “is considered to be a high-quality report based on a robust methodology and wide ranging activities”.

24.    As reported by Cred Consulting and confirmed by Georges River Council Officers, a typographical errors was made on page 9 of the Outcomes Report: 38% of respondents to the community survey believed there was enough aged care options in the LGA, not 48% as reported in the Outcomes Report.

 

Future Consultation and Engagement

25.    Participants in the community engagement process indicated that they would be interested in participating in future consultations and would welcome further information through newsletters, email updates, surveys, pop-ups and face-to-face events.

26.    Georges River Council is committed to ongoing, effective community engagement.  It is proposed to review the draft Community Engagement Policy and Strategy for Community engagement in light of the feedback from the Elton Community Consultation report.  The insights from the above community consultation process will inform the development and review of the Community Engagement Policy and Strategy.

Next Steps

27.    Following the Meeting of Council on 3 April 2017, it is proposed that the Elton Consulting report and the Cred Consulting report be provided to City Plan Services for consideration during the assessment and review of the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

 

Financial Implications

28.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

16/1212

 

 


 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Outcomes Report Elton Consulting

Attachment 2

Outcomes Report - Appendix A

Attachment 3

Outcomes Report - Appendix B

Attachment 4

Outcomes Report - Appendix C

Attachment 5

Submissions Report Elton Consulting

Attachment 6

Independent Peer Review by Cred Consulting


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 210

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 228

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 232

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 238

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 253

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.1                          Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]          Report to Council Meeting 1 may 2017 on outcomes of community consultation

 

 

Page 265

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 18 May 2017

Page 271

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 18 May 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.2

Application No

DA2016/0177

Site Address & Ward Locality

96 Queens Road Connells Point

Blakehurst Ward

Proposal

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer, Bernard Moroz

Owners

I J and D Dotur

Applicant

AF Design

Zoning

E4 – Environmental Living

Date Of Lodgement

26/08/2016

Submissions

Two (2)

Cost of Works

$532,400.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Unresolved objections

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

 

(1)       Council is in receipt of an application for the alterations and the additions to the existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool on the subject site.

 

Site and Locality

 

(2)       The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of Queens Road comprising of a street frontage width of 15.67m, site lengths of 36.135m (south-western) and 39.14m (north-eastern) and overall site area of 573.5m².

 

Zoning and KLEP 2012 Compliance

 

(3)       The site is zoned E4-Environmental Living Zone 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 height, front setback, second storey depth and maximum balcony width.

 

Submissions

 

(5)       Two submissions were received raising concerns related to front setback, number of stories, height, use of narrow access road, privacy, overshadowing and view loss.

 

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. 177/2016 should be approved subject to conditions.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

 

(7)       Council is in receipt of an application for the alterations and the additions to the existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool on the subject site.

 

The Site and Locality

 

(8)       The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of Queens Road comprising of a street frontage width of 15.67m, site lengths of 36.135m (south-western) and 39.14m (north-eastern) and overall site area of 573.5m².  The site presents a fall from the rear to the street while a one/two storey dwelling exists on the site which will be integrated into the new development. The subject site along with three neighbouring properties are elevated above the street edge of Queens Road and are all accessed via a shared right of way.

 

 

Figure 1- Aerial

 

Background

 

(9)       This application was submitted with Council on 28 August 2016 and was neighbour notified from 20 September to 3 October 2016 where two submissions were received raising  concerns related to front setback, number of stories, height, use of narrow access road, privacy, overshadowing and view loss.

(10)     On 30 November 2016 the applicant was sent a ’21-day’ letter in relation to a number of  issues related to the application.

 

(11)     A number of plan amendments were undertaken with the final set of amendments submitted with Council on 28 February 2017. Amended shadow diagrams were submitted to Council on 14 March 2017. These plans and associated information are relied upon for assessment in this report.

 

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 subject site is zoned E4-Environmental Living Zone and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent.  The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

 

Figure 2- Zoning Map

 

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

 

(14)     The proposed development was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who raised no objection to the removal of the large Eucalyptus piluaris (T1) located on the subject site subject to replacement planting. It was also recommended that the Jacaranda mimosifolia (T2) be preserved and protected in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Arborist report. Figure 3 below details the location of the subject 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.

 

 

Figure 3- Tree removal/retention plan

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation 

 

(15)     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

 

(16)     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

 

(17)     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.

 

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

 

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

 

Clause 6.4 – Limited Development on Foreshore Area

 

(19)     The subject site is not affected by a foreshore building line and therefore provisions of this clause are not applicable.

 

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

 

(20)     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

 

(21)     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

 

A Planning Proposal for the New City Plan to amend Kogarah LEP 2012 is on exhibition from Monday 30 March 2015 until Friday 29 May 2015.

 

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.

 

(22)     Specifically, the New City Plan proposes to:

 

·    Amend the sites zoning from E4-Environemntal Living Zone to R2- Low Density Residential zoning.

·    Introduce a 9m maximum height and 0.55:1 FSR standard.

 

(23)     There are no other draft planning instruments that are applicable to this site.

 

(iii)      any development control plan,

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

 

(24)     The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013). The following comments are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the DCP.

 

Streetscape Character

 

Building Scale/Height

 

Objectives

(a) Ensure that new buildings and alterations and additions respect the dominant building forms and scale through the use of innovative architectural responses.

(b) Distribute building height and bulk on the site so as to ensure there is no significant loss of amenity to adjacent sites, open space and public streets.

(c) Ensure that building heights respond to the scale of the street and surrounding buildings.

(d) Ensure that the height of buildings does not overly impact on the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

Number of residential levels/stories

 

(25)     The subject site comprises of a site slope crossfall of 12.8% that in accordance with Council’s DCP is considered adequate for the provision of three residential levels. The proposal has also incorporated a number of design solutions that will assist in reducing the visual scale of the development. These are as follows:

 

·    The dwelling facades have been well articulated ensuring that any visual mass is dispersed while generous side setbacks in excess of the numerical controls outlined in the DCP have been incorporated.

·    The cantilevered ground floor terrace over the garage in addition to the narrow first floor width, will ensure that the dwelling will not present an unreasonable scale to either the neighbouring properties or the public domain.

 

Floor Space

 

(26)     A floor space ratio of 0.53:1 or 305m² is proposed complying with Council controls of 0.55:1 or 315m².

 

Height

 

(27)     The proposal will result in a maximum height of 9m to the top of the parapet that fails to comply with Council controls of 7.8m. While numerically non-compliant, the height non-compliance should be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    Where the height non-compliance is presented, increased setbacks have been proposed to the side boundaries. This is diagrammatically detailed in Figure 4 below.  Setbacks ranging from 1.4m to 3m are proposed along the north-eastern side and 3.16m to 4.27m along the south-western side exceeding the 1.2m minimum setback control. These increased setbacks are considered to offset any visual bulk that may potentially result from the height non-compliance. 

·    The upper floor has been sited to reduce impacts on neighbouring properties, both with respect to visual and overshadowing impacts.

·    The 9m height is compliant with the draft amendment to KLEP 2012 (New City Plan) height limit of 9m.

·    The scale of the dwelling tapers down from the non complying portion along the street façade towards the rear where the dwelling will comprise of a maximum height of 6.5m. The non compliance with the 7.8m height control equates to around1/3 of the first floor plate.

 

 

Figure 4- Extent of non-compliance (floor plan)

 

Depth of second storey

 

(28)     Where a development includes a two (2) residential level element, then the second level should not extend beyond 60% of the depth of the allotment measured from the street boundary.  This proposal fails to comply with this requirement. In this case, the uppermost level or second storey component extends 27.4m or 70% (north-eastern) and 25m or 69% (south-western). The extent of non-compliance is depicted in Figure 5 below. While numerically non-compliant, the non-compliance should be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The rear building line is considered to appropriately transition between the neighbouring properties located to the north-east and south-west.

·    The proposed first floor largely observes the already established ground floor layout of the existing dwelling that is being retained in terms of building footprint. 

·    The elongated first floor layout results in a non-compliance with the depth control. This design outcome provides substantially increased setbacks from the side boundaries and a greater level of building separation to adjoining neighbouring dwellings.

·    The proposed dwelling complies with the relevant floor space ratio control and its external walls are sufficiently articulated to reduce the visual bulk of the building to an acceptable degree.  The variation to the two (2) level depth control is acceptable having regard to the underlying objectives and the circumstances of the case.

·    The site is somewhat constrained by its relatively limited depth. The fenestration of the side and rear walls of the first floor level has been carefully designed to reduce visual and acoustic privacy impacts.  Strict compliance with the control would make little perceptible difference to the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.

 

 

Figure 5- 60% depth non-compliance

 

Rhythm of Built Elements in the Streetscape

 

Building Setbacks

 

Objectives

(a) Preserve significant vegetation, which contributes to the public domain, and allows for street landscape character to be enhanced.

(b) Integrate new development with the established setback character of the street by ensuring front setbacks are consistent with adjoining buildings.

(c) Maintain a reasonable level of amenity for neighbours with adequate access to sunlight.

(d) Ensure adequate separation between buildings, consistent with the established character and rhythm of built elements in the street.

 

(29)     Where the setback of an adjacent building is greater than 5m, an appropriate setback may be achieved by ensuring development is set back:

 

·    the same distance as one or the other of the adjoining buildings, provided the difference between the setbacks of the two adjoining buildings is less than or equal to 2m.

·    the average of the setbacks of the two adjoining buildings, if the difference between the setbacks of the buildings is greater than 2m.

 

(30)     In this case, the south-western verandah elements of both the subject and neighbouring dwellings have been utilised in determining an appropriate street setback as this provides the most applicable approach in order to ensure street setback continuity is maintained.

 

(31)     The south-western most part of the verandah area of the dwelling located at 94 Queens Road is setback a minimum of 8.9m from the common right of way edge which for the purpose of this argument is identified as the street boundary. The south-western part of the verandah area of the existing dwelling located at 98 Queens Road is setback a minimum 2.8m from the street edge. Applying the DCP controls, an average of these two setbacks is applicable as the difference between the setbacks of the neighbouring buildings is greater than 2m. Accordingly, a setback of 5.85m is applicable in this case.

 

(32)     This proposal incorporates a minimum 6.38m setback to the south-western most part of the terrace which is not consistent with the DCP “average” setback control. Visually, this setback is considered not to result in any notable disparity from the street and can be supported in its current form. If a compliant setback was to be observed, this would involve extending the building 530mm further towards the street edge that itself would not result in any perceivable benefit. The front setback is supported in its current form.

 

(33)     Side setbacks are to be 1.2m where the wall height exceeds 3.5m in height. For walls under 3.5m in height, a setback of 900mm applies.

 

(34)     Along the north-eastern boundary, the setback ranges from 1.2m to 3m while along the south-western boundary the setback ranges from 1.2m to 4.27m.

 

(35)     A 9.2m rear setback is proposed complying with Council DCP controls of 6m.

 

Fenestration and External Materials

 

(36)     The proposal complies with the requirement that the colours of garages, window frames, and balustrading on main facades and elevations are to be integrated with the external design of the building.

 

(37)     The proposal incorporates a moderately glazed façade, which complies with the requirement that glazing be limited to a maximum 35% of the total area of the overall street front façade.

 

(38)     The proposed flat roof design and rendered finishes is more consistent with that of the materials and roof styles observed with the more contemporary dwellings located within the sites local context.

 

Street Edge

 

(39)     The proposal does not propose any new fencing along the streetscape. There are no street trees that would otherwise be affected by this proposal.

 

Open Space

 

(40)     The proposal complies with the requirement to provide at least 15% of the site as deep soil landscape area. The proposal provides highly usable areas of private open space that are accessible from living areas.

 

Vehicular access, Parking and Circulation

 

(41)     The proposal complies with the requirement to park two (2) cars off street, through the provision of a double garage. The proposal was review by Council’s Traffic Engineers who raised no objection to the proposal subject to a consent condition being imposed requiring that a vehicle safety barrier be installed adjacent to the drop off opposite the site.

 

Privacy

 

(42)     Windows facing the sides off ‘active’ rooms are offset from those of adjoining dwellings or utilise highlight windows to minimise potential overlooking impacts.

 

(43)     The proposal does not include any rear balconies, though does include an elevated terrace off the meals/living area comprising of a trafficable width of 3.6m. This terrace is setback 3m from the north-eastern side boundary and 4.2m from the south-western and will be of a largely open form in order to maintain the dwellings modest visual scale when viewed from the neighbouring properties. This design outcome is considered to far outweigh any benefits that may result from the provision of screening elements to the terrace perimeters.

 

(44)     While the terrace area exceeds the minimum 2.5m maximum balcony widths as outlined in Council’s DCP, the terrace is located on the front façade of the dwelling and is oriented to enjoy the views towards Oatley Bay. The generous side setbacks of this will ensure that no adverse impacts will result in terms of an unreasonable level of overlooking.

