AGENDA - IHAP

Meeting:

Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)

Date:

Tuesday, 05 December 2017

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Georges River Civic Centre, corner MacMahon and Dora Streets, Hurstville

Participants:

Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Juilet Grant (Panel Member)

Sue Francis (Panel Member)

Chris Young (Community Repesentative)

Additional Invitees:

Meryl Bishop (Director Environment and Planning)

Tina Christy (Manager Development and Building)

Cathy McMahon (Manager Strategic Planning)

Monica Wernej (Admin Assistant)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm - 3.30pm

a)    12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

b)   18 Marine Drive Oatley

c)    15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

 

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

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

 

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)

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

 

 

 

Item:

DA No:

Address:

Description:

3.1

DA2017/0129

15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

Demolition of the exisitng dwellings and ancillary structures, construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building comprising of fifty one units and basment parking

3.2

DA2017/0114

18 Marine Drive Oatley

Alterations and additions to dwelling - additional levels to dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling house, new terrace and pavillion to rear and new garage

3.3

PP2017/0002

12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

Revised Planning Proposal - Rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purposes) to R2 Low Density Residential with maximum FSR of 1:1 and building height of 9m

 

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair

 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Page 4

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.1

Application No

DA2017/0129

Site Address & Ward Locality

15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposal

Demolition of the exisitng dwellings and ancillary structures, construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building comprising of fifty one units and basment parking

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer

Owners

Michael Voulgarakis

Applicant

Marsland

Zoning

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

Date Of Lodgement

20/06/2017

Submissions

Seven (7)

Cost of Works

$13,504.592

Reason for Referral to IHAP

 Unresolved sumbissions and LEP standard non-compliance

 

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 demolition of the existing dwellings ancillary structures and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building comprising fifty one (51) units and basement parking on the subject site.

 

Site and Locality

2.         The subject site is located on the northern side of Hampton Court Road between Buchanan Street to the east and Jubilee Avenue to the west. The subject site, which currently consists of 4 individual lots, is formally identified as Lots 103, 104, 105 and 106 in DP 1753. The subject site has a total frontage of 46.3m, a site depth of 43m and a total area of 1977m2.

 

Zoning and KLEP 2012 Compliance

3.         The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent.  The proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses contained within KLEP 2012 apart from Clause 4.3-Height of Buildings where a minor height exceedance is presented. A Clause 4.6 variation to this development standard has been sought which is detailed in the later stages of this report.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

4.         The proposed development generally satisfies the relevant deign provisions of the DCP.

 

Submissions

5.         Seven (7) submissions two (2) of which contained petitions totalling thirty nine (39) were received raising concerns related to construction impacts, visual impact, shadowing, privacy, noise and traffic and parking impacts. 

 

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. 129/2017 should be approved subject to conditions.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

7.         Council is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing dwellings ancillary structures and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building comprising fifty one (51) units and basement parking on the subject site.

 

The Site and Locality 

8.         The subject site is located on the northern side of Hampton Court Road between Buchanan Street to the east and Jubilee Avenue to the west. The subject site, which currently consists of 4 individual lots, is formally identified as Lots 103, 104, 105 and 106 in DP 1753.

 

The subject site has a total frontage of 46.3m, a site depth of 43m and a total area of 1977m2.

 

To the rear (north west) of the subject site are two (2) existing four (4) storey residential flat buildings addressed to 20 Jubilee Avenue and 1-7 Buchanan Street. The two residential flat buildings are elevated above the subject site. Adjoining the subject site to the east is a three (3) storey residential flat building elevated above the subject site and above the Hampton Court Road footway. Further east on the eastern corner of Hampton Court Road and Buchanan Street is a six (6) storey residential flat building.

 

Across Hampton Court Road to the south of the subject site are older-style residential flat buildings of three (3) and four (4) storeys. Adjoining the subject site to the west are low scale residential flat buildings ranging in scale from two (2) to three (3) storeys.

 

Residential flat building to the rear of the site at 1-7 Buchanan Street

 

Residential flat building to the rear of the subject site at 20 Jubilee Avenue

 

Three storey residential flat building adjoining the subject site to the east

 

Two-storey residential flat building at 23 Hampton Court Road and Three storey residential flat building at 25 Hampton Court Road

 

Six storey residential flat building at 6 Buchanan Street

 

Four storey residential flat building at 16 Hampton Court Road

 

 

Background

9.         The application was reviewed as part of Council’s Development Advisory Service (DAS) with a response sent to the applicant on 18 May 2017. During the DAS process, the application was also reviewed by the Design Review Panel on 11 May 2017.

 

The application was submitted with Council on 20 June 2017 and was neighbour notified from 21 July to 4 August 2017 where seven submissions were received two of which contained petitions. The comments raised as part of the Development Advisory process were considered by the applicant and the recommendations outlined in the DAS response letter were integrated as part of the submitted development application.

 

The submitted plans were reviewed by the Design Review Panel during their meeting held on 3 August 2017. The Panel was generally supportive of the application subject to a number of minor issues being resolved. The applicant was made aware of these required changes in an email sent on 15 August 2017.

 

Architectural and landscape changes amendments were made and these were submitted with Council on 22 September 2017. The design modifications made suitably addressed the Panels comments. These plans and details are relied upon for the preparation of this report.

 

Section 79C Assessment

10.       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

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

 

Figure 2- Zoning Map

 

 

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

 

Applicable LEP Clause

Development Standards

Development Proposal

Compliance/

Comment

4.1   Minimum subdivision Lot size

1000m2

1977m2

Yes

4.3   Height of Buildings

21m

22.7m

No (See discussions under Clause 4.6 below)

4.4   Floor Space Ratio

2:1 (3954m2)

1.99:1 (3940m2)

Yes

 

Figure 3- Areas of Height Non-Compliance (elevation)

 

Figure 4- Area of Height Non-Compliance (Floor Plan depicting highest point)

 

12.       Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

 

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

The "height of buildings map" associated with this clause specifies that the site has a maximum proposed height of 21m. In this instance, a maximum height of 22.7m is proposed resulting in a non-compliance with the Standard. The extent of non-compliance is diagrammatically detailed in Figures 3 and 4.

 

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 seeking a variation of the maximum height of building standard as specified in clause 4.3 of KLEP 2012. The following reasoning as to why the standard should be varied was provided and is as follows: 

 

·    The height breach is generally limited to a front portion of the roof slab as well as the recessed lift overrun which provides access to the communal rooftop garden

 

·    The height breach is associated with a 5m sloping site from north down to south.

 

·    The height non-compliance is recessed 10m – 14.75m from the front of the site and therefore will not be apparent from the Hampton Court Road footway, as shown on the photomontage below (Figure 5).

 

Figure 5- Photomontage showing that the top level and lift overrun will not be visible from the streetscape

 

·    The front portion and rear portion of the built form are below the height limit, therefore it is considered that the height non-compliance will not generate any additional amenity impacts to surrounding neighbours than that of a compliant built form, in regard to overshadowing, privacy or view loss impacts.

 

The applicant addressed each of the relevant criteria under clause 4.6 which were detailed as follows.

 

1. Consistency with the objectives of the height standard in the LEP

 

Clause 4.3 Height

1. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

a. to establish the maximum height for buildings,

 

The proposal is generally compliant with the maximum LEP height limit applicable to the subject site, with the exception of a portion of the upper recessed level which has no adverse or unreasonable streetscape or amenity impacts.

 

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

 

The proposal complies with the height limit at the rear and sides of the proposed built form. It is therefore considered that the height non-compliance is not responsible for any additional amenity impacts in regard to overshadowing, privacy, view loss or streetscape impacts. As shown above, the height breach is not apparent from the Hampton Court Road footway.

 

Furthermore, the accompanying shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed height non-compliance is able to be accommodated on the site whilst retaining 2+ hours of solar access to neighbouring properties on June 21st.

 

c. to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

 

The proposed bulk and scale of the development is compliant with the FSR standard for the subject site whilst also being consistent with the density of the recently constructed residential flat development at 6 Buchanan Street, to the east of the subject site. It is considered that the proposed height variation is minor in nature and does not add to the visual bulk of the development.

 

The proposed height is setback in accordance with the setback provisions whilst the provision of landscaping within the setbacks softens the visual appearance of the built form when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

2. Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone

 

Objectives of zone:

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 

The replacement of the existing dwelling houses with a high quality residential flat building is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium density residential zone as it provides for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. The proposal also protects amenity of surrounding residents which confirms that the variation to the height limit does not raise any inconsistency with the zone objectives.

 

The proposal provides for a variety of housing types in the form of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, whilst also providing for accessible units.