 

Solar Access

 

(45)     As a result of the sites orientation, additional shadowing will be cast on the neighbouring property at 98 Queens Road. Having said this, the design has given suitable consideration to this potential impact where generous first floor side setbacks far exceeding the minimum requirements outlined in the DCP have been proposed in order to try and alleviate this impact. The shadow diagrams submitted also indicate that the proposal complies with the requirement that where the neighbouring properties are affected by overshadowing, at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on 21 June

 

Views and View Sharing

 

(46)     The Land & Environment Court has established a series of Planning Principles that are available to be used by Councils to assist in the determination of development applications.

 

(47)     In Tenacity Consulting P/L v Warringah (2004 NSWLEC 140), Senior Commissioner Roseth in establishing planning principles for view sharing made the following comment:

 

The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for their enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable). To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four step assessment.’

 

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views are valued more highly than views without icons.

 

(48)     The objector located at 94 Queens Road who raised objection to view loss, obtains views spanning from the north-east to the south-west. Predominately, the views enjoyed are that of Oatley Bay and the opposing foreshore. The views are generally obtained through existing tree foliage apart from those enjoyed in a north-easterly direction that is generally clear of obstruction.

 

(49)     The view enjoyed by this objector are to the water and therefore considered of some value, though not significant.

 

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. The protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

(50)     Views are obtained from both the ground and first floor balconies located along the street facade. The views from the ground floor balcony are significantly more obscured, highly filtered and considered to be of a lower quality.

 

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property not just for the view that is affected.

 

(51)     The majority of view enjoyed by the objector is being retained from both the ground and first floor balcony areas. This includes the generally unimpeded views enjoyed in a north-easterly direction from the first floor balcony. View loss will only be incurred in a south-westerly direction over the subject site across this side boundary. This view will be entirely lost in a seated position but will be proportionately maintained in a standing position.

 

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. Where an impact on view arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the view of the neighbours. If the answer to that question is NO, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

(52)     It is acknowledged that the view in a south-westerly direction across the subject site towards Oatley Bay and the opposing foreshore is highly valued by the objector. The plans have since been amended to reduce the width of the ground floor terrace to a width of 3.6m and also include the deletion of the solid privacy screen/wall along the north-eastern side of the terrace. The supporting terrace columns have also been reduced in depth to 600mm in order to try and reduce the level of view impact.

 

(53)     Whilst a minor level of view impact will still be incurred by the objector, the proposal is supported in consideration of the fact that the view is across a side boundary, the majority of views enjoyed by the objector will remain unaffected and that the proposal is compliant with provisions of Council’s New City Plan where a 9m maximum height and 0.55:1 FSR are applicable.

 

(54)     The proposal satisfies the planning principles contained in Tenacity v Warringah 2004 (NSW LEC 140) and the provisions contained in KDCP 2013.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

 

(55)     The following table outlines the proposals compliance with the primary controls contained within KDCP 2013.

 

Performance Criteria

 

Design Solution

Proposed

Complies

Building Scale

 

Height

·    Parapet

 

 

7.8m

 

 

9m

 

N

No of Levels

 

3

3

Y

Floorspace Ratio

 

0.55:1 or 315m²

0.53:1 or 305m²

Y

Rhythm of Buildings

 

Setbacks

·    Front

·    Rear

·    Side (north-eastern)

·    Side (south-western)

 

See report

6m

1.2m

 

1.2m

 

 

6.38m

9.2m

1.2m-3m

 

1.2m-4.27m

 

N

Y

Y

 

Y

Fenestration & External Materials

 

Amount of glazing (street frontage)

 

 

35%

 

 

 

<35%

Y

Other

 

Deep Soil Landscaping

 

15% or 86m²

35% or 201m²

Y

Balconies

·    Width

·    Setback

·    Total Area

 

2.5m

3.0m

40m²

 

3.6m

3.07m-4.27m

28m²

 

N

Y

Y

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

(56)     The proposed development requires payment of $5324.00 of Section 94A contributions based on the provisions of Council’s Section 94A Plan.

 

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

 

(57)     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,

 

(58)     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,

 

(59)     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,

 

(60)     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.  Two submissions were received raising the following concerns:

 

Front setback

 

(61)     Objection was received from the owners of 94 Queens Road to what they deemed was a non-conforming front setback. The owners were of the opinion that the proposed dwelling was required to be setback further into the site.

 

Comment

 

(62)     As discussed in the body of this report, the front setback is considered acceptable. A compliant front setback could be achieved by setting the dwelling further forward towards the ROW edge, but this would further exacerbate the neighbouring objectors concerns as in their opinion, the dwelling should be setback further back, not further forward.

 

Number of residential levels/height

 

(63)     Objection was received from the owners of 94 and 98 Queens Road to the three level nature of the dwelling, the height non-compliance and the inconsistent visual scale it will present.

 

Comment

 

(64)     As discussed in the body of this report, the site presents a slope that is capable of accommodating three residential levels. In terms of height, a non-compliance with the DCP controls is presented; however, the dwelling will comprise of a maximum height consistent with the future height standard outlined in the New City Plan. In respect to the dwellings inconsistent visual scale, it is acknowledged that the dwellings within the sites immediate context do present a maximum two storey scale. Having said this, both the local and broader context already presents a varying scale of dwellings ranging from single to multi-level dwellings. The proposed scale is not considered to be inconsistent with either the current or emerging contextual theme.

 

Use of narrow access Road

 

(65)     Objection was received from the owners of 94 Queens Road to the potential construction of a structure within the northern most corner that would restrict vehicular access onto their site from the ROW.

 

Comment

 

(66)     This application does not involve any works within this location. Access to the objector’s site will remain as existing.

 

Privacy

 

(67)     Objection was received from the owners of 94 and 98 Queens Road to the potential privacy impact that would result from this development.

 

Comment

 

(68)     As discussed in the body of this report, the proposal is well resolved in terms of privacy. No adverse unreasonable impacts are anticipated to result to either objecting neighbour.

 

Overshadowing

 

(69)     Objection was received from the owners of 98 Queens Road to the shadowing impact that will result from the proposal.

 

Comment

 

(70)     Ad discussed in the body of this report, the objector from 98 Queens Road will be additionally shadowed as a result of this proposal. This is unavoidable considering the orientation of the objector’s site in relation to the subject site. The proposal complies with the minimum requirements related to solar access to neighbouring sites.

 

View loss

 

(71)     Objection was received from the owners of 94 Queens Road to the potential view impact that will be incurred from the development.

 

Comment

 

(72)     A view impact analysis was undertaken and detailed earlier in this report. It was concluded that the potential view impact to this objector is minor and the proposal satisfies the planning principles contained in Tenacity v Warringah 2004 (NSW LEC 140) and the provisions contained in KDCP 2013

 

Mediation/Public Meeting

 

(73)     Numerous phone discussions were held with both objectors. In addition, the objectors from 94 Queens Road were met on site on two separate occasions while a meeting was held with the objector from 98 Queens Road at Council’s customer service centre. Both the objectors outlined that their concerns were not adequately addressed and remain unresolved.

 

(e)     the public interest.

 

(74)     The proposed development is of a scale and character that does not conflict with the public interest.

 

Conclusion

 

(75)     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. 

 

(76)     Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No 177/2016 should be approved subject to conditions.

 

DETERMINATION

That Council as the Consent Authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, grant consent to Development Application No 177/2016 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool at No 96 Queens Road Connells Point 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- AF design Drawing number 160621 Sheets 1 of 9 through to and including 9 of 9 Issue C dated 28/02/2017

(ii)        Stormwater plans – Prepared by AF Design Drawing No. SWP-01 dated 25 March 2017.

 

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                                           $1,900.00

·   *Builders Long Service Levy of                        $1,863.00

·   Driveway Design and Inspection Fee
(Dwelling) of                                              $   515.00

·   Asset Inspection Fee of                          $   110.00

·   Section 94A Contributions of                 $5,324.00

 

*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 94A Contributions

 

As at the date of Development Consent a contribution of $5,324.00 has been levied on the subject development pursuant to Section 94A Contributions Plan.  The amount to be paid is to be adjusted at the time of the actual payment, in accordance with the provisions of the Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

 

The Section 94A Contributions Plan may be inspected at Council’s Customer Service Centres or online at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

 

(4)       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.

 

(5)       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.

 

(6)       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.

 

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.

 

(7)       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.

 

(8)       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.

 

(9)       Tree Retention – Arborist Report

 

The trees identified for retention in the Arborist Report prepared by TALC and dated 20 December 2016 and listed below shall be protected in accordance with the above report and the requirements of Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 - Protection of trees on development sites.

 

Tree Species

Location of Tree/Tree No

TPZ

Jacaranda mimosifolia

96 Queens Road/ Tree 2

4.2 metres

 

(10)     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.

 

(11)     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.

 

(12)     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.

 

(13)     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.

 

(14)     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.

 

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.

 

(15)     Inspections - New Dwelling

 

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)  after excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings, and

(c)   prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element, and

(d)  prior to the covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building element, and

(e)  prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, and

(f)    prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and

 

(g)  after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

(h)  in the case of a swimming pool, as soon as practicable after the barrier (if one is required under the Swimming Pools Act 1992 has been erected.

 

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          Landscaping

Ž          Pool Fencing

 

(16)     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.

 

(17)     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.

 

(18)     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.

 

(19)     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.

 

(20)     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'.

 

(21)     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.

 

(22)     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.

 

(23)     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.

 

(24)     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.

 

(25)     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.

 

(26)     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.

 

(27)     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.

 

(28)     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.

 

(29)     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.

 

(30)     Swimming Pool/Spa shall be Fenced

 

The proposed swimming pool and/or spa shall be fenced and constructed in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act, 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008. If required, you may confer with Council for assistance with respect to the location of pool fencing.

 

(31)     Pool Filter/Pump no Offensive Noise

 

Pool plant and equipment shall be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby neighbours.

 

The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises or as otherwise stated in the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2008:

 

·    Before 8:00am or after 8:00pm on any Sunday and public holiday;

·    Before 7:00am or after 8:00pm on any other day.

 

(32)     Building Finishes

 

The building finishes are to be constructed in accordance with the colour board and perspective submitted with the Development Application.

 

(33)     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.

 

(34)     Tree Removal

 

The trees identified in the table below may be removed:

 

Tree Species 

Location on Site/Tree No

Work Required

Eucalyptus pilularis

96 Queens Road/ Tree 1

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.

 

(35)     Tree Replacement

 

One (1) indigenous canopy tree is to be planted at the front of the subject site and not within 3 metres of any existing or proposed structures. The replacement tree should have a minimum pot size of 100 litres.

 

All replacement trees are to be planted, protected and maintained prior to the issue of the final occupation certificate.

 

(36)     Vehicle Safety Barrier

 

A vehicle safety barrier shall be installed adjacent to the drop off opposite the property and shall comply with the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 - Off Street Car Parking, Section 2.4.5.3, with all costs to be borne by the applicant.

 

(37)     Dilapidation report

 

Prior to the issue of any construction certificate or commencement of and 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 carriageway servicing the property.

 

(38)     Road closure application form

 

A Road Closure Application form and associated documents shall be submitted to Council for approval at least 5 business days prior to any proposed lane usage for concrete pours, cranes or other activities involved in the demolition, excavation and construction on the site.

 

(39)     Management Plan

 

Prior to the issue of any construction certificate, any demolition or earthworks on the site, the applicant shall submit to Council for approval a “Management Plan” detailing the following to safely manage vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the works at the site:

 

·    Traffic Control Plans and details of how the company proposes to place, erect, dismantle and/or undertake the works at the site.

·    All works on the road or road related areas are to be clearly delineated and designed in accordance with the relevant standards,  refer to “AS 1742.3 – 2009” and the Roads and Maritime Services “Traffic Control at Worksites (TCAWS) Manual, Version 4.0, 2010”

·    The Traffic Control Plans and the works must be prepared/undertaken by RMS accredited (ticketed) personnel.

·    Where heavy vehicles associated with the site will be parked whilst waiting to enter the site.

·    Location of loading and unloading areas for trucks.

 

·    The route of all trucks conveying materials to and from the site.

·    Demonstration that pedestrian access past the site is maintained during demolition and construction 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.

 

(40)     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.

 

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.

 

(41)     Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

 

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

(42)     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.

 

(43)     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.

 

(44)     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.

 

(45)     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.

 

(46)     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.

 

(47)     Standard Demo Conditions - No Asbestos

 

(a)       Demolition works being restricted to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays to Saturdays inclusive with NO work being carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays.

 

(b)       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.

 

(c)        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.

 

(d)       No waste materials are to be burnt on site.

 

(e)       No trees as defined by Council's Tree Preservation Order being removed or damaged on the site without the prior written approval of Council.

 

(f)         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.

 

(g)       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.

 

(h)        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.

 

(i)         Council being notified upon completion of the demolition works so that an inspection can be made of the roadway and footpath.

 

(j)         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.

 

(k)        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)     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.

 

(vi)    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, 18 May 2017

7.2                          96 Queens Road Connells Point

[Appendix 1]          A4 Plans

 

 

Page 298

 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 18 May 2017

Page 301

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 18 May 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.3

Application No

DA2017/0049

Site Address & Ward Locality

296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

Hurstville Ward

Proposal

Construction of a new public plaza including landscaping, paving, seating and public amenities

Report Author/s

Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner

Owners

Georges River Council

Applicant

Georges River Council

Zoning

 Zone B3 - Commercial Core

Date Of Lodgement

6/03/2017

Submissions

One (1)

Cost of Works

$2,844,600.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Integration of public plaza with adjoining private development at 282-290 Forest Road Hurstville

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the condition included in the report

 

 

 

Site Plan

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Development Application seeks approval for works that will create a new public space within the Hurstville town centre, commonly referred to as the Hurstville Central Plaza.

 

The project is a long term commitment by Council to give effect to objectives set out in the Hurstville City Centre Concept Master Plan, adopted by Council in December 2004.

 

The space will improve general permeability and street level connectivity between Hurstville railway station, Westfield Shopping Centre and the Hurstville Transport Interchange. It will provide a new attractive meeting and resting place as well as a space suitable for smaller community events and the promotion of community activities.

 

This application was assessed by an independent consultant, Stuart Gordon of SJB Planning.

 

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

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

 

REPORT DETAIL

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

1.         The Development Application DA2017/0049 seeks approval for works that will create a new public space within the Hurstville town centre.

 

Details are as follows:

 

·    Removal of three (3) trees and associated soft landscape works including replacement plantings;

·    Hard landscape works including concrete paving, steps, timber decking and associated stormwater/drainage works;

·    Installation of street furniture including seating, water feature, cycle hoops, fixed café style tables, umbrellas, docking/charging stations, timber screening and associated lighting;

·    Installation of Council related signage including a notice/poster board (2150mm (height) x 1200mm (width) to Forest Road frontage; and

·    Installation of a Council store and amenities block (including male/female WCs) located beneath the eastern end of the pedestrian ramp to Westfield Shopping Centre.

 

The proposed plans identify that there is opportunity for the erection of a LED screen located adjacent to the pedestrian ramp and facing into the plaza. This screen can be utilised to show movies or sports events or other like screenings that will reinforce the community/civic nature of the space. No details regarding the size of the LED screen have formed part of this application. The erection of a LED screen may be subject to future applications if required.

 

Various routes can be taken through the plaza by people with disabilities despite level changes across the site. The design is compliant with all Australian Standards and Disability Discrimination Act 1992 legislation.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

2.         The site is within the Hurstville town centre, approximately 70m from the Hurstville rail station, opposite the main pedestrian entrance to the rail station off Forest Road. It adjoins an existing pedestrian ramp that provides access directly into the Westfield Shopping Centre.

 

Currently the site is occupied by an older double storey commercial building that runs between Forest Road and Crofts Avenue. This building is in the process of being demolished to make the site available for the proposed public plaza. Demolition of the building was approved on 19 August 2015 in accordance with DA2015/0176.

 

The site has an area of approximately 1385sqm, is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of approximately 26m wide x 60m long. In addition to this, the proposal includes some work within the Crofts Avenue road reserve. The northern end of the site terminates at an existing pedestrian ramp that provides access into the Westfield Shopping Centre. This ramp is located within the road reserve of Crofts Avenue. This ramp will remain in place.

 

Adjoining to the north west is Diment Way, an existing pedestrian thoroughfare of approximately 9m width and to the south east, an older style commercial building which is proposed to be redeveloped into a new multilevel mixed use development with direct frontage onto the new plaza. Refer to DA2016/0322, lodged with Council on 25 November 2016 but not yet determined.

 

The site has a slight cross fall from Diment Way to the east but upon demolition of the existing building there would appear to be no physical or environmental impediments to the proposed development.

 

Three (3) existing trees located within Diment Way towards Forest Road will be removed as part of this proposal to improve circulation. A total of twelve (12) replacement trees (seven (7) x Cupaniopsis Anacardiodes, four (4) x Syzygium Luehmannii, one (1) x Magnolia Grandfiflora ‘Exmouth’) are proposed.

 

 

The existing building to be demolished, viewed from Crofts Avenue looking along Diment Way towards Forest Road. In the foreground is the pedestrian ramp leading to Westfield Shopping Centre that is situated within the road reserve of Crofts Avenue.

 

 

The existing building to be demolished adjacent to Diment Way, viewed from Forest Road.

 

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

3.         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

4.         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

B3 Commercial Core

It is considered that the proposed development consists of a recreation area, which under the Hurstville LEP2012 is defined as follows:

 

“recreation area means a place used for outdoor recreation that is normally open to the public, and includes:

 

(a) a children’s playground, or

(b) an area used for community sporting activities, or

(c) a public park, reserve or garden or the like,

and any ancillary buildings, but does not include a recreation facility (indoor), recreation facility (major) or recreation facility (outdoor).”

 

In the B3 zone, recreation areas are permissible with consent.

 

Objectives of the Zone

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the objectives of the zone as the public plaza will create a community land use to serve the needs of the Hurstville town centre.

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

N/A

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

N/A

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

N/A

5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation

Consent is required for pruning or removal of specified vegetation

Three (3) trees to be removed from the southern (Forest Road) end of Diment Way to be replaced by a comprehensive replanting program in accordance with submitted landscaping plans

5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by Development Control

Plan

Any tree or vegetation to be removed that is not specified in DCP No 2

 

N/A

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.”

N/A

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

All essential services are available and suitable for the demands of the proposed development.

 

The plaza will be pedestrian only with provision for Council service vehicles (cleaning as required) and emergency vehicles. Secure bicycle parking hoops will be provided.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 64 – ADVERTISING SIGNAGE (SEPP 64)

5.         The proposed information signage has been reviewed with regard to the provisions of SEPP 64. It is considered that the signage will not change the existing character or advertising theme of the area and is therefore consistent with the aims of SEPP 64.

 

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

6.         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.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

7.         No Draft Environmental Planning instruments affect the proposed development.

 

Any other matters prescribed by the regulations

8.         There are no other relevant matters prescribed by the regulations.

 

Development Control Plans

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2 - HURSTVILLE CITY CENTRE

9.         The relevant Development Control Plan (DCP) is the Hurstville DCP No 2 Amendment No 6, which covers the Hurstville town centre and which came into effect on 24 July 2015.

 

The DCP calls up some key principles of the Hurstville City Centre Concept Masterplan 2004 which included the creation of a new sequence of linked public spaces comprising arcades, public squares and pocket parks that capitalise on topography. The proposed development is consistent with this earlier strategic planning work.

 

The site is within Precinct 4 Retail Core as described within the DCP. The DCP notes that the characteristics of this Precinct are limited quality public spaces in the centre, which do not encourage civic activities and that the character of the precinct does not reflect its importance as a destination.

 

The DCP states the desired future character as new development building on the highly active pedestrian environment, and multiple narrow retail frontages, interlinked with laneways and arcades. Activating the ground level is recognised as important and within the public domain the use of widened footpaths for passive activities (outdoor dining, retailing, seating, landscaping) should generate a vibrant and lively environment. The proposed development reacts positively to this by providing for businesses on either side of the plaza to ‘spill out’ into the public space.

 

Within the DCP, Figure 5.3.1: Pedestrian Access Map, identifies this new pedestrian link.

 

Section 5.3.14 Permeability and Accessibility, states that connections across Hurstville City Centre will enhance the public domain and legibility of the Centre. Direct through-site links will improve access between transport nodes, retail areas and civic uses. The improvements in the public domain network and ease of access to key features will improve the City Centre’s accessibility. The proposal is consistent with all of these objectives.

 

Section 6.1 Public Domain, states that the public domain comprises the public space in the City Centre and the public face and setting for buildings and structures. It is the parts of the City Centre not privately owned and the streets, squares and parks that form the public domain that should provide community activity and recreation space. The goal of public domain design is to create an integrated space that is legible, comfortable, safe and engaging, which encourages pedestrian use and increases the amount and quality of public leisure spaces. The proposed development achieves these outcomes.

 

Impacts

 

Natural Environment

10.       There are no natural environment issues associated with the site or the proposed development.

 

Built Environment/ Urban Design

11.       The development will enhance the built environment of the town centre by providing an attractive public open space that will act as a counter balance to the larger scale redevelopment occurring on sites within the town centre. With regard to the design and functionality of the development, it is considered that the plaza which includes a variety of amenity features, will encourage general public usage and will create a sense of liveliness in this new public space.

 

The plaza will be constructed of high quality and durable materials, which reflect a well-considered design and acknowledge the practical considerations of drainage, non-slip paving, disabled access and easy maintenance. Furthermore, the proposed replacement plantings and proposed water feature will visually soften the urban environment. Overall, the design of the plaza is consistent with the various functions for which it will be required to serve, including as a space to connect Forrest Road and the train station to more northern and eastern parts of the Hurstville commercial centre, as a public meeting place, as a space to complement and activate adjacent retail and commercial premises and as a space for potential future public events.  

 

Social Impact

12.       It is anticipated that the proposed development will have a positive social impact upon the broader Hurstville centre by improving the public domain and helping to make the centre a more attractive a desirable destination. The proposed plaza will improve pedestrian connectivity within the centre and provide a new meeting place.

 

Economic Impact

13.       It is anticipated that the proposed development will have a positive economic impact upon the broader Hurstville centre by improving the public domain and helping to make the centre a more attractive a desirable destination and enhancing the value of adjoining development.

 

Suitability of the Site

14.       The site is suitable for the proposed development. There are no obstacles to the use of the land for the development. Use of the land for a public plaza is consistent with Council’s strategic planning work for the town centre.

 

REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Resident

15.       The proposal was notified between 22 March 2017 to 17 April 2017 during which time one (1) submission was received. This submission was from the owners/applicant of the adjoining development proposal at 282-290 Forest Road (DA2016/0322) and is in support of the Development Application. The submission has also made a number of suggestions aimed at making improvements to the submitted scheme. These included the following:

 

·    Final stair design at north east corner to better reconcile relationships between the public space, the proposed development of 282-290 Forest Road and the entrance ramp to Westfield;

·    Sun and rain protection;

·    Stormwater management; and

·    Ongoing management of proposed toilet facilities.

 

All of these issues are well resolved within the submitted plans. The floor levels of the northern most ground floor proposed retail tenancy in the development of 282-290 Forest Road is compatible with the level of the top of the stairs within the public plaza, ensuring that there is no conflict with accessibility into this retail space from the public space.  No issues have been raised that would preclude the work proceeding or give rise to the need for any significant amendments to the plans as submitted.

 

Council Referrals

16.       The Development Application was reviewed by relevant technical officers of Council and no issues have been raised that would preclude the work proceeding or give rise to the need for any significant amendments to the plans as submitted.

 

A series of conditions of consent have been put forward that cover the range of interests from the various Council departments that cover both the construction phase and the ongoing management of the space (noise and lighting).

 

CONCLUSION

17.       The proposed development will give effect to a long standing planning objective of the Council to make improvements to the civic/public spaces within Hurstville town centre.

 

The location of the public plaza and its design will ensure a significant positive public benefit. It is compatible with adjoining development, both existing and proposed.

 

The proposal is in the public interest and can be supported.

 

DETERMINATION

18.       That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application DA2017/0049 for the construction of a new public plaza including landscaping, paving, seating and public amenities on Lot 16 DP4799 and known as 296 Forest Road and Diment Way, Hurstville, subject to the attached conditions:

 

Schedule A – Site Specific Conditions

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that the appropriate fees and bonds are paid in relation to the development.

 

1.         GEN1001 - Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

 

Reference No.

Date

Description

Revision

Prepared by

DA_C2.01

16/02/17

Locality Plan

1

Northrop

DA_C3.01

06/03/17

Site work and Stormwater Management Plan

2

Northrop

160861 1001

17/02/17

Landscape Plan

B

Group GSA Pty Ltd

L144M_SK02-01

17/02/17

Lighting category intent

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-02

17/02/17

Lighting design intent

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-03

17/02/17

Lighting intent legend

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-04

17/02/17

Propose electrical equipment

B

N/A

 

2.         GEN1002 - Fees to be paid to Council - The fees listed in the table below must be paid in accordance with the conditions of this consent and Council’s adopted Fees and Charges applicable at the time of payment.

 

Payments must be made prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or prior to the commencement of work (if there is no associated Construction Certificate).