 

3. Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

The proposed height variation allows for the orderly and economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed height allows for achievement of the building envelope without creating a development with overbearing height, bulk or scale and without compromising the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposed height is therefore consistent with the State and Regional Policies, particularly urban consolidation principles which seek to provide additional densities near transport and established services.

 

4. The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

It is considered that the proposed height variation represents a more desirable planning outcome than if it were to maintain strict compliance with the height limit. The proposed minor height variation is associated with a high-quality residential flat building which provides for a high degree of internal amenity. The proposed additional height is able to be provided on the site without compromising the character of the locality.

 

The height variation is primarily associated with the lift overrun which provides access to a high-quality communal rooftop garden. Access to the communal rooftop garden also facilitates excellent social gathering opportunities. The communal rooftop space provides for better amenity than if it were confined to the ground level at the rear of the site. The rooftop location provides for abundant solar access and access to views. The recessed and isolated rooftop location from surrounding properties also ensures that utilisation of this space will not affect the amenity of dwellings either within or external to the subject proposal.

 

It is therefore considered that the variation to the height standard allows for a better planning outcome on the subject site as provision of the communal garden on the roof contributes to an overall compliant communal open space as envisaged by the SEPP 65 and DCP controls.

 

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

Outperformance of the internal amenity indicators within the DCP and ADG in relation to solar access and cross ventilation demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation. The height non-compliance does not compromise the internal performance of the units. Externally, the lack of impact to surrounding properties, particularly in relation to retention of solar access further displays the suitability of the proposed height variation in this instance. The height non-compliance will not be responsible for any greater shadowing to any surrounding property.

 

Furthermore, the height variation will not interfere with any views from surrounding properties. There will also be no additional adverse visual or acoustic privacy impacts generated by the additional height due to its recessed nature.

 

The lack of visual bulk impacts (associated with a compliant FSR) from either the streetscape or private properties surrounding the site ensures that the articulated and reasonable scale of development has no unreasonable visual impacts.

 

The large extent of landscaping around the perimeter of the built form and in elevated planter beds contributes to the environmental performance of the proposal, noting that the proposed landscaped areas substantially outperform that within the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Officer Comment: Having regard to the discussion above, it is considered that compliance with the maximum height standard as specified in clause 4.3 KLEP 2012 is both unreasonable and unnecessary and in this particular case, it has been demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the standard.

 

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation 

13.       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 that could potentially be impacted up the proposal.

 

Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

 

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

14.       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 

15.       The proposed development will require significant excavation works in order to accommodate the basement car park. The proposed excavation is the minimum necessary to achieve a basement and it has been designed to allow for substantial deep planting areas around the perimeter of the building.

 

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

 

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning  

16.       The property; 21 Hampton Court Road, Carlton (Lot 103 of DP1753) is identified as flood affected in the Beverley Park Overland Flow Risk Management Study and Plan 2007. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for property has been identified at 28.25m (AHD). The property is not identified as being affected by the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year ARI) flood event. As such there are no specific flood controls for this development proposal.

 

The development is not required to be assessed with respect to the PMF level of RL 28.25m (AHD). Development controls would only normally be assessed in regard to the PMF level for certain situations such as developments that involve vulnerable users eg. preschools, schools, nursing homes; and developments where flooding could result in hazardous materials (eg. stored chemicals) to be at risk of disturbance.

 

The DCP ‘Water Management Policy. Kogarah Council. August 2006’ does not require assessment of developments impact on flood effects in regard to the PMF event.     

 

The proposed development was designed having consideration to the Probable Maximum Flood Levels which was then referred to Council’s Stormwater Engineer for comment. Council’s Stormwater Engineer advised that the proposed development satisfies the provisions of this clause in terms of compatibility, risk to life, impact on the environment and social and economic costs. In addition, consideration has been given to the provisions of Section B6 – Water Management of KDCP 2013 and the proposed development satisfies the relevant controls related to flooding and drainage.  

 

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

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

18.       The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 replaces the repealed Clause 5.9 of KLEP 2012 (Preservation of Trees and Vegetation). The intent of this SEPP is consistent with the objectives of the repealed Standard where the primary aims/objectives are related to the protection of the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation on the site. 

 

            Sixteen low category trees will be lost as a result of this proposal; however, many of these trees are not visible from the public domain and they consist of small and insignificant trees. In the context of the loss of trees, a comprehensive landscape scheme is proposed that includes the planting of semi-mature trees to be planted within prominent locations.         

 

In this instance, the proposal was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who raised no objection to the removal of a number of trees on the site subject to replacement planting. Relevant consent conditions will be imposed.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

19.       SEPP 55 applies to the land and pursuant to Section 79C is a relevant consideration.

 

A review of the available history for the site gives no indication that the land associated with this development is contaminated. There were no historic uses that would trigger further site investigations.

 

The objectives outlined within SEPP55 are considered to be satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP No 65)

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The application was referred to the St George Design Review Panel at Pre DA stage on 11 May 2017, and then also on 3 August 2017 for formal DA comments.  The following response details both the Panels initial and supplementary comments.

 

Context

21.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

This is one of the last remaining undeveloped sites in Hampton Court Road. The opposite side of the road has been developed with three (3)/four (4) storey walk up buildings representative of earlier decades. These are screened by attractive, dense, very mature native trees. On the side of the road where the development is taking place there is very little street planting and unattractive and intrusive overhead wiring and telegraph poles. Their removal and under grounding of these is extremely desirable.

 

The existing topography of the site falls approximately 5m from north to south. This has implications for the way the building sits on the site and for level access arrangements.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

The project responds well to context.

 

Applicant Comment: Noted

 

Built Form and Scale

22.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA )

 

The building is of appropriate form and scale for the evolving context, and is very close to complying with FSR, height and setback controls. The Panel supports minor exemptions to the height limit in order to facilitate access to roof garden common areas.

 

Some minor lowering of the building as suggested by the architect would assist in improving the relationship of the building with the street.

 

General planning and organisation of the building is well considered and supported.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

The Panel believe that the street entry could be rationalised so that the 1:20 slope is more integrated with the paved surface, and does not create a pinch point with the steps as currently shown. As proposed the entry restricts the garden in front of Unit 1.02 which is unfortunate. It is recommended that the amount of hard paving is reduced, and bike racks relocated to increase garden space.

 

The OSD tank must be moved out of the deep soil zone. Clarification should be provided as to the location of any substation or hydrants (fire boosters) required. These should be clear of the front verge and ideally adjacent to the driveway integrated into the building.

 

Applicants Comment: The extent of paving at the Level 1 entry area has been reduced and bike racks repositioned so that the resultant increase in the landscape area in front of unit 1.02 can be used to provide additional screen planting in accordance with the DRP recommendation. (See figure 6 below)

 

Figure 6- Image depicting landscaping increase in front of Unit 1.02

 

Technical issues prevented the relocation of the OSD tank onto the podium; as a result we have proposed a reduction in the tank levels to allow a min 600mm of soil over the structure and an increase to the planting at the rear of the site. (See Figure 7 below)

 

The location of the sprinkler/ hydrant booster and water meter have been indicated on the drawings.

 

Figure 7- Image depicting soil depth over OSD structure

 

Officer Comment: Council’s stormwater engineer was consulted in regards to the suggested relocation of the tank onto the podium. He also confirmed that this relocation could pose future technical issues with the ongoing operation of the tank. He advised that the proposed location of the tank is ideal in this situation. While the revisions did not specifically undertake the amendments as recommended by the Panel in respect to tank relocation, the reduction in the tank levels to allow a minimum 600mm soil cover does allow for planting over the tank and therefore is considered to achieve the desired objective.

 

Density

23.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

Close to compliance and acceptable. (This was related to a Pre DA application providing a minor FSR Non-Compliance)

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

Acceptable (The proposal now complies with Council’s Density controls of 2:1.

 

Sustainability

24.       Subject to BASIX and acceptable.

 

Landscape

25.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

The Panel recommends that the entry arrangement should be reconsidered to fully address the streetscape and entry requirements. See also below under ‘Amenity’.

 

The visualisation on the cover page of the drawing package needs to reflect the proposed landscape design. The landscape plans are acceptable as a concept but need to show plant species type and typical details.

 

New tree planting to the streetscape verge is essential and the overhead wires should be undergrounded if at all possible.

 

The communal area at the rear of the property provides good social amenity space and captures the northern aspect very well. The addition of a water feature is a good element to provide visual delight from the street entrance to the rear of the property.

 

The communal roof garden is well considered but requires further detailing as above, and a small enclosed communal room as recommended below under ‘Housing Diversity and Social Interaction’.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

In general the landscape positively contributes to the project. The Panel does however recommend the following changes to improve amenity:

 

·    Remove the proposed BBQ and deck in the ground level communal space and replace with planting including trees.

·    Redesign the rear retaining wall (ideally remove if possible and provide sloped garden bed).

·    Redesign the front entry as described above.

·    Reconfigure the communal roof top space to reduce areas of paving. It is recommended that the planting alongside the lift lobby is added to the planting to the west of the building.

·    Redesign the accessible WC at roof level so that the access door is external.

 

Provide larger street tree species in the verge.

 

Applicant Comment: The photomontage was updated to reflect the roof-top planting. (See Figure 8 below).

 

It is proposed to under-ground the over-head wires in accordance with the panel’s recommendations and incorporate street trees on the verge in accordance with Councils’ public domain policy.

 

The BBQ area and stepped retaining wall was removed from the ground floor communal open space and replaced with planting in accordance with the panel’s recommendations.

 

The roof-top communal open space planting has been reconfigured to reduce the extent of hard paving with the addition of planting along the side of the lift lobby. The access door to the WC was also moved to provide direct access from the roof-top and avoid a sight-line from unit entries.

Figure 8- Amended photomontage depicting roof planting

 

Officer Comment: The proposed modifications are satisfactory and address the Panels comments. As a number of sites remain undeveloped in both the immediate and local context, the relocation of wires underground will be sought with any other developments of this scale in order to ensure street tree planting along the verge.

 

A consent condition will be imposed in relation to the relocation of the overhead wires.

 

Amenity

26.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

The general level of amenity is of good standard and compliant with ADG requirements.

 

The main entrance is unacceptable and insecure as proposed. It requires complete reconsideration in terms of width, social gathering opportunity with seating, visual connection with lifts, etc, which will require reduction in the size of adjoining Unit 1.03.

 

A small covered area outside area the entrance should also be provided.

 

Access to bicycle storage area is circuitous and needs redesign internally.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

See comments above regarding the front entry, the ground level communal open space and the roof terrace.

 

Applicant Comment: The front entry, ground level COS and roof terrace was redesigned as described under ‘built form and scale/landscaping.

 

Safety

27.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

See comments relating to main entrance

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

Acceptable

 

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

28.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

The rooftop communal space and northern space at ground level together would provide excellent social gathering opportunities. The roof top space should include a small enclosed communal room with kitchenette, toilet facilities, etc.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

Generally acceptable

 

Applicant Comment: The proposal has generally been amended to reflect these comments. (See Figure 9 below).

 

An enclosed communal room has not been proposed as this would result in a further height non-compliance with the 21m Standard.

 

Figure 9- Amended rooftop communal area

 

Officer Comment: Addressed under Landscape. In regards to unit mix, the proposal provides 33 x (2 bedroom), 2 x (3 bedroom) and 16 x (1 bedroom) which is consistent with the design objectives of the ADG. The proposal provides flexible apartment configurations and diverse household types.

 

Aesthetics

29.       11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

 

Whilst the built form and scale is acceptable, the materials and finishes plan illustrates a dominance of grey cladding and tiles. The Panel recommends reconsidering the colour palette with a possibility of adding some touches of brighter colour together with greater warmth of the bricks on the lower four (4) floors, and much lighter tone of the cladding of the top floors.

 

Also the public/private interface landscape treatment needs substantial improvement along Hampton Court Road by way of planting and other landscape initiatives.

 

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

 

The proposal positively contributes to the streetscape and neighbourhood character.

 

Applicant Comment: Noted

 

            Officer Comment : The proposal is considered to appropriate in both scale and form.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

30.       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

31.       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)

32.       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.

 

Frontage

Council’s DCP outlines that a 20m frontage is required for residential flat building. In this case, an overall frontage width of 46.3m is provided complying with Council DCP controls.

 

Setbacks

 

Front

The proposed setbacks generally comply with the DCP controls by providing a 5m setback for 20% of the width of the building and a setback greater than 7m for 80% of the width of the building. The proposed front setbacks are consistent with the adjoining properties to the north-east and south-west. The proposed siting of the development allows for appropriate solar access to surrounding properties, as well as maintaining a suitable level of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Side/Rear

The proposal also provides for minimum 6m side and rear setbacks which increase to 9m when above 5 storeys. Such setbacks are consistent with the ADG and override the provisions of the DCP. It is considered that setbacks are appropriate for the proposal and the subject site as they allow for abundant landscaping within the front, side and rear setbacks.

 

Site Coverage

A maximum site coverage of 45% is applicable to residential flat buildings equating to 889.65m2 in this instance. The proposal provides 850.1m2 of site coverage or 43% complying with Council controls.

 

Impervious Area

Residential flat buildings are to have a maximum impervious area of 55% equating to 1087m2 in this case. The proposal does not comply with this requirement, having 68% (1344m2) of impervious areas on the site. The variation is considered acceptable as generous levels of deep soil landscaping are provided along the external perimeters of the site allowing for the planting of appropriately sized trees and shrubs.

 

Common Open Space

Common open space for residential flat building developments shall be provided at a rate of 30m2 per dwelling for those units that have balconies as their only form of private open space. Therefore, a minimum of 1320m2 is required.

 

The proposed development incorporates 27% or 533m² of common open space area which should be supported as the amount of area provided exceeds the ADG requirements of 25% or (494m²). The areas provided will offer a desirable functional design that will offer a high amenity and will receive ample solar access.

 

Private Open Space

Where provided, courtyards for ground floor units must be a minimum of 35m2/ dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 3m. Otherwise all dwellings must be provided with a

balcony 12m2 in area with a minimum dimension of 3m.

 

In accordance with clause 6A of SEPP No 65 the provisions within a DCP that relate to "private open space and balconies" have no effect and the provisions of the ADG are applicable. The provision of private open space in the way of ground floor terraces and upper level balconies with the following areas complying with the SEPP 65 requirements:

 

1 bedroom Apartments: 8-17m2

2 bedroom apartments: 10-73m2

3 bedroom apartments: 12-40m2 

 

The proposal complies with these requirements.

 

Other Requirements

 

Solar Access

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

 

The architectural plans demonstrate that the development as a whole receives in excess of the minimum solar access to living and private open spaces. In regards to overshadowing, the proposal will generally cast much of its shadow over Hampton Court Road. Having said this, the neighbouring low scale residential flat building located at 23 Hampton Court Road will incur additional shadow impact to its north-eastern elevation. An elevation shadowing impact to this elevation is detailed in Figure 10 below. As can be evidenced upon review of this analysis, the development will not cast any significant shadow over this neighbouring building from 12pm onwards. Therefore, the proposal complies with the solar access requirements to neighbouring development.

 

Figure 10- Elevational shadow impact to neighbouring building at 23 Hampton Court Road

 

Privacy

34.       The proposed development complies with the setback requirements contained within KDCP 2013 but in any case, has been designed having regard to the separation requirements of Part 3F- Visual Privacy within the ADG. The development makes provisions for privacy screens on balconies while providing a generous landscape buffer around the perimeter of the site enabling reasonable levels of external and internal privacy to be maintained by neighbouring development.

 

Traffic and Parking

35.       In accordance with Council DCP controls a total of 70 residential and 10 visitor spaces are required to be provided. Currently, the proposal provides 56 residential and 11 visitor spaces resulting in a non-compliance with Council controls.

 

While a parking shortfall is presented, the NSW Government has adopted the "Apartment Design Guide" which will be used in conjunction with the State Environmental Planning Policy NO.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). Objective 3J-l of the Design Guide states that sites within 800m of a railway station are to satisfy the minimum parking requirements specified in the RMS "Guide to Traffic Generating Developments" (October 2002). The site is located 300m from Carlton Station so this criteria can be utilised.

 

The RMS Guidelines nominate that a high density residential flat building refers to a building containing 20 or more dwellings. As the proposed development contains 51 dwellings, the following parking requirements for high density residential flat buildings in Metropolitan Sub-Regional Centres have been adopted:

 

1 bedroom units        0.6 space per dwelling

2 bedroom units        0.9 spaces per dwelling

3 bedroom units        1.4 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking          1 space per 5 dwellings      

 

Application of those requirements to the proposed development yields a parking requirement of 43 residential and 11 visitor car parking spaces. The proposal provides 56 residential spaces and 11 visitor spaces complying with these requirements.

 

Adaptable and Accessible Housing

36.       The proposal includes six (6) complying with Council controls. The units are provided throughout the development. Consent conditions will be imposed requiring that the adaptable housing be certified to ensure compliance with the relevant design standards.

 

Section 94 Contributions

37.       The proposed development requires payment of $426,532.75 of Section 94 contributions based on the provisions of Council’s Section 94 Plan applicable to Precinct two (2).