 

Please contact Council prior to the payment of Section 94 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted by Council.

 

Form of payment for transactions $500,000 or over - Council will only accept Bank Cheque or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for transaction values of $500,000 or over. Council must be contacted prior to payment to determine correct total amount to be paid and bank account details (if applicable)

 

          (a)     Fees to be paid:

 

Fee types, bonds and contributions

 

Fee Type

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation)

Builders Damage Deposit

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

 

3.         GEN1014 - Long Service Levy - Submit evidence of payment of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Levy to the Principal Certifying Authority. Note this amount is based on the cost quoted in the Development Application, and same may increase with any variation to estimated cost which arises with the Construction Certificate application. To find out the amount payable go to www.lspc.nsw.gov.au or call 131441. Evidence of the payment of this levy must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

4.         GEN1016 - Damage Deposit - Major Works - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

 

(a) Payment to Council of a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $24,876.00.

 

(b) Payment to Council of a non refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $290.00.

 

(c)  At the completion of work Council will:

 

(i)         review the dilapidation report prepared prior to the commencement works;

(ii)        review the dilapidation report prepared after the completion of works;

(iii)       Review the Works-As-Executed Drawings (if applicable); and

(iv)       inspect the public works.

 

The damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage occurs and where Council is satisfied with the completion of works. Alternatively, the damage deposit will be forfeited or partly refunded based on the damage incurred.

 

(d) Payments pursuant to this condition are required to be made to Council before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

(e) Fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

 

SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the applicant is aware of any separate approvals required under other legislation, for example: approvals required under the Local Government Act 1993 or the Roads Act 1993.

 

5.         APR6001 - Engineering - Section 138 Roads Act and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993

 

Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

 

A separate approval is required to be lodged and approved under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath):

 

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

(b) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

(c)  Erecting a structure or carrying out work

(d) Swinging or hoisting goods over any part of a public road by means of a lift, crane or the like;

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

(f)   Pumping water from the site into the public road;

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h)  Establishing a “works zone”;

(i)   Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (e.g. Opening the road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

(j)   Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve; and

(k)  Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land

(l)   If any excavation is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways.

 

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the approval provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s website at: www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 9330 6400.

 

6.         APR7001 - Building - Hoarding Application - Prior to demolition of the buildings on the site or the commencement of work above ground level a separate application for the erection of an A class (fence type) or a B class (overhead type) hoarding or C type scaffold, in accordance with the requirements of Work Cover Authority of NSW, must be erected along that portion of the footways/roadway where the building is within 3.0 metres of the street boundary. An application for this work under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 must be submitted for approval to Council.

 

The following information is to be submitted with a Hoarding Application under Section 68 of the Local Government Act and Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993:

 

(a) A site and location plan of the hoarding with detailed elevation, dimensions, setbacks, heights, entry and exit points to/from the site, vehicle access points, location of public utilities, electrical overhead wire protection, site management plan and builders sheds location; and

 

(b) Hoarding plan and details that are certified by an appropriately qualified engineer; and

 

(c)  The payment to Council of a footpath occupancy fee based on the area of footpath to be occupied and Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges (available on our website) before the commencement of work; and

 

A Public Risk Insurance Policy with a minimum cover of $10 million in relation to the occupation of and works within Council's road reserve, for the full duration of the proposed works, must be obtained a copy provided to Council. The Policy is to note Council as an interested party.

 

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

These conditions have been imposed by other NSW Government agencies either through their role as referral bodies, concurrence authorities or by issuing General Terms of Approval under the Integrated provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

7.         GOV1006 - Sydney Water - Trade Waste Agreements - A Trade Waste Agreement with Sydney Water may be required. Details of any work required to comply with the agreement must be detailed on the plans lodged with the Construction Certificate. If no trade waste agreement or grease trap is required, a letter from Sydney Water to this effect must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

These conditions either require modification to the development proposal or further investigation/information prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to ensure that there is no adverse impact.

 

8.         CC7006 - Building - Vibration Damage - To minimise vibration damage and loss of support to the buildings in close proximity to the development, any excavation is to be carried out by means of a rock saw and if available, in accordance with the guidelines of the Geotechnical Engineer’s report.

 

Alternatively where a hydraulic hammer is to be used within 30 metres of any building (other than a path or a fence) a report from a qualified geotechnical engineer detailing the maximum size of hammer to be used is to be obtained and the recommendations in that report implemented during work on the site. The report shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

9.         CC7008 - Building - Access for Persons with a Disability. Access for persons with disabilities must be provided to the site. Braille and Tactile sign requirements and ambulant sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities must be provided to the premises in accordance with the requirements of the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia, and AS 1428.1-2009. Details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.

 

10.       CC2003 - Development Assessment - Construction Site Management Plan - Major Development - A Site Management Plan must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate, and must include the following measures:

 

·    location of protective site fencing;

·    location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·    location of building materials for construction, e.g. stockpiles

·    provisions for public safety;

·    dust control measures;

·    method used to provide site access location and materials used;

·    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·    method used to provide protective measures for tree preservation;

·    provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·    location and size of waste containers/skip bins;

·    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·    method used to provide construction noise and vibration management;

·    construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any works including demolition and excavation.  The site management measures are to be maintained throughout the works, to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.  A copy of the Site Management Plan must be retained on site and is to be made available upon request.

 

11.       CC7004 - Building - Structural details - Structural plans, specifications and design statement prepared and endorsed by a suitably qualified practising structural engineer who holds the applicable Certificate of Accreditation as required under the Building Professionals Act 2005 shall be submitted along with the Construction Certificate application to the Certifying Authority for any of the following, as required by the building design:

 

(a)  piers

(b)  footings

(c)   slabs

(d)  columns

(e)  structural steel

(f)    reinforced building elements

(g)  swimming pool design

(h)   retaining walls

(i)    stabilizing works

(j)    structural framework

 

12.       Stormwater - Detailed hydraulic plans indicating pipe diameters, pit sizes, invert and outlet levels of the proposed pits and pipes and hydraulic grade line analysis for the proposed pipe works shall be provided with the construction certificate documents.

 

13.       CC2008 – Development Assessment – Landscape Plan – A detailed landscape plan, drawn to scale, by a qualified landscape architect or landscape designer, must be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The plan must include:

 

(i)   Location of existing and proposed structures on the site including existing trees (if applicable);

(ii)  Details of earthworks including mounding and retaining walls and planter boxes (if applicable);

(iii) Location, numbers and type of plant species;

(iv) Details of planting procedure and maintenance;

(v)  Details of drainage and watering systems.

 

14.       CC7008 – Building – Access for Persons with a Disability – Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities must be provided to the premises/building in accordance with the requirements of the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia, and AS 1428.1. Details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.  

 

15.       CC7019 - Building - Compliance with Access, Mobility and Disability Discrimination Act  - The Construction Certificate application must be accompanied by detailed working plans and a report or a Certificate of Compliance from an Accredited Access Consultant certifying that the  design and access through the plaza complies with relevant Australian Standards for Access and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

 

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION)

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all pre-commencement matters are dealt with and finalised prior to the commencement of work.

 

16.       PREC2001 - Building regulation - Site sign - Soil and Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), the durable site sign issued by Georges River Council in conjunction with this consent must be erected in a prominent location on site.  The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions relating to erosion and sediment controls.  The sign must remain in a prominent location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

 

17.       PREC2002 - Development Assessment - Demolition and Asbestos - The demolition work shall comply with the provisions of Australian Standard AS2601:2011 - Demolition of Structures, NSW Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. The work plans required by AS2601-2001 shall be accompanied by a written statement by a suitably qualified person that the proposals contained in the work plan comply with the safety requirements of the Standard. The work plans and the safety statement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

For demolition work which involves the removal of asbestos, the asbestos removal work must be carried out by a licensed asbestos removalist who is licensed to carry out the work in accordance with the NSW Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 unless specified in the Act and/or Regulation that a license is not required.

 

The asbestos removal work shall also be undertaken in accordance with the How to Safely Remove Asbestos: Code of Practice published by Work Cover NSW.

 

Copies of the Act, Regulation and Code of Practice can be downloaded free of charge from the Work Cover NSW website: www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

 

18.       PREC2008 - Development Assessment - Demolition Notification Requirements - The following notification requirements apply to this consent:

 

a)   The developer /builder must notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition or building work.  Such notification is to be a clearly written note giving the date works will commence, contact details of the developer/builder, licensed asbestos demolisher and the appropriate regulatory authority. Notification is to be placed in the letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any) either side and immediately at the rear of the demolition site.

 

b)   Five (5) working days prior to demolition, the developer/builder is to provide written notification to Georges River Council advising of the demolition date, details of the WorkCover licensed asbestos demolisher and the list of residents advised of the demolition.

 

c)   On demolition sites where buildings to be demolished contain asbestos, 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 (from street frontage) on the site. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos material has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility.

 

19.       PREC2009 - Development Assessment - Demolition work involving asbestos removal - Work involving bonded asbestos removal work (of an area of more than 10 square metres) or friable asbestos removal work must be undertaken by a person who carries on a business of such removal work in accordance with a licence under clause 458 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

 

20.       PREC6001 - Engineering - Dial before your dig - The applicant shall contact “Dial Before You Dig on 1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.  The sequence number obtained from “Dial Before You Dig” shall be forwarded to Council’s Engineers for their records.

 

DURING WORK

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that there is minimal impact on the adjoining development and surrounding locality during the construction phase of the development.

 

21.       CON7001 - Building - Structural Engineer’s Certification during construction - The proposed building must be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by the practising qualified structural engineer. All structural works associated with the foundations, piers, footings and slabs for the proposed building must be inspected and structurally certified for compliance by an independent practising geotechnical and structural engineer. In addition a Compliance or Structural Certificate, to the effect that the building works have been carried in accordance with the structural design, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at each stage of construction or prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all works have been completed in accordance with the Development Consent prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

22.       OCC4006 - Health - Noise from Mechanical plant and equipment - Noise from the operation of mechanical, equipment, ancillary fittings, machinery, mechanical ventilation system and/or refrigeration systems must not give rise to offensive noise as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended) and will comply with the noise intrusion criteria as defined under the NSW Industrial Noise Policy published by the Environment Protection Authority.

 

A professional acoustic engineer shall be engaged to certify that the design and construction of all sound producing plants and equipment associated with the building complies with the above requirements. Certification shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

23.       OCC7005 - Building - The proposed structure(s) must be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by the practising qualified structural engineer. In addition, Compliance or Structural Certificates, to the effect that the building works have been carried in accordance with the structural design, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

24.       OCC2005 – Completion of Landscape WorksAll landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate.

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the use or operation of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood or environment.

 

25.       ONG4017 - Health - Lighting - General Nuisance - Any lighting on the site shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to other residences in the area or to motorists on nearby roads and to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill.

 

26.       ONG4018 - Health - Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

 

No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt whatsoever or in association with the work on site.

 

ADVICE

This advice has been included to provide additional information and where available direct the applicant to additional sources of information based on the development type.

 

Not applicable

 

Schedule B – Prescribed Conditions

 

Prescribed conditions are those which are mandated under Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and given weight by Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Detailed below is a summary of all the prescribed conditions which apply to development in New South Wales. Please refer to the full details of the prescribed conditions as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

 

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which prescribed conditions apply.

 

27.       PRES1002 - Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.  In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

 

28.       PRES1003 - Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.  The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the Principal Contractor.

 

29.       PRES1004 - Clause 98B – Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council.  The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

30.       PRES1007 - Clause 98E – Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

 

Schedule C – Operational & Statutory Conditions

 

These conditions comprise the operational and statutory conditions which must be satisfied under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. Please refer to the full details of the Act and Regulations as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

 

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which operational and statutory conditions apply.

 

31.       OPER1001 - Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier.

 

An application form for a Construction Certificate is attached for your convenience.

 

32.       OPER1002 - Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority - The erection of a building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent has:

 

(a) appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner-Builder.

 

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner-Builder, then the beneficiary of the consent must:

 

(a) appoint a Principal Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the details of any such appointment; and

(c)  notify the Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

 

An Information Pack is attached for your convenience should you wish to appoint Georges River Council as the Principal Certifying Authority for your development.

 

33.       OPER1003 - Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2) days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

 

(a) the consent authority and the Council (if not the consent authority) of his or her appointment; and

(b) the beneficiary of the development consent of the critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

 

 

34.       OPER1004 - Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent must give at least two (2) days notice to the Council and the PCA of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

35.       OPER1007 - Critical Stage Inspections - The last critical stage inspection must be undertaken by the Principal Certifying Authority.  The critical stage inspections required to be carried out vary according to Building Class under the Building Code of Australia and are listed in Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

36.       OPER1008 - Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the principal certifying authority at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to be carried out.