 

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

38.       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,

39.       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)     Site suitability,

40.       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,

41.       In accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of KDCP 2013 application was placed on neighbour notification 21 July to 4 August 2017 where seven (7) submissions were received two of which contained petitions totalling thirty-nine (39) signatures. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised below:

 

1.    Height Breach Impacts

 

Comment: As detailed earlier in this report, a minor height breach is presented. This breach will not add to the visual scale of the building when viewed from the street nor is it anticipated to result in any additional amenity Impacts to the neighbouring properties, so is considered acceptable on the merits of this application.

 

2.    Damage during excavation

 

Comment: Consent conditions will be imposed requiring the provision of a dilapidation report for potentially affected properties (To be determined by structural engineer) and a geotechnical report. In regards to the ongoing operation of the sewer to neighbouring properties, this is the sole responsibility of the parties undertaking the building works on the site.

 

3.    Noise from use of common open space area on roof

 

Comment: A landscape buffer has been provided to the common open space area located on the roof of the development that will assist in mitigating both perceived and actual noise impacts. Further, the location of the open space on the roof level will ensure that any noise generation will be confined to the roof level and will not be adjacent to any window or open space areas of neighbouring development which currently sit at a lower built level.

 

4.    Overshadowing

 

Comment: As discussed in the body of this report, the anticipated shadow cast by the subject development ensures neighbouring buildings will still receive the minimum amount of solar access. See discussion under solar access of this report.

 

5.    Loss of woodland views and green outlook from 1-7 Buchanan Street.

 

Comment: The views from the building at 1-7 Buchanan Street are in south westerly direction over the subject site. The views are not iconic and are limited to skyline views and distant tree canopies in accordance with the court planning principles established in Tenacity Vs Warringah. Given that the current views are enjoyed directly across the subject site over a side boundary, retention of these views would be unreasonable and would severely limit the development potential of the subject site. 

 

6.    Loss of property value

 

Comment: Loss of property value as a result of this development is a claim that cannot be substantiated.

 

7.    Overall amenity

 

Comment: The proposed building is generously separated from the neighbouring development in line with the separation requirements outlined in the ADG. The introduction of appropriate window placements that have been offset as far as practicable from neighboring glazed areas and the provision of window areas along the that are not excessive in scale, will ensure that privacy impacts potentially posed by this development are minimised.

 

8.    Scale of Development

 

Comment: The proposal complies with Council’s FSR controls and only marginally exceeds the height standards. The development is of an anticipated scale envisaged by KLEP 2012 as amended. A development of a similar scale has been approved and constructed at 7-9 Hampton Court Road in accordance with the KLEP 2012 amendments allowing for increase heights and densities throughout what was previously referred to as the Kogarah LGA.

 

9.    Traffic and Parking

 

Comment: As discussed in the body of this report, the development provides in excess of the minimum parking requirements as outlined within 3J-l of the Design Guide which stipulates that that sites within 800m of a railway station are to satisfy the minimum parking requirements specified in the RMS "Guide to Traffic Generating Developments" (October 2002).

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposal on Traffic or Parking grounds. Council’s Traffic Engineer also referred to the Traffic Assessment carried out by Traffix which stipulated that the net traffic impact of this development is;

 

o An increase of 6 vehicle trips per hour during AM Peak (or one vehicle per 10 minutes)

o An increase of 4 vehicle trips per hour during PM Peak (or one vehicle per 15 minutes)

 

This increase is considered minor on the local road network.

 

10.  Stormwater disposal

 

Comment: The proposed development was referred to Council’s Stormwater Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposed stormwater drainage method.

 

 (e)    the public interest.

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

 

Conclusion

43.       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. 

 

Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No 129/2017 should be approved subject to the following conditions.

 

SECTION A - General Conditions

The conditions that follow in this Section A of the Notice of Determination are general conditions which are imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the development consent.

 

(1)       Approved Plans of Consent

 

The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and details listed below and any supporting information submitted with the Development Application except as amended by any conditions attached to the Development Consent:

 

(i)         Architectural plans- Prepared by mijollo Drawing numbers A102-B, A201-A, A202-A, A203-C, A204-A, A205-B, A206-B, A207-B, A208-B, A301-C, A302-CA401-A, A402-B, A403-A, A311-A and A312-A

 

(ii)        Landscape plans- Prepared by Conzept Drawing No LPDA 17-270 (c), LPDA 17-270 (B), LPDA 17-270 (A) submitted with Council on 22 September 2017.

 

(iii)       Stormwater plans- Prepared by Sparks and Partners Job No 17071- Dwg No DA1.01, DA2.01, DA4.01, DA4.02, DA4.05 and DA4.11 Revision 2 dated 7 June 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:

 

·    *Builders Long Service Levy of                                         $135,045.92

·    Driveway Design and Inspection Fee (Dwelling) of        $       940.00

·    Driveway and Restoration Works Design
Inspection Fee of                                                                $  33,300.00

·    Asset Inspection Fee of                                                     $       113.30

 

*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)       Restoration Deposit

 

A deposit of $33,300.00 shall be lodged with Council to ensure the completion of the following works to be completed at the applicant's expense

 

*           Construction of new kerb and gutter across all street frontages of the site.

*           Construction of new footpath across all street frontages of the site.

*           All associated road pavement restorations.

*           Installation of turf as required across all street frontages.

 

These works are to be in accordance with plans and specifications to be issued by Council.

 

(4)       Section 94 Index

 

Section 94 Contributions are to be paid as detailed below in the following condition, and until paid all contributions will be indexed four (4) times a year (on the following dates) to allow for the cost increases: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October.

 

(5)       Section 94 Contributions

 

As at the date of Development Consent the following contributions have been levied on the subject development under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the nominated Section 94 Contributions Plans:

 

No.1 – Roads and Traffic Management – Residential

$    6,389.66

No.5 – Open Space 2007

$404,675.62

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries – Buildings

$    9,029.51

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries – Books

$    6,437.96

 

TOTAL

 

$426,532.75

 

Any of the above Section 94 Contributions Plans may be inspected at the Georges River Council Customer Service Centres.

 

(6)       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.

 

(7)       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.

 

(8)       SEPP No 65 Certification

 

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted that verifying that the plans and specifications achieve the design quality of the development for which consent was granted having regard to the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

(9)       Adaptable Housing Compliance

 

The proposed development including the nominated adaptable units shall comply with the adaptable housing provisions of AS4299 – Adaptable Housing and AS1498 – Access and Mobility (Parts 1 and 2). The Adaptable Housing checklist and circulation diagram demonstrating compliance shall be submitted.

 

(10)     Ausgrid Sub Station

 

The applicant is to confer with Ausgrid to determine if an electricity distribution substation is required. If so, shall be incorporated within the Construction Certificate and it will be necessary for the final film survey plan to be endorsed with an area having dimensions 5m x 4m over the location of the proposed electricity distribution substation to be dedicated to Council as public roadway, or as otherwise agreed with Ausgrid. Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met prior to release of the occupation certificate.

 

(11)     Clearances to Overhead Mains

 

If any part of the proposed structure, within 5m of a street frontage, is higher than 3m above footway level, the applicant is to confer with Ausgrid to determine if satisfactory clearances to any existing overhead mains will be affected. If so, the applicant is to make arrangements with Ausgrid for any necessary modification to the electrical network in question.

 

These works to be at the applicant’s expense and Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met prior to actual construction commencing on site or as agreed with Ausgrid.

 

(12)     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.

 

(13)     Stormwater Plan

The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed and approved as a concept plan only. No detailed assessment of the design has been undertaken. A Detailed Stormwater Plan and supporting information of the proposed on-site stormwater management system is to be submitted. The required details in this Plan and the relevant checklist are presented in the document ‘Water Management Policy. Kogarah Council. August 2006’

 

The design parameters and the general concept of the proposed on-site stormwater management system are to be the same as documented in the approved Concept Stormwater Plan for the proposed development. Any conceptual variations to the stormwater design will require written approval from Council and will require to be justified and supported by appropriate details, calculations and information to allow for proper assessment.

 

The Detailed Stormwater Plan is to address the following issue(s):

 

a)   The Council stormwater pipe is to be located and levelled by careful excavation at the proposed connection point.

b)   A full scaled plan and long section of the proposed stormwater connection from the site boundary to the Council street drainage to be included, indicating the existing levels, design levels of the pipes, pit locations as well as the location and level of all service lines that are in the vicinity of the works. The long section will need to show that the pipes can be installed with adequate clearances from all existing underground service lines. Accurate locations and levels of all underground services under and in the vicinity of the Council footway will need to be included on the design to show that the stormwater connection can be constructed. It will be required that all services are located by either a qualified service locating professional or by careful excavation. A Dial Before you Dig request must be performed. Assumed levels will not be sufficient.

c)   The design is to be amended to allow for the connection at the new grated kerb inlet pit to be made so that the invert of the connecting pipe is at or above the top third of the Council stormwater pipe.

d)   The proposed new grated kerb inlet pit adjacent is to be detailed to have a minimum 1.8 metre lintel.

e)   A suitably qualified engineer is to certify that appropriate design measures have been taken to ensure that the basement levels have been protected from flooding in the case of the On-site Detention system malfunctioning or reaching capacity.