 

Where Georges River Council has been appointed PCA, forty eight (48) hours notice in writing, or alternatively twenty four (24) hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given to when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

 

37.       OPER1009 - Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

 

Only the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

If you need more information, please contact the Senior Development Assessment Officer, below on 9330-6400 during normal office hours.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Location map - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

Attachment View2

Landscape Plan - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

Attachment View3

Landscape plan for report - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

Attachment View4

Ramp feature wall - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.3                          296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Location map - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 318

 

 

 



Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.3                          296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Landscape Plan - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 319

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.3                          296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

[Appendix 3]          Landscape plan for report - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 320

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.3                          296 Forest Road and Diment Way Hurstville

[Appendix 4]          Ramp feature wall - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 321

 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 18 May 2017

Page 323

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 18 May 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.4

Application No

PP2015/0006

Site Address & Ward Locality

37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

Hurstville Ward

Proposal

Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the Treacy Street Car Park Site (37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville) to zone B4 Mixed Use and increase the maximum building height and FSR development standards

Report Author/s

Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner

Owners

Georges River Council

Applicant

Georges River Council

Zoning

Zone 3(b) - City Centre Business Zone under the Hurstville LEP 1994 (a “deferred matter” in the Hurstville LEP 2012)

Date Of Lodgement

16/10/2015

Submissions

 N/A

Cost of Works

 N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

To seek endorsement to present the Planning Proposal report to Council

 

 

Recommendation

1.   THAT Georges River IHAP resolve to support the forwarding of the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to request a Gateway Determination for an amendment to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (Treacy Street Car Park Site) to:

a.   Amend the Land Application Map to remove the “deferred matter” status from the Site.

b.   Amend the Land Zoning Map to remove the “deferred matter” from the Site and zone the Site B4 Mixed Use.

c.   Amend the Height of Building Map (HOB) to specify a maximum building height of 53m.

d.   Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to specify a maximum floor space ratio of 7:1.

e.   Amend the Active Street Frontages Map (ASF) to identify an active street frontage along the Treacy Street boundary of the Site.

f.    Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville LEP 2012 to include a provision requiring a minimum ‘non-residential’ floor space ratio of 1:1 on the Site.

 

2.   THAT the Georges River IHAP also support the preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No 6), if Gateway Approval is granted, to include the Site in the land to which the DCP applies and include site specific provisions including (but not limited to) vehicle access points, site and boundary landscaping, active street frontages and building rear setbacks.

 

3.   THAT the Planning Proposal be placed on formal public exhibition in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

4.   THAT a Report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations.

 

 

 

Site Plan

Figure 1 – Locality

 

Executive Summary

 

1.         This report provides an assessment of a Planning Proposal request submitted by Hurstville City Council (now Georges River Council) on 16 October 2015 and revised in November 2016 for the following changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (“LEP”) 2012 for the Council owned Treacy Street Car Park Site (37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville – refer to Figure 1 above):

·          Zone B4 Mixed Use to permit business and residential land uses (shop top housing) and parking,

·          Amend the Height of Building Map (HOB) to specify a maximum building height of 53m (16 storeys),

·          Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to specify a maximum floor space ratio of 7:1 (increased in the revised Planning Proposal request to 7.2:1),

·          Include the Treacy Street frontage of the Site as “active street frontage” (included in the revised Planning Proposal request).

 

2.         The Planning Proposal relates to a 2,497m2 site within the Hurstville City Centre which is bounded by Treacy Street to the north and the railway corridor to the south. The Site is known as 37-41 Treacy Street and currently accommodates a public car park (approx. 90 spaces).

 

3.         The report has been prepared based on an assessment undertaken by an independent planning consultant (DFP Planning Pty Limited), independent urban design advice (SJB Architects) and consideration by the St George Design Review Panel.

 

4.         The Site is currently a “deferred matter” in the Hurstville LEP 2012 and the provisions of the Hurstville LEP 1994 apply including zoning of 3(b) City Centre Business Zone. The development standards (including maximum building height of 15m and FSR of 3:1) in the Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) also currently apply. The “deferred matters” of the Hurstville LEP 2012 are to be finalised by September 2017.

 

5.         The anticipated development from the revised Planning Proposal request (November 2016) is a 16 storey mixed use development including:

·          180 residential apartments (mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom),

·          780m2 ground level retail floor space,

·          1,800m2 commercial (office) floor space (Level 2),

·          375 basement parking spaces including 90 public spaces (replacing existing), 237 residential and 48 commercial/retail spaces.

 

6.         The Planning Proposal request has been considered by the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) at its meeting of 7 April 2016 and the revised Planning Proposal (November 2016) was supported at its meeting of 6 April 2017.

 

7.         This report recommends that the IHAP support an amendment to the Hurstville LEP 2012 which:

·          Includes the Site in the Land Application Map and removes its “deferred matter” status (thereby removing the Site from the provisions of the Hurstville LEP 1994),

·          Amend the Land Zoning Map to remove the “deferred matter” from the Site and zone the Site B4 Mixed Use (currently 3(b) City Centre Business Zone under Hurstville LEP 1994),

·          Increasing the maximum building height from 15m (under Hurstville DCP No.2) to 53m,

·          Increasing the maximum FSR from 3:1 (under Hurstville DCP No.2) to 7:1 and including a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 1:1 (which will provide for ground level retail and one commercial level). The proposed increase in the FSR of 7.2:1 is not supported,

·          Identifying the Treacy Street frontage of the Site as “active street frontage”.

 

8.         The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No 6), if Gateway Approval is granted, is also recommended to include the Site in the land to which the DCP applies and introduce site specific provisions including (but not limited to) vehicle access points, site and boundary landscaping, active street frontages and building rear setbacks.

 

9.         A Planning Agreement has been offered by the Applicant and this will be reported separately to Council. A summary of the Offer is included in Section 3.3 of this report.

 

10.       An independent planning consultant (Don Fox Planning) was contracted to review the Planning Proposal request and commence the assessment which has informed this report. Urban design advice has been provided by the St George Design Review Panel and Independent Urban Design Advice. The report has been finalised by an Independent Assessment Consultant Planner contracted by Georges River Council.

 

REPORT IN FULL

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

11.       A request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0006) for 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (Treacy Street Car Park) was originally submitted by Hurstville City Council (“the Applicant”) on 16 October 2015 and revised on November 2016, and proposed the following amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the Site:

·          Zone B4 Mixed Use to permit business and residential land uses (shop top housing) and parking,

·          Amend the Height of Building Map (HOB) to specify a maximum building height of 53m (16 storeys),

·          Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to specify a maximum floor space ratio of 7:1 (increased in the revised Planning Proposal request to 7.2:1),

·          Include the Treacy Street frontage of the Site as “active street frontage” (included in revised Planning Proposal request).

 

12.       A copy of the Applicant’s revised Planning Proposal Request (November 2016) is included in Attachment 1 and Attachment 7 (Transport Impact Assessment) and includes the following reports which are the subject of this assessment report:

·          Planning Proposal, Site Specific Land Use, Height and FSR Amendment, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville, The Planning Group NSW Pty Limited (November 2016) which includes the following Appendices:

-           Hurstville LEP 2012 Maps (Land Zoning, Height, FSR, Active Street Frontage)

-           Transport Impact Assessment, GTA Consultants (04/10/16) (Attachment 7),

-           Plan Showing Selected Detail & Levels Over Treacy Street Car Park, Hurstville (Site Survey), Higgins Surveyors (05/12/14),

-           Compliance Tables Ministerial s117 Directions and State Environmental Planning Policies,

-           Indicative Design Concept, BKA Architecture, Revision A (undated)

 

13.       The Applicant has stated that the basis for the requested amendment to the maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio development standards is to “enable the development of a high density mixed use development within the Hurstville City Centre”. The supporting documents note that “the PP is considered to have strategic planning merit and appropriately aligns with Council’s strategic vision for the site set out within the Hurstville City Centre Concept Master Plan and Hurstville City Centre Urban Form Study”.

 

14.       The Treacy Street Car Park site is one (1) of three (3) Hurstville City Centre sites which were “deferred” from the Hurstville LEP 2012.  The provisions of the Hurstville LEP 1994 and Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No. 5) currently apply to these sites. The proposed changes in this Planning Proposal request will be implemented through an amendment to the Hurstville LEP 2012 to remove the “deferred matter” status of the site, zone the site B4 Mixed Use and amend LEP 2012 Maps (Land Zoning, Height of Buildings, Floor Space Ratio and Active Street Frontages) in line with the recommendations of this report.

 

15.       Council has until September 2017 to submit a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning for the Treacy Street Car Park Site (a “deferred matter”).

 

16.       A Planning Agreement has been offered by the Applicant, and is considered in summary below, and will be reported to Council as a separate report.

 

2.      SITE DESCRIPTION

 

2.1    Overview of the Site

 

17.       The Site is known as 37-41 Treacy Street and includes seven (7) lots, as shown in Figure 2, legally described as:

·          Lots 1 & 2 in DP323090 (201.3m2 & 638.9m2),

·          Lot 2 in DP11931 (402.0m2),

·          Lot B in DP31479 (408.3m2),

·          Lots 1, 2 & 3 in DP535805 (606.3m2, 119.4m2 & 120.9m2).

 

18.       The trapezoid shaped lot is bounded by Treacy Street to the north and the Illawarra Rail Line to the south and existing commercial developments (single and two (2) storey) immediately to the east and west. The area to the east along Treacy Street is the subject of a significant increase in scale through recent development approvals.

 

19.       The Site has an area of approximately 2,497m2 and the following boundaries:

·     Treacy Street frontage of approx. 87.09m,

·     Illawarra Rail Line boundary of approx. 72.7m,

·     Eastern boundary approx. 36.0m,

·     Western boundary of approx. 30.39m.

 

Figure 2: Treacy Street Car Park Site, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (shown uncoloured) (Source: Exponare, Georges River Council)

 

 

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Site and Surrounding Land (Source: SIX Maps NSW)

 

20.       The Site is owned freehold by Hurstville City Council (now Georges River Council). Lots 1 and 2 in DP323090, Lot B in DP31479 and Lot 2 in DP11931 were acquired by Council on 1 June 1979. Lots 1, 2 and 3 in DP535805 were acquired on 3 December 1986. Since acquiring the land, Council demolished all buildings on the land an operated a public car park.

 

21.       The Site is currently occupied by at-grade public car parking with access via Treacy Street (separate entry and exit points) – refer to Figure 3. There are 90 public parking spaces, including 80 standard public spaces, two (2) accessible parking spaces and eight (8) reserved spaces. Of the reserved spaces, four (4) are under a licence agreement with 3 Bridges Community Centre and four (4) are under an expired licence agreement with St Vincent De Paul Society.  The Site is paved with a small area in the south eastern corner containing a large tree.  There are no structures on the Site.

 

22.       Views of the Site are shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6 below.

 

Figure 4: Site photo showing car park eastern entry off Treacy Street (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 5: Site photo showing car park western exit off Treacy Street (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 6: Site photo showing view from south from Railway Parade

 

23.       The ground surface of the Site gently slopes towards the south eastern boundary from an approx. RL68 at the Treacy Street (western) corner to RL65.5 at the south eastern corner (Illawarra Rail Line).

 

24.       The Site occupies a key location in the Hurstville City Centre, within the “City Centre East Precinct” which is characterised by the extension of the retail strip along Forest Road and very under-utilised development along the railway line in Treacy Street. Treacy Street also provides the rear vehicle and service access to properties in Forest Road.

 

25.       The rear of the Site has a prominent position when viewed from the railway line and residential properties (single dwelling houses and residential flat buildings) to the south along Railway Parade.

 

26.       Treacy Street is a one-way east/west road which caters for westbound movements only, extending over the rail line (two way) and intersecting with Forest Road.  The Site is within 350m of Hurstville Station and 450m to the bus interchange on Woodville Street and is in close proximity to the retail and entertainment offerings along Forest Road. Two (2) areas of open space are within walking distance, Woodville Park (approx. 650m or 8 minute walk) and Kempt Field (approx. 750m or 10 minutes) and provide for passive recreation opportunities.

 

2.2    Surrounding Development and Approvals

 

27.       A summary of the surrounding land is provided below and shown in Figures 7 to 11:

·          North: To the immediate north, the site adjoins a number of single and two (2) storey commercial developments with frontage to Treacy Street. Further north over Forest Road, the site adjoins more commercial development forming part of the central retail core of the City, with Hurstville Westfield further to the north.

·          East: To the east, the site adjoins one (1) and two (2) storey commercial premises and land upon which a Major Project approval has been issued, being 21-35 Treacy Street. Further to the east, the site adjoins commercial and mixed use developments (either existing or currently under construction), with the Eastern Quarter site located at the eastern end of Treacy Street.

·          South: To the immediate south, the site adjoins the railway corridor of the T4 Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line. Further south, the site adjoins Railway Parade and a mix of low, medium and high density residential development.

·          West: To the immediate west, the site adjoins two storey commercial developments on the southern side of Treacy Street, fronting the corner of Treacy Street and Forest Road. Further to the west, the site adjoins Hurstville City Centre commercial development and the Hurstville Railway Station.

 

Figure 7: View of one and two storey commercial premise to the west, adjacent to the Site (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 8: View looking north to one and two storey commercial premises (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 9: View of the residential development (single dwellings and residential flat buildings) to the south along Railway Parade on the opposite side of the rail line

 

Figure 10: View of the frontage of the car park to Treacy Street looking east

 

 

Figure 11: View of one and two storey commercial premise to the east, adjacent to the site (Source: Google Maps)

 

28.       On 1 July 2011 the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure approved a Concept Plan (ref MP10_0101) for a residential, commercial and retail development at 21-35 Treacy Street under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (Major Project Approval). Modification 1 to the development was approved on 4 September 2012, while Modification 2 was refused on 30 May 2014.

 

The Mod 1 approved development (see Figures 12 and 13) comprises the following:

·          Building envelope with a maximum building height of 55 metres (16 storeys),

·          283 dwellings (26,775m²),

·          Ground floor retail floor area (1,499m²),

·          Community floor space (200m²),

·          Overall Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 28,474m² with a FSR of 6.78:1,

·          3 levels of basement parking for 377 vehicles,

·          Public domain improvements to Treacy Street,

·          On site landscaping.

 

Figure 12: Treacy Street perspective of approved Mod 1 development (Subject Site shown on the right) (Source: View Analysis prepared by Stanisic Architects)

 

Figure 13: View analysis of approved form looking north to Hurstville cityscape (Subject Site depicted in red outline) (Source: View Analysis prepared by Stanisic Architects)

 

29.       The Planning Proposal request places considerable weight upon the height and FSR of the development approved at 21-35 Treacy Street as justification for the same controls being applied to the Subject Site.

 

PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND CONTROLS

 

3.1    Existing Planning Controls

 

30.       Hurstville LEP 1994 applies to the Site (the site is one of the three (3) “deferred matters” of the Hurstville LEP 2012) and the following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

31.       Land Zoning: The Site is zoned 3(b) (City Centre Business Zone) as shown on the extract of the Land Zoning Map  (Figure 14).  The relevant objectives of the 3(b) zone are:

 

(a)   to designate sufficient areas of land to meet the projected needs of the Hurstville Town Centre as a multi-functional regional centre,

(b)   to facilitate development of land within the Hurstville Town Centre for commercial, retail, residential and community purposes,

(c)   to provide a single business zone for the Hurstville Town Centre as a sub-regional centre,

(e)   to improve traffic flow in and around the Hurstville Town Centre.

 

The 3(b) zone includes a wide range of permissible uses including business premises, office premises, shops, residential flat buildings and car parks, with prohibited development including industrial and warehousing type developments, amusement centres, boarding houses, sex services premises and caravan parks.

 

Figure 14: Extract of Hurstville LEP 1994 – Land Zoning Map 3(b)(City Centre Business Zone) (applies to subject site only)

 

 

32.       Heritage: The site is not identified as a heritage item under the Hurstville LEP 1994 (listed in Schedule 2 of the Hurstville LEP 1994). There are four (4) heritage items located in the vicinity of the site (a range of inter-war commercial buildings) as shown on the extract of the Hurstville LEP 2012 – Heritage Map (Figure 15).

 

Figure 15: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Heritage Map (applies to surrounding sites)

 

33.       Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) includes the height and FSR development standards for the site as it is a “deferred matter” from the Hurstville LEP 2012. All surrounding sites are subject to the development standards (including building height and FSR) in the Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

34.       Height of Buildings: the Site has a maximum building height of 15m as shown on the extract of the Height of Buildings Map (Figure 16).

 

The adjacent and surrounding land has a range of maximum building heights (under the Hurstville LEP 2012) of 15m and 23m as shown in Figure 17. Note that recent development approvals in Treacy Street are significantly greater than the maximum building height development standard contained in the Hurstville LEP 2012 (refer Figure 12.

 

Figure 16: Extract Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) – Height of Buildings Map (applies to the subject site only)

 

Figure 17: Extract Hurstville LEP 2012 – Height of Buildings Map (applies to surrounding sites)

 

35.       Floor Space Ratio: the Site has a maximum floor space ratio of 3:1 as shown on the extract of the Floor Space Ratio Map below (Figure 18). The adjacent and surrounding land has a range of maximum floor space ratios of 3:1, 4:1 and 4.5:1 (refer Figure 19).

 

Figure 18: Extract of Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) – Floor Space Ratio Map (applies to subject site only)

 

Figure 19: Extract Hurstville LEP 2012 – Floor Space Ratio Map (applies to surrounding sites)

 

36.       Active Street Frontage: the site (along with the whole of Treacy Street) is identified as Active Street Frontage as shown on the extract of the Active Street Frontage Map – DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) (Figure 20) and Hurstville LEP 2012 – Active Street Frontages Map (Figure 21).

 

Figure 20: Extract of Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) – Active Street Frontages Map (applies to subject site only)

 

Figure 21: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Active Street Frontages Map (applies to surrounding sites)

 

3.2    Strategic Planning Context

 

The draft South District Plan (November 2016) and Towards our Greater Sydney 2056 (which will amend A Plan for Growing Sydney) were on public exhibition earlier this year (ending 31 March 2017) and will apply to the Georges River Council area.

 

Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the current plans and strategies (A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy) and draft South Subregional Strategy (2007) and the draft plans Towards our Greater Sydney 2056 and draft South District Plan is provided below.

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy)

 

37.       The Planning Proposal is consistent with the aims of A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy) and achieves the following relevant Goals and Directions:

 

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

 

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

 

38.       The Planning Proposal, specifically the recommended minimum non-residential floor space requirement, will contribute towards achieving this Direction through providing updated employment floorspace within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, on a site which benefits from its proximity to the existing commercial, retail and services. This will also assist in delivering more investment and business activity, increase productivity and partly address the trend in the Hurstville City Centre of the dominance of residential development in the land use mix. It is noted that the site is located approximately 450m walking distance from the Hurstville Bus Interchange and 350m walking distance from the Hurstville Railway Station, well within the walkable catchments.

 

39.       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.”

 

40.       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

 

41.       The Planning Proposal will provide approximately 180 new apartment dwellings based on the Indicative Concept Plans in the Planning Proposal request (November 2016). The site is suitable for this increase in dwellings as it is located within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, close to jobs and service by public transport (Hurstville railway and bus interchange) with frequent services capable of moving large numbers of people. Housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles will be provided with a range of apartment sizes to satisfy the apartment mix, objectives and design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide and SEPP 65 and the apartment size mix in the Hurstville DCP No.2 (Hurstville City Centre).

 

Goal 3: Sydney’s great places to live

 

·     Direction 3.3: Create healthy built environments

 

42.       The Planning Proposal 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. The location of the site in relation to public open space and recreation facilities (including Kempt Field and Woodville Park) will also benefit future residents.

 

Sydney South Subregion

 

43.       In relation to the priorities of the South Subregion, the Planning Proposal 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 Line). The Planning Proposal addresses the Hurstville Strategic Centres priorities of providing capacity for additional mixed use development in Hurstville including offices, retail, services and housing.

 

44.       The Planning Proposal 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

 

45.       The Proposal (increase in maximum building height and FSR) will increase housing opportunities within Hurstville City Centre (with an estimated 180 new residential apartments) and within walking distance from the Hurstville Station and bus interchange and access to shops or services, travel to work or other centres and consequently will reduce car dependency. 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

 

46.       The indicative development yield of the revised proposal includes an approximate area of commercial floorspace (1,800m2) and retail floorspace (780m2). This approx. 2,580m2 of “non-residential” floorspace equates an FSR of 1:1. This could provide for an estimated 82 to 121 employees (refer Table 3), addressing 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’.

 

Draft South Subregional Strategy (2007)

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

49.       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.

 

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

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

 

Draft Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056

 

51.       The draft Plan Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056 includes the following vision and Metropolitan priorities:

Table 1

Vision

Metropolitan Priority

A productive Greater Sydney

A growing city

A city with smart jobs

A 30 minute city

A liveable Greater Sydney

An equitable, polycentric city

A city of housing choice and diversity

A collaborative city.

A sustainable Greater Sydney

A city in its landscape

An efficient city

A resilient city

 

52.       The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the Visions and Metropolitan Priorities of the draft Plan.

 

Draft South District Plan

 

53.       In relation to the draft South District Plan (November 2016) which proposes a 20-year vision for the South District, the following priorities and actions relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

Table 2

 

Priorities Relevant to the Planning Proposal

A Productive City

Planning for job target ranges for strategic and district centres

Growing economic activity in centres

Manage employment and urban services land across the District

Access to a greater number of jobs and services within 30 minutes

A Liveable City

Improve housing choice

Improve housing diversity and affordability

Create great places

Respond to people’s need for services

A Sustainable City

Creating an efficient South District

Integrate land use and transport planning to consider emergency evacuation needs

 

54.       The proposed height and FSR increases for the site in the Planning Proposal will increase housing availability and choice in the Hurstville City Centre, addressing a number of the priorities in relation to “A Liveable City”. Information was provide with the Planning Proposal in relation to the transport impacts to address the Proposal’s consistency with the three (3) visions and associated priorities in both the draft Plan Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056 and draft South District Plan.

 

Hurstville City Centre Master Plan (2004)

 

55.       The Hurstville City Centre Concept Master Plan (2004) includes the following key objectives relevant to the Planning Proposal:

·     Consolidating Hurstville’s regional role,

·     Improving pedestrian movement,

·     Providing a framework by which improvements to infrastructure may be facilitated,

·     Introducing a balanced approach to height and density.

 

56.       The subject site is located within the “City Centre East Precinct” which is described as characterised by the extension of the retail strip along Forest Road and very under-utilised development along the railway line in Treacy Street. Treacy Street provides the rear vehicle and service access to properties in Forest Road.

 

57.       The Master Plan identifies the potential to provide more commercial and other job opportunities for its surrounding catchment population and the imbalance between new residential development and employment floorspace. It also identifies the advantages that the Hurstville CBD has in relation to commercial development:

·     High rate of train usage on a well patronised line,

·     1000 bus movements per day in the CBD,

·     Strong retail, restaurant and food sectors,

·     Excellent proximity to Sydney Airport, M5 and Port Botany,

·     Large skilled workforce catchment in southern Sydney and the Illawarra

 

58.       The Master Plan also includes the establishment of parks, green gateways and street trees, with the creation of a new park on the triangular area at the junction of Treacy Street and Forest Road (currently used for public car parking). The Planning Proposal request, and the Offer being considered in relation to the Treacy Street Car Park Site that “public car parking to be dedicated to Council in Stratum, which will replace the current number of public spaces on the site, or a greater amount” (as discussed below) provides an opportunity to consider the relocation of these parking spaces into the Site to allow for a new park and public open space area on the Forest Road and Treacy Street corner.

 

59.       The Master Plan also identified the need to:

·    Examine the viability of increased commercial development,

·    Attract commercial development,

·    Ensure employment opportunities are maximised,

·    Ensure commercial development complements the new public infrastructure and facilities.

 

60.       These issues are still relevant for planning within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

Hurstville Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP)

 

61.       During the development of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre, Council was required to undertake a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) exercise in response to the amount of floor space (1,141,000m2) contained in the draft City Centre LEP, the potential accessibility and infrastructure implications and inconsistency with s.117 Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport.

 

62.       The purpose of the TMAP was to recommend the amount of additional GFA which can be developed in the Hurstville City Centre while giving consideration to potential accessibility and infrastructure implications.

 

63.       The TMAP adopted by Council in June 2013 recommended a potential to develop 363,000m2 additional GFA resulting in a total of approximately 861,354m2 in the City Centre by 2036. A level of inconsistency with s.117 Direction 3.4 currently exists because the total GFA allowed for by the planning controls adopted in the City Centre is 1,091,000m2 which is 229,646m2 more than recommended in the TMAP. 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 Hurstville LEP 2012 on 10 July 2015.

 

64.       The Site is within the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre, and was included in the area considered by the TMAP, and located within the City Centre East Precinct which has the following attributes:

 

·     Characteristics

-           City Centre East is characterised by the extension of the retail strip along Forest Road and underutilised development along the railway line in Treacy Street.

-           Treacy Street provides the rear vehicular and service access to properties in Forest Road.

 

·     Activity

-           Concentration of pedestrian activity related to smaller business and car parking areas.

-           High traffic activity area offering access to the city centre via The Avenue, Park Road and the Westfield shopping centre.