 

(14)     Landscape Plan

 

            All proposed street trees are to be planted in accordance with Councils Street Tree Management Strategy & Masterplan

 

(15)     Compliance with submitted Arborist Report

           

The recommendations outlined in the Arborist’s Report titled Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Naturally trees dated 20 April 2017 must be implemented throughout the relevant stages of construction.  Details of tree protection measures to be implemented must be detailed and lodged with the Construction Certificate application for approval and shall be in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009: Protection of trees on development sites.

         

The tree/s to be protected are listed in the table below.

 

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

Eucalyptus robusta

1 Buchanan Street/ Tree 11

4.8 metres

 

(a)  All trees to be retained shall be protected and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site. 

(b)  The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970 -2009 Protection of trees on development sites. 

(c)  Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist (AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture).

(d)  The Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone to implement the tree protection measures as required.

(e)  Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009, a protective fence consisting of 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence 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 in the table above. 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.

(f)   No services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree unless approved by Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone’ attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

 

Excavation works near tree to be retained.

 

(g)  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.

(h)  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.

(i)   Tree Protection Zone 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.

 

Details satisfying this condition shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

(16)     Tree Removal

         

Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees in the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Naturally trees on 20 April 2017 for 15-21 Hampton Court Road The trees to be removed are numbered:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

 

(17)     General Tree Removal Requirements

 

(a) All tree removal shall 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).

(b) No trees are to be removed on the site or neighbouring properties without the prior written approval of Council.

(c)  Council shall be appointed to remove all tree/s on public land. All costs associated with the removal of the tree/s and the planting of replacement trees shall be met by the applicant. Fees and charges outlined in the table below are subject to change and are set out in the current version of Council's ‘Schedule of Fees and Charges’, applicable at the time of payment.

 

(18)     Overhead Wires

 

            The overhead wires are to be relocated underground.  Consultation is to be held with the relevant authority and details provided to the PCA.

 

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.

 

(19)     Geotechnical Report

 

Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.  In this regard, all excavated waste materials shall be disposed of at an approved Waste Depot.

 

No rock breaking or other machinery for the excavation, drilling, cutting or removal of rock shall be used on the site prior to the acceptance by the principal certifying authority of the following documentation:

 

(i)         A report by a geotechnical engineer detailing the measures recommended in undertaking the works so as to prevent damage to any adjoining or nearby buildings.

(ii)        The type and size of machinery proposed.

(iii)       The routes of all trucks to convey material to and from the site.

 

(20)     On-Site Detention

 

A 40.8m3 On-Site Detention system with a Maximum Site Discharge of 34.6 Litres per Second is to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow is to be directed to the site drainage system.

 

(21)     Certification by Mechanical Engineer

 

To ensure that adequate provision is made for ventilation of the building, mechanical and /or natural ventilation shall be provided. These systems shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of:-

 

a)   The Building Code of Australia;

b)   Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 1 - 1998;

c)   Australian Standard AS 1668 Part 2 - 2002;

d)   The Public Health Act 2010;

e)   The Public Health Regulation 2012;

f)    Australian Standard 3666.1 - 2002;

g)   Australian Standard 3666.2 - 2002;

h)   Australian Standard 3666.3 - 2000.

 

Details of all mechanical and /or natural ventilation systems, along with specific certification, provided by an appropriately qualified person, verifying compliance with the abovementioned requirements.

 

(22)     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.

 

(23)     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.

 

(24)     Ground Anchors

 

Should the proposed development require the installation of ground anchors to a road reserve the following must be complied with:

 

·    The appropriate Roads Act 1993 approvals shall be obtained.

·    The anchoring is to be de-stressed once no longer required.

·    The work is to be clear of all services contained within the public roadway and the required dial before you dig investigations are to be undertaken in relation to any services that may be in the proposed anchor locations.

·    Public liability insurances being held by the builder/ developer with a copy being submitted to Council.

·    A works-as-executed plan showing the exact location of all anchoring points being submitted to Council upon their installation.

 

It is to be noted that if anchoring into adjacent private properties is required any such approval would need to be obtained from the owners of this property.

 

(25)     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.

 

(26)     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.

 

(27)     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.

 

(28)     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.

 

(29)     Inspections -Multi Unit

 

The following lists of inspections are the MANDATORY CRITICAL STAGE INSPECTIONS that MUST be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA).

 

(a)  at the commencement of building works

(b)       prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, for a minimum of 10% of rooms with wet areas within a building, and

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

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

 

Certificates from your engineer or subcontractor are NOT acceptable in the first instance for the above inspections.  Failure to have your PCA carry out these inspections could result in a delay or refusal to issue an Occupation Certificate.

 

In addition to the above, it is recommended that the following inspections be carried out for the subject development;

 

·          Erosion Control

·          Earthworks/Excavation

·          Building setout

·          Concrete reinforcement

·          Timber and/or steel framework

·          Mechanical/Hydraulic work

·          Driveways

·          Landscaping

·          External Finishes

 

(30)     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.

 

(31)     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.

 

(32)     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.

 

(33)     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.

 

(34)     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'.

 

(35)     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.

 

(36)     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.

 

(37)     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.

 

(38)     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.

 

(39)     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.

 

(40)     Garbage Room

 

The proposed garbage room being provided with the following:-

 

a)         A smooth concrete floor graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer of the Water Board.

 

b)         The walls being cement rendered with the intersection of the walls and floor being coved to a radius of not less than 25mm.

 

c)         The door being close fitting to prevent the access of rats and mice.

 

d)         A cold water hose cock being provided for the cleaning of containers and the room itself.

 

e)         Ventilation being provided by means of direct connection to the outside air to the satisfaction of Council.

 

f)          A sign, minimum size 600mm x 600mm, directing residents not to place recyclables in garbage carts and encouraging residents to recycle.  Details of an acceptable wording for the sign are available from Council.

 

(41)     Hours of Construction

 

Construction may only be carried out between 7.00am and 5.00pm on Monday to Saturday and no construction is to be carried out at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday.

 

(42)     Restriction on Hours of Excavation (other than single residential dwelling)

 

Despite the general hours of construction above,

 

a)         The hours where rock breaking, cutting, hammering and drilling occur shall be limited to 9:00am – 4:00pm on weekdays only.

 

b)         A noise management plan for the above works, prepared by a suitably qualified acoustical practitioner in accordance with the Interim Noise Construction Guidelines prepared by the Department of Environment & Climate Change NSW, must be submitted to Council prior to commencement of any excavation works.

 

(43)     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.

 

(44)     Letter Boxes

 

Suitable letter box facilities (including Owner's Corporation in the case of strata units) shall be provided in accordance with Australia Post specifications.

 

(45)     Oil/Silt Separator

 

An oil/silt separator sized to the catchment area must be specified on the Stormwater Detailed Plans and located downstream of the proposed basement car park and prior to discharge to councils stormwater system.

 

(46)     Car Wash

 

To ensure that waste water is treated in an acceptable manner the car wash bay shall be designed and constructed to ensure that waste water is discharged to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water. Evidence of a permit issued by Sydney Water shall be submitted.

 

(47)     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.

 

(48)     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.

 

(49)     Building Finishes

 

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

 

(50)     Residential Car Parking Spaces

 

A minimum of one (1) unrestricted car parking space shall be allocated to each residential unit. Where a three (3) or more bedroom residential unit is provided within the development it is to be allocated two parking spaces in the first instance.

 

(51)     Commercial/Retail Parking Spaces

 

The required commercial/retail car parking spaces shall be allocated evenly amongst the commercial/retail units based on the gross floor area of each unit.

 

(52)     Visitor Parking

 

A directional sign shall be provided at the front of the site indicating the availability of visitor and/or customer parking on site.  Those visitor and/or customer spaces shall be marked or signposted.

 

(53)     Works Zone

 

The installation of a "Works Zone" for the site will require the approval from the Traffic Advisory Committee. As a result, the applicant shall provide a formal request to Council's Traffic Section with the duration and exact location of the required "Works Zone" at least 6 weeks prior to its required installation date.  All costs associated with the installation of a “Works Zone” will be at the applicants expense.

 

(54)     Road Closure Application

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.

 

(55)     Carpark Design

 

The carpark shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of “AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 - Off Street Car Parking”.

 

(56)     Roof and Surface Water

 

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas are to be disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Plan by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2015.

 

(57)     Council’s Stormwater System

 

The works on Council’s stormwater system are to be carried out by a qualified plumber, drainer or civil construction company with a minimum limit of twenty million dollar public and product liability insurance. In this regard, qualification details of the person / company carrying out these works along with a certificate of currency for the product and public liability insurance are to be submitted to Council’s Stormwater section prior to the works commencing. Prior to the works commencing the contractor who will be carrying out the works is required to organise and attend an onsite meeting with a representative of Council’s Stormwater section.

 

            All Inspections of the extension of Council's Street Drainage system will be required to be undertaken by Council’s inspector. Inspections will be required at the following points in construction:

 

            a.         Completion of laying of new Reinforced Concrete pipes and any associated concrete form work.

            b.         Completion of backfilling of trenches.

            c.         Prior to casting or installation of pits.

 

                        Or as advised by Council’s inspector.

 

            The applicant is to organise all inspections with Council's and give a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for each.

 

(58)     Tree Removal

         

This consent does not approve the removal or pruning (branches or roots) of any trees on the subject property, Council’s public footway, public reserves or on neighbouring properties.

 

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.

 

(59)     Adaptable Housing Certification

 

Certification shall be provided by a person suitably accredited by the Association of Consultants in Access Australia, verifying that the development has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of AS4299 - Adaptable Housing and AS1428 - Design for Access and Mobility and in accordance with the report and checklist submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

(60)     SEPP No 65 Certification

 

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted verifying that the development achieves the design quality of the development as shown in the plans and specifications in respect of which the construction certificate was issued, having regard to the design quality principals of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

(61)     Completion of Landscaping

 

Certification shall be provided from a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape Designer or Landscape Architect.  This Certification shall verify that the landscape works have been completed in accordance with the approved detailed landscape plan and relevant conditions of this consent.

 

Note:   A Landscape Designer is a person eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Landscape Designers and Managers and a Landscape Architect is a person eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects as a Registered Landscape Architect.

 

(62)     Consolidation of Lots

 

The lots covered by this development consent shall be consolidated into one lot and proof of registration of the consolidation shall be submitted to Council.

 

(63)     Section 73 Compliance Certificate

 

A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act, 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water / sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

(64)     Stormwater Compliance Certificate

 

A Stormwater Compliance Certificate is to be obtained for the constructed on-site stormwater management systems in conjunction with the works-as-executed drawings and the final inspection. This Certificate is to be signed by an accredited hydraulic engineer (preferably be the original design consultant) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. Copy of the standard Stormwater Compliance Certificate is shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

If the proposed works involve Council owned stormwater infrastructure (or infrastructure to be owned by Council), then the applicant should organise inspection with Council and pay Council the appropriate inspection fee. Inspection is to be carried out at the following specified stages:

 

·     Prior to backfilling of pipelines trenches.

·     Prior to backfilling of drainage connection to pipeline or channels.

·          Prior to casting pits and other concrete structures including kerb and gutter, aprons, pathways, vehicular crossings, dish crossings and pathway steps.

 

(65)     Positive Covenant

 

A Restriction on Use of the land and Positive Covenant shall be created and registered on the title of the property, which places the responsibility for the maintenance of the on-site stormwater management system on the owner of the land. The terms of the instrument are to be generally in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions for Restriction on Use of the land and Positive Covenant shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

 

(66)     Maintenance Schedule

 

A Maintenance Schedule for the proposed on-site stormwater management measures is to be prepared and submitted. The Maintenance Schedule shall outline the required maintenance works, how and when these will be done and who will be carrying out these maintenance works.

 

(67)     Fire Safety Schedule

 

Certain items of equipment or forms of construction shall be nominated as "fire safety measures" within the building.

 

Upon completion of works, and before occupation of the building, each of the fire safety measures is required to be certified by an appropriately competent person (chosen by the owner of the building).  The certificate is to state that the measure was inspected and found to be designed, installed and capable of operating to a standard not less than that required by the relevant regulations.

 

Further, it is the responsibility of the owner of the building that each fire safety measure is again inspected and certified as to its condition every twelve (12) months following the submission to Council of the original certification.

 

(68)     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.

 

(69)     Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

 

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

 

(70)     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.

 

(71)     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.

 

(72)     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.

 

(73)     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.

 

(74)     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.

 

(75)     Demolition Conditions-Asbestos

 

(a)       Demolition of buildings where asbestos is determined to be present should only occur 7am – 5pm Monday to Saturdays, and must not occur on Sundays or Public Holidays, to ensure that the persons carrying out the work have access to WorkCover professionals if required.

 

(b)       All asbestos removal shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover’s ‘How to Safely Remove Asbestos’ Code of Practice and Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

(c)        Written notice must be provided to Georges River Council five (5) working days (excluding public holidays) prior to commencement of any works.

 

Written notice is to include the following details:

·    Date the demolition will commence

·    Name, address, contact details (including after hours) and licence number of the demolisher and asbestos removalist (if different)

 

Work must not commence prior to the nominated demolition date.

 

Note: it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

(d)       The owner is to notify all owners and occupiers of premises on either side, opposite and at the rear of the development site five (5) working days prior to demolition.  Such notification is to be clearly written on A4 size paper stating the date the demolition will commence and is to be placed in the letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any). The demolition must not commence prior to the date and time stated in the notification.

 

(e)       A demolition or asbestos removal contractor licensed under the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).

 

Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by a contractor that holds a current AS1 Friable Asbestos Removal Licence.

 

(f)         Demolition sites that involve the removal of asbestos must display a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm is to be erected in a prominent visible position on the site to the satisfaction of Council’s officers. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility.

 

(g)       All asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. All receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be submitted to Council as evidence of correct disposal.

 

(h)        A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified occupational hygienist must be provided to Council upon completion of demolition and asbestos related works, which confirms that the relevant legislative requirements in relation to safe removal and disposal have been satisfied.

 

(i)         A Work Cover Licensed Demolisher is to be engaged to carry out any demolition works using mechanical equipment where the structure is over 4 metres in height or to carry out any manual demolition works on a structure over 10 metres in height.

 

(j)         The provision of temporary fences and footpath crossing pads prior to commencement of demolition operations.  Further, no waste materials or bins are to be placed on Council's roadways or footpaths.

 

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

 

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

 

(m)      Compliance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-1991:"The Demolition of Structures", which requires notification of demolition to be submitted at least seven (7) days prior to demolition to the NSW Workcover Authority.

 

(n)        Effective erosion and sediment control measures are to be undertaken during the course of demolition and building works in accordance with Council’s ‘Environmental Site Management Policy’.  Failure to implement appropriate measures may result in a $750 Penalty Infringement Notice (individual) and/or $1,500 (corporation) being issued and/or the incurring of a maximum penalty of $250,000 (corporation) or $120,000 (individual) through the Land and Environment Court.

 

(o)       Appropriate measures are to be implemented on site to control dust and other air borne matter and demolition material is to be stored and stacked in a manner so as to minimise the risk of damage or nuisance to neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

(q)       All non-recyclable demolition material being disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot. Details as to the method and location of disposal of demolition materials (weight dockets, receipts, etc.) should be kept as evidence of approved method of disposal.

 

(r)        A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

 

(a)       showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

(b)       showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(c)        stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

The sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed

 

END CONDITIONS

 

NOTES/ADVICES

 

1.  Review of Determination

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application the right to lodge an application with Council for a review of such determination.  Any such review must however be completed within 6 months from its determination.  Should a review be contemplated sufficient time should be allowed for Council to undertake public notification and other processes involved in the review of the determination.

 

Note: Review provisions do not apply to Complying Development, Designated Development, State Significant Development, Integrated Development or any application determined by the Sydney South Planning Panel or the Land & Environment Court.

 

2.  Appeal Rights

 

Division 8 (Appeals and Related matters) Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

 

3.  Lapsing of Consent

 

This consent will lapse unless the development is physically commenced within 5 years from the Date of Operation of this consent, in accordance with Section 95 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

 

4.  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.

 

5.  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.

 

6.  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.

 

7.  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.

 

8.  Disability Discrimination Act

 

This authorisation does not imply that the proposal complies with Disability Discrimination Act 1992.  The Proponent is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.  The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS 1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility.  AS1428 Parts 2, 3 & 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under The Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

9.  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.

 

10.  Property Address

 

Property addresses shall be allocated by Council in accordance with the Addressing Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011.