-           Key crossing point over the rail line for city centre traffic and other traffic travelling between Hurstville and Kogarah LGAs via Treacy Street and The Avenue.

 

65.       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 crossing and network reliability on both regional roads and city centre access routes” (RN1).

 

66.       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. 

 

67.       The TMAP states that the road and traffic works will need to be funded by a mix of sources including State Government funding, Section 94 and VPAs. It states that “private sector funding for land use development will play a critical role in delivering the bulk of the Action Plan in partnership with local Councils”. “Developers will contribute to the cost of transport infrastructure provision through value or cost-sharing mechanisms..”.

 

68.       The Hurstville City Centre TMAP is currently under review.

 

69.       Planning Agreements are the key mechanism available to Council to ensure developments assist in contributing towards road and traffic infrastructure upgrades in the City Centre. Consideration of the Planning Agreement is provided below.

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 (Hurstville City Centre)

 

70.       As noted above, the Site is situated within the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre and therefore the provisions of Hurstville DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No.5) currently apply to the Site, including building form character principles, built form controls and controls relating to transport, traffic, parking and access.

 

71.       The City Centre East Precinct is characterised in DCP No.2 as:

 

·          Characteristics: City Centre East is characterised by the extension of the retail strip along Forest Road and under-utilised development along the railway line in Treacy Street. There are minimal trees in the area, especially along Forest Road, other than those around St George Anglican Church.

 

Treacy Street provides the rear vehicular and service access to properties in Forest Road. The Precinct is a high traffic activity area offering access to the City Centre via The Avenue, Park Road and the Westfield shopping centre and includes the key crossing point over the rail line for City Centre traffic and other traffic travelling between Hurstville and Kogarah LGAs via Treacy Street and The Avenue.

 

·          Desired future character: The City Centre East provides a focus for residential development outside the B3 Commercial Core Zone, being close to public transport nodes. The ground levels will house uses that will activate the streets. This precinct will create strong pedestrian networks and linkages with surrounding areas.

 

·          Key land use principles include promoting residential / mixed use development with built form having a dominant residential focus and with active street frontages, encouraged.  Activation of the Street Active uses are to be promoted at the ground and lower levels of development to promote vibrancy and passive and active surveillance of the public domain.

 

72.       A site specific amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 (Hurstville City Centre) is proposed to accompany the draft amendment to the Hurstville LEP 2012 (if the Planning Proposal is supported). The amendment will include the site within the provisions of the Hurstville DCP No.2 (Amendment No.6) and address the issues including (but not limited to) site setbacks (and interface with rail corridor), landscaping and deep soil areas, car park access and layout and vehicle and pedestrian access points.

 

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

 

73.       The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Section 94 Plan) applies to all land in the Hurstville LGA and includes specific provisions which levy development in the Hurstville City Centre for non-residential floor space (public domain improvements in the City Centre) and deficient car parking spaces. These provisions will apply to development on the Site which is located within the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre. The Section 94 Plan also includes levies for residential development.

 

3.3      Offer to Enter into a Planning Agreement

 

74.       As part of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has submitted an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council in accordance with Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  The Letter of Offer dated 27 April 2017 is attached (Attachment 6) and outlines the public benefits to be provided with any future redevelopment of the site. In short the public benefits to be provided are:

·         Public car parking to be dedicated to Council in Stratum, which will replace the current number of public spaces on the site, or a greater amount; and

·         Monetary contribution to be used for public purposes as described under Section 93F(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

75.       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.

 

76.       As Council is the current owner of the site and is seeking the Planning Proposal to uplift the planning controls, the VPA once entered into and registered on the title of the land, serves the purpose of locking in future owners of the site to provide the public benefits.

 

77.       The Offer (and the Heads of Agreement) will be presented in a separate report to Council at its meeting of 5 June 2017. If supported by Council and subject to the Planning Proposal also being supported by Council and receiving a Gateway, public notice of the proposed Planning Agreement will be undertaken in accordance with the legislation and Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements. The offer to enter into a Planning Agreement is being negotiated and assessed in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements; separate from the assessment of the Planning Proposal request.

 

78.       The Heads of Agreement is currently under preparation and will accompany the Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination.

 

 

4.      APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

 

4.1    Background

 

79.       The Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0006) was initially submitted by Hurstville City Council (Acting General Manager) on 16 October 2015 and was supported by the following documents:

·          Planning Proposal, Site Specific Land Use, Height and FSR Amendment, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (The Planning Group NSW Pty Limited, 8 October 2015),

·          Transport Impact Assessment, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (GTA Consultants, 2 September 2015).

 

80.       A letter requesting additional information, based on the independent assessment of the Planning Proposal request by DFP Planning Pty Limited, was issued to the Applicant requesting additional information and clarification in relation to analysis of development options and preparation of indicative concept plans, demonstration of public benefit, retention of public car parking spaces, consideration of adjoining sites, active street frontages and additional information in relation to transport including assessment against the Hurstville City Centre TMAP, impacts on road network and SIDRA modelling for surrounding intersections.

 

81.       The Applicant provided indicative concept plans with the revised Planning Proposal request and has identified “active street frontage” along the Treacy Street frontage. Updates of the Transport Impact Assessment (28 April 2016 and 4 October 2016) were provided; and are currently being reviewed by Council’s Infrastructure section. The Planning Proposal request now an indicative design concept, and comments raised by the St George Design Review Panel (7 April 2016 meeting) have been addressed in the revised Planning Proposal request (November 2016) as considered below.

 

82.       The development standards along the whole southern side of Treacy Street (including the adjacent sites No.49 Treacy Street and No.183C Forest Road) are currently being revised as part of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy.

 

83.       The key dates for the Planning Proposal request are detailed in the Table in Section 5.

 

4.2 Summary of Planning Proposal Request

 

84.       A revised Planning Proposal request (refer Attachment 1) was submitted on 10 November 2016 and included the following amended documents which form the basis of the Planning Proposal request being considered in this report:

·          Planning Proposal, Site Specific Land Use, Height and FSR Amendment, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (The Planning Group NSW Pty Limited, November 2016),

·          Design Concept, Planning Proposal, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (BKA Architecture, undated) (included as Appendix E of Planning Proposal),

·          Transport Impact Assessment, Planning Proposal, 37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville (GTA Consultants, 4 October 2016) (included as Attachment 7).

 

85.       The revised Planning Proposal request proposes the following amendments to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the Site:

·          Zone the site B4 Mixed Use (currently 3(b) City Centre Business under Hurstville LEP 1994),

·          Increase the maximum FSR to 7.2:1 (currently 3:1 under Hurstville DCP No.2),

·          Increase the maximum height to 53m (currently 15m under Hurstville DCP No.2),

·          Identify the Treacy Street frontage of the site as “active street frontage”.

 

86.       In summary, the revised Planning Proposal request (and supporting Indicative Design Concept) anticipates that the development resulting from the changes to the maximum building height (53m) and maximum floor space ratio of 7.0:1 to 7.2:1 would have an indicative yield of:

·          Gross floor area of 18,160m2,

·          180 residential apartments (approx.) with a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom dwellings,

·          1,800m2 first floor level commercial floor space (NLA),

·          780m2 ground floor retail floor space (NLA),

·          375 parking spaces (6 basement levels) (including 237 residential spaces and 48 commercial space and 90 public car parking spaces replacing the existing).

 

87.       A comparison of the original and revised Planning Proposal request is provided in Table 3 below.

 

Table 3: Comparison of Planning Proposal (Initial and Revised) Proposed Development Standards and Yield

 

Current Controls

Planning Proposal (Oct 2015)

Planning Proposal (Revised) (Nov 2016)

Site Area

--

2,497m2

2,497m2

Land Use Zone

3(b) City Centre Business Zone (LEP 1994)

B4 Mixed Use (LEP 2012)

B4 Mixed Use (LEP 2012)

FSR

3:1 (DCP No.2)

7.0:1 (17,479m2)

7.2:1 (17,978m2)

Height

15m (DCP No.2)

53m (16 storeys)

53m

Active Frontage

Included (DCP No.2)

Included

Included

Gross Floor Area

--

Not stated (estimated 17,480m2)

18,160m2

(FSR of approx. 7.3:1)

Indicative Residential Yield

--

131 apartments:

27 x 1 bed apartments

92 x 2 bed apartments

12 x 3 bed apartments

180 apartments:

40 x 1 bed apartments

128 x 2 bed apartments

12 x 3 bed apartments

Retail Floor Space (NLA)

--

1,431m2

780m2

Commercial Floor Space (NLA)

--

2,251m2

1,800m2

Car Parking

--

318 parking spaces:

90 public parking spaces (existing)

228 residential, retail & commercial

375 parking spaces:

90 public parking spaces (existing)

237 residential spaces

48 commercial spaces

 

4.3 Traffic and Transport Analysis

 

88.       Council’s Manager of Infrastructure Planning reviewed the initial Traffic Impact Assessment (2 September 2015) submitted with the Planning Proposal and was not satisfied that adequate assessment was provided as to how the proposed development aligned with the Hurstville City Centre TMAP. Further concern was raised in regard to consideration of the cumulative impact on the road network and other developments/planning proposals within the precinct. Council requested additional information to address these matters which was provided in a revised Transport Impact Assessment (28 April 2016).

 

89.       Following review of the revised Transport Impact Assessment (28 April 2016) which incorporated additional road network analysis, Council’s Infrastructure Planning section agreed with the findings and conclusions and raised no objections to the planning proposal on traffic grounds, noting the following:

·          The forecast traffic generation from the proposed planning proposal is similar to the predicted traffic generating parameters of the site under the Hurstville CBD TMAP

·          Road network surrounding the proposed development has adequate capacity to cater for the additional traffic generated from the development; GTA Consultant’s assessment is this regard is acceptable.

 

90.       The Applicant has subsequently lodged a second revised Transport Impact Assessment (4 October 2016) which updated the report to consider the revised development yield (refer Table 3). This revised report is currently being considered by Council’s Infrastructure section. The revised assessment is required as the Indicative Design Concept demonstrated an increased in estimated apartments from 131 to 180 and a decrease in the retail and commercial floor space as summarised in Table 3.

 

4.4 Social Analysis

 

91.       The revised Planning Proposal request did not include a separate Social Impact Assessment but has included consideration of the public benefits within the Planning Proposal report (November 2016) (Attachment 1), which concluded that:

 

“The PP will result in a net community benefit as it will allow future development to take full advantage of its location in close proximity to transport hubs and infrastructure in the form of a transit oriented development, which has wider benefits than just for the local community. This encourages sustainable transport use and discourages car dependence, which in turn has positive flow-on effects for the local and wider traffic network such as reduced energy consumption and a smaller ecological footprint”.

 

92.       In relation to affordable housing, the Applicant has advised that no affordable housing will be provided as part of the Planning Proposal request.

 

4.5 Economic Analysis

 

93.       The revised Planning Proposal request did not include a separate Economic Impact Assessment report but has included consideration of economic effects within the Planning Proposal report (November 2016), noting:

·          The 180 residential units, 780m2 of retail floorspace and 1,800m2 of commercial office space will support existing town centre economic in terms of growth and sustainability. It is intended to support population growth, which in turn will result in greater utilisation of existing retail and transport infrastructure.

·          The works proposed at the ground level and the intended integration with the existing public realm is aimed at improving resident and community amenity and quality of life as well as support economic development and revitalisation in the immediate locality.

·          Council’s strategic intent to provide public car parking on the site or suitable CBD location subject to the findings of a car parking study. The increase in height and FSR for the subject site will provide incentive for the inclusion of public car parking facilities by assisting to offset cost imposts of providing such infrastructure.

·          There will be little change (if any) to the actual amount of retail and commercial floor space on the site as a result of the PP than is otherwise permitted by the current development controls pertaining to the site. Shop top development with retail at street level and commercial office at the first level is currently permitted and encouraged within the precinct by HDCP 2.

·          It is therefore considered that further economic review and analysis is not necessary. There will not likely be any impact on the retail hierarchy of the centre due to this proposal. The economic considerations are favourable with the future development of the site providing improved and revitalised facilities for business and contributing to broader dwelling supply.

 

94.       As the Planning Proposal request did not include employment generation estimates, an assessment based on employment rate figures provided by SGS Economics & Planning (June 2016) has been used to estimate the potential jobs resulting from the proposed ground level retail floor space and upper level commercial floor space in the original and revised Planning Proposal request (refer Table 4).