 

11.  Flood Affected

 

The property; 21 Hampton Court Road, Carlton (Lot 103 of DP1753) is identified as flood affected in the Beverley Park Overland Flow Risk Management Study and Plan 2007 and as such development controls for flood affected properties will apply. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for property has been identified at28.25m (AHD). The property is not identified as being affected by the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year ARI) flood event. As such there are no specific flood controls for this development proposal.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Site Analysis - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

Attachment View2

Elevations - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

Attachment View3

Shadow Diagrams - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.1                           15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

[Appendix 1]           Site Analysis - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

 

 

Page 47

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.1                           15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

[Appendix 2]           Elevations - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

 

 

Page 49

 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.1                           15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

[Appendix 3]           Shadow Diagrams - 15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

 

 

Page 50

 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Page 52

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.2

Application No

DA2017/0114

Site Address & Ward Locality

18 Marine Drive Oatley

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Alterations and additions to dwelling - additional levels to dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling house, new terrace and pavillion to rear and new garage

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer

Owners

Martin and Elyse Allen

Applicant

Those Architects

Zoning

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential

Date Of Lodgement

3/05/2017

Submissions

Eight (8) submissions, then two (2) for renotification from same submitters

Cost of Works

$884,519.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Submissions received and variations to HLEP (building height of 12.06m or 34% variation) and DCP No 1 (external wall height of 11.76m or 63% variation) and solar access (east west orientation)

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Site Plan

Description: Loaction map - 18 Marine

 

Executive Summary

1.         The proposal varies Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (building height of 12.06m or 34% variation) and Development Control Plan No 1 requirements relating to the maximum ridge and external wall heights for a single dwelling house (external wall height of 11.76m or 63% variation). These variations result from the steep fall of the site.

 

Proposal

2.         The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new two (2) levels to the existing dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling with a lift, new terrace and pavilion to the rear and a new garage to the front of the subject site. An open style front fence with a height up to 1.8m above the existing ground level is also proposed. The existing projecting balconies to the rear of the dwelling are to be removed with this application.

 

Site and Locality

3.         The site is located at 18 Marine Drive Oatley (Lot 226 DP 13827) on the western side of the road and has a total site area of 970.7sqm. The site is an irregular shaped site with a narrow street frontage of 10.67m to Marine Drive, rear boundary of 18.29m and an average depth of 68m. The site falls steeply from the street to Georges River at the rear by approximately 41m. There is a fall of approximately 17m within the building footprint of the proposed dwelling on the site, including the void up to a height of 6.11m directly underneath the proposed cantilevered garage to the front of the dwelling.

 

Existing on the site is a three (3) storey single dwelling house with a detached double garage near the front boundary. There is an existing on-site tree near the south western corner of the existing dwelling house, which is not affected by the proposal.

 

Adjoining the site on all sides are multi-levelled dwelling houses with Georges River to the west. The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is affected by the Foreshore Building line. The area is generally residential in character within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Zoning and Compliance with LEP standards

4.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under HLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses and objectives contained within the LEP, except, the proposal does not satisfy the following development standards and a Clause 4.6 variation has been submitted for;

 

·   Clause 4.3 of HLEP 2012 Height of buildings  

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Zoning map - 18 Marine - 1.JPG

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\BOH map - 18 Marine - 1.JPG

Fig 1: HLEP Land Zoning map (LZN_006)

Fig 2: HLEP Height of Buildings map (HOB_006)

 

Development Control Plan

5.         The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the applicable DCP and is considered to be site responsive. However, the proposal does not comply with Councils controls for;

 

·   HDCP No 1, PC2 Building height (maximum ridge and external wall heights for a flat roofed dwelling house)

 

Submissions

6.           Eight (8) submissions were received during the first round of neighbour notification and two (2) submissions were received during the final round of neighbour notification in relation to the proposed development.

 

Level of Determination

7.           The application is referred to the IHAP for determination in view of the number of submissions received and the extent of LEP and DCP variations.

 

Conclusion

8.           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 DA2017/0114 should be approved subject to suitable conditions.

Report in Full

 

Proposal

9.         The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new two (2) levels to form a multi-levelled dwelling with a lift, new terrace and pavilion to the rear and a new garage to the front of the subject site. An open style front fence with a height up to 1.8m above the existing ground level is also proposed. The existing projecting balconies to the rear of the dwelling are to be removed with this application.

 

The Site and Locality

10.         The site is located at 18 Marine Drive Oatley (Lot 226 DP 13827) on the western side of the road and has a total site area of 970.7sqm. The site is an irregular shaped site with a narrow street frontage of 10.67m to Marine Drive, rear boundary of 18.29m and an average depth of 68m. The site falls steeply from the street to Georges River at the rear by approximately 41m. There is a fall of approximately 17m within the building footprint of the proposed dwelling on the site, including the void up to a height of 6.11m directly underneath the proposed cantilevered garage to the front of the dwelling.

 

Existing on the site is a three (3) storey single dwelling house with a detached double garage near the front boundary. There is an existing on-site tree near the south western corner of the existing dwelling house, which is not affected by the proposal.

 

Adjoining the site on all sides are multi-levelled dwelling houses (a number of properties on this side of the street has increased building heights due to the steep fall of the area) with Georges River to the west. The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is affected by the Foreshore Building line. The area is generally residential in character within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Background

11.         03 May 17      Application lodged with Council

01 Jun 17       Application was notified for fourteen (14) days. Council received eight (8) submissions.

31 Aug 17      Further information (DCP variation statement and amended floor plans Rev B) received by Council

15 Sept 17    Further information (design improvement diagrams amended architectural plans Rev D) received by Council

25 Oct 17       Further information (view analysis and view analysis photomontages) received by Council

01 Nov 17      Further information (amended plans Rev E and amended notification plans) received by Council.

03 Nov 17      Application was re-notified for fourteen (14) days. Council received two (2) submissions during the final round of notification.

17 Nov 17      Further information (amended architectural plans Rev H, Clause 4.6 request statement, DCP variation statement, amended BASIX certificate and structural engineer’s report) received by Council.

 

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

13.         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

Complies

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

R2 Low Density Zone

Dwelling houses and ancillary structures are permissible in the zone

Yes

 

Objectives of the Zone

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone

Yes (refer to Cl4.6 below)

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

Existing (ridge – second floor level): 12.26m

 

Proposed (ridge – third floor level bedroom and stairs): more than 9m – max. 12.06m for a distance of 3.7m

Proposed (lift overrun): more than 9m – max. 11.4m for a distance of 3.2m

 

Remainder of the dwelling complies (total depth of the dwelling is 18.3m)

No (1)

4.6 – Exception to Development Standards

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard (Cl 4.6 variation)

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Heights of Buildings under the HLEP 2012. A request for the variation has been provided and is discussed later in this report

Yes (see below)

5.7 – Development below Mean High Water Mark

Objective: to ensure appropriate environmental assessment for development carried out on land covered by tidal waters

No works proposed below the Mean High Water Mark

N/A

5.10 – Heritage conservation

Heritage impact statement required if site involves heritage item

Site does not contain or adjoin a heritage item

N/A

6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan must be prepared

Site not affected by acid sulphate soils

 

N/A

6.2 – Riparian land and watercourses

Objectives: to protect and maintain the water quality within watercourses; the stability of the bed and banks of watercourses; aquatic and riparian habitats; and ecological processes within watercourses and riparian areas

 

Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

“(4)(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact.”

Detached pavilion falls within the “Sensitive Land” on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses LEP Map.

The proposed pavilion is unlikely to involve significant excavation and therefore it is considered to satisfy the objectives of this clause of HLEP and is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental impact as outlined in this report 

 

 

 

Yes (acceptable)

6.3 – Limited development of foreshore area

Permitted: boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, waterway access stairs, swimming pools, fences, cycleways, walking trails, picnic facilities or other recreation facilities (outdoors)

No works proposed below the Foreshore Building Line. The existing boat shed and jetty are to remain unchanged

Yes

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the proposal is mainly situated on the existing building footprint it is not likely to result in any adverse impacts on any significant topographical feature, rock formations, environmental heritage or any significant vegetation, subject to conditions of consent. The detached pavilion is to be located as close to the existing ground level with minimal excavation.

 

The proposed building works supported by a Structural Engineer’s report (prepared by an accredited structural engineer, H & M Consultancy Pty Ltd dated 15 Nov 17)

 

Minimal impacts on the visual environment (discussed under the ‘view sharing’ section of this report)

 

The proposal provides sufficient useable landscaped areas on site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

6.5 – Gross Floor Area of Dwelling House

Site = 970.7sqm

(970.7sqm – 630) x 0.3 + 346.5

 

Max. GFA = 448.71sqm

Proposed GFA = 310.8sqm (includes storage within the garage and detached pavilion to rear)

Yes

6.7 – Essential Services

The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required:

 

* Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage

 

 

* Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

 

 

 

 

* Suitable vehicular access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land

 

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection, subject to the drainage conditions attached to the recommendation

 

New driveway crossing from Marine Drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

 

14.         Detailed Assessment of Variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings Development Standard under HLEP 2012

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Maximum building heights under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 whereby the maximum height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level.