 

Table 4: Employee Estimates based on indicative retail and commercial floor space

*Estimates based on a range of rates provided by SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd

 

Employee Estimates*

Planning Proposal

(Oct 2015)

Planning Proposal (Revised) (Nov 2016)

Office Space

1 employee / 20-30sqm

2,251m2

(75 to 112 employees)

1,800m2

(60 to 90 employees)

Retail Space

1 employee / 25-35sqm

1,431m2

(40 to 57 employees)

780m2

(22 to 31 employees)

Estimated Employees (Total)

115 to 169 estimated employees

82 to 121 estimated employees

 

4.6 Urban Design Analysis

 

95.       The revised Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) includes an Indicative Design Concept which would be achievable under the development standards proposed in the Planning Proposal request and tests this design concept against SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development responding to:

 

·          The site’s location in close proximity to the Hurstville train station,

·          The railway reserve located immediately south which enables a taller built form to be achieved on the site without significant overshadowing of residential land,

·          Recent approvals and developments demonstrate that a significant increase of density is currently occurring in the vicinity of the site, particularly the adjacent 16 storey development at 23-35 Treacy Street providing an opportunity to consider a response to scale and density commensurate with the emerging context of the immediate locality.

 

96.       The indicative development concept provided within the urban design feasibility provides the following development data (Table 5) which shows a FSR range of 7.0:1 to 7.2:1 for the development concept. In relation to affordable housing, the Applicant has advised that no affordable housing will be provided as part of the Planning Proposal request (the extract Table below is indicative only).

 

Table 5: Source: SEPP 65 Compliance Table and Development Data, Indicative Development Concept (BKA, undated)

 

 

97.       The Indicative Development Concept also demonstrates aerial and street views from Treacy Street of the indicative built form (refer Figures 22 to 25). The views show the Site and the approved building envelope for 21-35 Treacy Street (immediately to the east).

Figure 22: Indicative concept plan aerial view showing the Site and the approved envelope of 21-35 Treacy Street (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

Figure 23: Indicative concept plan – view from Treacy Street western end (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

Figure 24: Indicative concept plan – view from Treacy Street eastern end showing the Site and the approved envelope of 21-35 Treacy Street (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

 

Figure 25: Indicative concept plan – podium level sky garden (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

98.       It is noted that the Indicative Design Concept shows a development with an FSR of approx. 7.3:1 (refer Table 3). The review of the Planning Proposal request by the St George Design Review Panel (Attachment 3) and the Independent Urban Design Advice (Attachment 5) identified a number of design issues which would impact on the achievable maximum FSR, including rearrangement of the building layout to reduce overshadowing to other properties (to the south), no single aspect south facing apartments and consideration of roof level open space.  Therefore, the lower range of the proposed FSR (7:1 as identified in the Indicative Design Concept (Attachment 1)) is being recommended in this report. In addition, the Concept Plan approval on the adjacent site (21-35 Treacy Street), and to which this Planning Proposal request  makes reference to, has an FSR of approx. 6.78:1 as detailed in Section 2.2 above.

 

 

99.       An analysis of the solar access impact of the proposed development concept is provided in the Indicative Concept Plan (Attachment 1), and demonstrates the impacts on properties on the southern side of Railway Parade as shown in Figures 26 to 28 below. The issue of impact of overshadowing of neighbouring properties to the south is considered below in relation to the independent urban design advice commissioned by Council (Attachment 5) and the comments of the St George Design Review Panel (Attachment 3).

 

Figure 26: Indicative concept plan – solar analysis – proposed June 21 9am (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

Figure 27: Indicative concept plan – solar analysis – proposed June 21 12 noon (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

Figure 28: Indicative concept plan – solar analysis – proposed June 21 3pm (Source: BKA Architects, undated)

 

100.    An independent urban design assessment of the Indicative Concept Plan was prepared by SJB Architects (Urban Design Advice, Planning Proposals in Hurstville City Centre, SJB Architects, February 2017) and included in Attachment 5.  In summary, the report “supported the proposal in principal given the program and overall built form are consistent with the adjacent context, and recently approved and completed developments”.

 

101.    The recommendations included:

·          Detailed design is require to ensure adequate street frontage activation,

·          Development should not preclude neighbouring sites from developing,

·          Layout of the building be rearranged to reduce overshadowing to other properties, and enhance the quality and landscape potential of the communal open space,

·          Car park is to be laid out to minimise congestion, and to ensure safety between the public and private car parks,

·          Require the achievement of a Green Star Rating with the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA),

·          Communal open space to provide abundant planting and different areas that accommodate a range of activities,

·          That the layout of the building be further refined to meet the requirements of the ADG, and to ensure amenity is maximised for apartments,

·          That no single aspect south facing apartments are to be provided,

·          That passive surveillance of the street be provided through the design of the building, bringing dwellings closer to the street,

·          That consideration is given in the detailed design stage as to the safety of residents and workers due to the shared lobby arrangement from the street and the basement,

·          That a minimum target of affordable housing provision is achieved. In line with the Draft District Plans, our recommendation is a minimum of 5-10%. Given that the predominant demographic resides in rental accommodation, with a median income lower than that of Greater Sydney, Council is encouraged to investigate whether an increased provision may be appropriate,

·          That consideration be given to spatial methods able to encourage social interaction.

 

102.    The report provides detailed shadow analysis (Attachment 5) based on a 3D model of the Hurstville City Centre as part of the Urban Design Strategy (currently being prepared) and recommends that overshadowing caused to surrounding properties should be minimised and ensure that residential private outdoor spaces can receive 2 hours of direct sunlight between 10am-2pm.

 

103.    The report also considered a visual analysis of the proposal, noting that the “development would be visible at the end of the Forest Road corridor, and does not impact upon the character of the road, as it is a marker at the end of the road”.

 

4.7  St George Design Review Panel

 

104.    The St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) considered the Planning Proposal request at two (2) meetings: 7 April 2016 and 6 April 2017.

 

105.    In response to the DRP comments on 7 April 2016, an Indicative Concept Plan was provided in the revised Planning Proposal request (November 2016) (Attachment 1). These Indicative Concept Plans were considered at the 6 April 2017 meeting and a number of comments were made including:

 

·          Proposal fits comfortably within the evolving pattern of development both in terms of height and FSR, and site configuration,

·          Attention given to the extent of overshadowing of properties on the south side of the railway line and in terms of overall height and setback of the top four floors from the rear elevation,

·          Need to investigate constraints relating to the proximity to the rail corridor,

·          Proposed FSR of 7.2:1 appears to be consistent with the density of the adjoining development in Treacy Street; this is subject to confirmation of shadow impact limits on sites across the railway line,

·          Deep soil zone landscaping adjacent to the rail corridor not supported. The two storey communal open spaces at Level 3 is supported, however to ensure some communal open space provided with solar access year round a component should be considered on roof level,

·          Provision of continuous street awning on Treacy Street,

·          Adaptable dwellings are to be included in the development.

 

106.    The Panel recommended that:

 

“The Panel supports the application subject to the changes described above..”.

 

107.    A copy of the St George DRP Minutes (7 April 2016 and 6 April 2017) is included in Attachment 3.

 

5.      THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

108.    The Planning Proposal has been assessed under the relevant sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and against the following advisory documents prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment:

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

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

 

109.    The assessment report in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment “Guides” is included as Attachment 4.

 

110.    The objective of the Planning Proposal is to enable the future development of the site to accommodate a mixed use development that will include ground floor commercial/ retail, first floor commercial and upper level residential land uses. In addition to these land uses, it is the Georges River Council’s intent that any future development of the subject site provide for a public car parking facility to ensure adequate provision of public car parking is maintained in the Hurstville City Centre, especially given the site’s current use as an at grade public car park.

 

111.    The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 provisions in relation to the Site as follows:

·          Amend the Land Application Map 001 to remove the “deferred matter” reference from the Site,

·          Amend the Land Use Zoning Map 008A to zone the site to B4 Mixed Use (currently identified as a “deferred matter”),

·          Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map 008A to set a maximum FSR of 7.0:1, where no maximum FSR limit is currently in effect within Hurstville LEP 2012,

·          Amend the Height of Buildings Map 008A to set a maximum height of 53 metres, where no maximum height limit is currently in effect within Hurstville LEP 2012,

·          Amend the Active Street Frontages Map 008A to identify the Site’s Treacy Street frontage as an active street frontage’, where no active street frontage is currently in effect within Hurstville LEP 2012,

·          Amend Clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones) to require a minimum “non-residential” FSR on the site of 1:1 and amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to identify the clause amendment to the Site.

 

112.    The maximum FSR of 7:1 is being recommended based on consideration of the proposed range of 7:1 – 7.2:1 in the Indicative Concept Plans and the design issues raised by the St George Design Review Panel and the Independent Urban Design Advice which would impact on the achievable maximum FSR (as considered in Section 4.2).

 

Community Consultation

 

113.    Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

114.    If a Gateway Determination (Approval) is issued, and subject to its conditions, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 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.

 

115.    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 offices and libraries.

 

116.    Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

 

·          Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader,

·          Exhibition notice on Council’s website,

·          Notices in Council offices and libraries,

·          Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination,

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

 

117.    The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below:

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of Planning Proposal request

October 2015

Consideration by St George Design Review Panel

7 April 2016

Lodgement of Revised Planning Proposal request

November 2016

Consideration by St George Design Review Panel

6 April 2017

Reporting to Georges River IHAP on Planning Proposal

18 May 2017 (this report)

Reporting to Council on Planning Proposal

5 June 2017

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

August/September 2017

Anticipated timeframe for the completion of technical information (if required)

August 2017

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

September 2017

Commencement and completion dates for community consultation period

October/November 2017

Dates for public hearing (if required)

 

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

November 2017

Reporting to Georges River IHAP on community consultation

November 2017

Reporting to Council on community consultation and finalisation

December 2017

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

December 2017

Anticipated date for notification.

December 2017

 

118.    It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the Department of Planning and Environment and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

 

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION

 

119.    In summary, the Planning Proposal request for the Council owned Treacy Street Car Park Site (37-41 Treacy Street, Hurstville) is:

 

·          Supported in relation to the zoning of the site to B4 Mixed Use,

·          Supported in relation to the increase in maximum building height from 15m to 53m,

·          Supported in relation to the increase in maximum FSR from 3:1 to 7:1 (the maximum FSR of 7.2:1 in the revised Planning Proposal request is not supported),

·          Supported in relation to the identification of the Treacy Street frontage of the Site as “active street frontage”.

 

120.    In addition, to ensure the provision of employment within the Hurstville City Centre, and to reflect commercial and retail floor space identified the Indicative Concept Plans, a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 1:1 will be required on the site (through an amendment to clause 4.4A of the Hurstville LEP 2012).

 

121.    The key reasons for support include that the proposed B4 Mixed Use zone, increases to the development standards (maximum height and FSR), minimum “non-residential” FSR of 1:1 and identification of ‘active street frontage’ will facilitate future development of the highly accessible site within the Hurstville City Centre, including:

·          Residential accommodation within close proximity to the retail and other facilities within the Hurstville City Centre and excellent public transport options,

·          Retention of existing 90 public car parking spaces, with an opportunity to provide additional spaces within the Hurstville City Centre,

·          Non-residential floorspace of approximately 2,580sqm which will provide for employment opportunities within the Hurstville City Centre, and equating to approximately 80-120 jobs,

·          Urban design analysis and requirements through an amendment to the Hurstville (City Centre) DCP No.2 which will address a range of issues identified by the St George DRP and in the independent urban design advice in relation to future development’s consistency with SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

122.    The Planning Proposal, along with a report on the Planning Agreement for the site, will be considered at a future Georges River Council meeting (“the relevant planning authority”) for consideration, including the IHAP recommendations. If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

123.    If Council resolves not to support the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has the opportunity to request a pre-Gateway Review by the Department of Planning and Environment. An applicant has 40 days from the date of notification of Council’s decision to request a review.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Revised Planning Proposal Request

Attachment View2

Hurstville LEP 2012 Draft Maps

Attachment View3

St George Design Review Panel Minutes

Attachment View4

Planning Proposal Assessment

Attachment View5

Extract of Independent Urban Design Assessment

Attachment View6

Signed Letter of Offer

Attachment View7

Transport Impact Assessment

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 1]          Revised Planning Proposal Request

 

 

Page 357

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 1]          Revised Planning Proposal Request

 

 

Page 447

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 1]          Revised Planning Proposal Request

 

 

Page 458

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 2]          Hurstville LEP 2012 Draft Maps

 

 

Page 465

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 3]          St George Design Review Panel Minutes

 

 

Page 470

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 4]          Planning Proposal Assessment

 

 

Page 478

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 5]          Extract of Independent Urban Design Assessment

 

 

Page 502

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 6]          Signed Letter of Offer

 

 

Page 519

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Thursday, 18 May 2017

7.4                          37-41 Treacy Street Hurstville - Planning Proposal - Treacy Street Car Park

[Appendix 7]          Transport Impact Assessment

 

 

Page 521

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

 


 

 



[1] It is noted that in metropolitan Sydney, the basis for the strategic merit test is the relevant district plan (including draft versions released for public comment) rather than APfGS.