 

Fig 3: Section showing the existing (red) and proposed (blue) increased building heights

 

A Clause 4.6 variation has been provided for the increased heights for the western portion of the third floor level (bedroom and stair way) and lift overrun. A variation to the height can be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the HLEP 2012. In assessing the variation, the questions identified in Clause 4.6 have to be considered. The applicant’s town planning consultants, Hamptons Property Services has provided a response to these questions as detailed below:

 

“1.    Is the planning control in question a development standard?”

 

Comment: The proposal seeks to vary the development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the maximum building heights whereby the maximum height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level. The percentage variation between the proposal and the development standard is 34%.

 

“2.    What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?”

 

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings are discussed below.

 

Cl 4.3    Height of Buildings 

 

Objective (a): Compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality

 

Applicant’s response:

The height of the proposed structure, including the lift overrun, rests at RL 44.2. This is less than the current RL of the pitched roof form at RL 48.93, resulting in an overall improvement to the streetscape appearance of the site, albeit that the garage structure dominates the existing form from the street.

 

In this particular case, the dominance of bulk and scale has two clear perspectives. The first is from Marine Drive (eastern frontage) and the second is from the Georges River (western frontage). The appearance of these frontages is reparably different in terms of bulk and scale, with the eastern frontage being dominated by dwellings and garages dominating the streetscape appearance at a single or two storey heights fronting the street, while three and four storey forms dominate the western frontage. As stated previously, this is as a result of the fall of the land, being some 41m from east to west.

 

From the street frontage, the dwelling itself will go almost unnoticed, with the majority of the front fence enclosing the appearance of the site, save for a small section of the proposed form towards the northern end of this. The only visual element that will be relevant from the street is the lift overrun, which will be approximately 1.3m above the fence height.

 

If one was standing on the footpath adjoining the site boundary, based on standard eye height, the lift overrun would go unnoticed, with only a small proportion of the garage interface visible, if one was looking straight ahead. Further, the garage has a minimum 5.8m setback from the street frontage and would have a very limited visual effect. The garage building line is also generally be consistent with the prevailing building setback along Marine Drive, particularly that to the north of the site, which is also set back a modest distance from the street.

 

If one was standing on the opposing side of Marine Drive, the overall visual impact, based on standard eye height, would see a viewing range of between 0 and 10 degrees; again, the separation distance would, however, see this have limited, if any effect, on the overall appearance of the site.

The proposed fencing treatment, which is of an open style design, as opposed to being a solid wall, which is how many of the frontages present to Marine Drive, ensures that a softer visual appearance will be achieved.

 

As a result of the relocation of the garage, this has resulted in the minimum 15m2 landscaped area being provided within the front setback. The front landscaping of 15.21m2 provided, comprises garden area that will soften the view of the site from the street.

 

Therefore, from Marine Drive, it is considered that the impact of the proposal will be extremely limited and a somewhat softer visual form will be provided than the existing structures within the streetscape.

 

From the eastern side of the site (Georges River), the proposal will present with an additional two storeys.

 

In considering the bulk and scale from this perspective, the view must be considered from the waterway. If one is to take a position of being located 10m from the shoreline, standing in a vessel, the first point that the new structure would be visible is at a 33˚ angle at its lowest point and 38˚ at its highest point; the existing structure intercepts at a 30˚ angle; the difference is therefore negligible.

 

Given the available view corridors, it is much more reasonable to suggest that what would dominate the view line from the waterway, would be the view of structures lower down the site, than would the upper level structures. The proposed pavilion structure, with its RL height at 13.094 is far more likely to be discernible by the naked eye than would the effect of the additional storey being proposed on the dwelling

 

In terms of the effect on No. 16 (to the north) regarding bulk and scale, the position of built form at the existing levels will remain the same. While there will be additional building height, it is considered that this will have limited effect when viewed from the two buildings on No. 16.

 

In terms of bulk and scale, if the effect is to be felt, it will be when one is standing in the rear yard of No. 16. Looking towards the site, the effect of the existing form is what will be experienced, as opposed to the additional building form. At a 50˚ degree angle, from a standard eye height, the existing building form will be visible. It is not until after this point, that the form is apparent.

 

Therefore, in terms of perceived bulk and scale, the extent of the existing form is the dominant visual feature when standing in this private open space area, as opposed to the new form. Therefore, the effect will be limited in this regard.

 

In terms of the effect on No. 20 (to the south) regarding bulk and scale, the position of built form at the existing levels will remain the same. While there will be additional building height, it is considered that this will have limited effect when considered from the dwelling itself, as the proposed new additions are located approximately 7m recessed from No. 20.

 

The effect may be considered more onerous if one was standing in the private open space area of No. 20 and looking in a northerly direction towards the site.

 

If one was standing mid-way in the rear yard of No. 20, looking towards the site, it is apparent that the visual presence of the building form would be the result of the existing structure and not that of the proposed additions.

 

The proposed additions would not be visible until approximately 50˚, when taken from a standard eye height of 1.6m above ground level. This is above an angle of a standard viewing position.

 

It is therefore considered that the effect of the proposal, in terms of the additional storeys, will have limited impact in terms of bulk and scale when viewed from the neighbouring property at No. 20 as the effect of this is derived from the existing structure as opposed to the new addition.

 

Additional shadows will be cast as a result of the proposal however, three hours of sunlight will still be received by the adjoining properties and therefore will not compromise the amenity of the neighbouring developments. The stepped building form, as demonstrated in the revised scheme, improves the existing overshadowing conditions.

 

It is therefore considered that the height of additional storey on the building is consistent with the height, bulk and scale that is defined within the locality and the impact of the additional floors will have no perceivable impact from the street, the waterway, or neighbouring properties.”

 

Objective (b): Visual impact and view loss – private domain

 

Applicant’s response:

 “In terms of visual impact on neighbouring properties, the height of the proposed addition will have no impact to those properties to the east of the site, on the opposing side of Marine Drive, as the level of these is above that of the proposed additional building height.

 

The effect on No. 16 to the north of the site will be limited. This is due to the position of the existing form of No 18, which is forward of the building alignment of rear building on No. 16. Further, the relocation of the garage, which is single storey in nature, would be forward to the existing building line and be consistent with the building alignment of the front building on No. 16. The visual impact would be minimal.

 

The existing first floor of No. 16 intersects with the existing second floor at No. 18. If one is standing on the balcony of No. 16 (RL 33.68), with a standard eye height of 1.6m applied, this results in an RL of 35.28, which is approximately 1.09m above the existing level of the second floor of No. 18 (RL 34.19). As the building is remaining in the same position, this would have the same effect as the existing situation.

 

In terms of the third floor proposed at No. 18, when standing on the balcony of No. 16, the RL commences at RL 36.75. When a standard eye height is added to this, RL 38.35 results. This would intersect approximately 1.05m above the floor level of the proposed third storey of No. 18 (RL 37.30).

 

However, given that the location of this form is generally forward of the building alignment at No. 18, it is considered that there will be limited, if any, effect to No. 16. In addition, the balcony of No. 16 at this level is limited in its size (circa 1m deep) and therefore has limited useful capacity as a private open space area. Therefore, the effect would be limited.

 

In terms of the visual effect when viewed from the property to the south of the site (being No.20), there is one potentially affected location, being the ground floor balcony which has an RL of 38.4.

 

The ground floor balcony relates to No. 18 at the proposed third floor level, which has a floor level of RL 37.30 and a ceiling level of 40.00.

 

The second-floor balcony relates to the proposed garage level, with a floor level of RL 40.30 and a roof level of 43.0.

 

The view enjoyed from No.20 (and properties further south) is an oblique angle across the waterway; all direct views from the balconies of these properties remain intact and are unaffected by the proposal. Therefore, the only potential is for an oblique view to be protected.

 

At the ground floor balcony, this will intersect part-way through the proposed third floor level. The effect is likely to occur to the deeper section of the balcony, on the northern side of this level, with the balance of the balcony retaining the view due to the nature of the viewing angle. The likely angle of effect would commence at approximately 30˚, mid-way along the balcony.

 

Despite that this impact is at a higher level, the position of built form at the lower levels remains generally the same however, reduces the impacts by removing the existing projecting balconies (to the rear of the existing dwelling). The existing building alignment, which is already forward of the building line of adjoining properties, will be reduced as a result also. This is a considered response to ensure that adverse privacy and visual aspects do not result.

 

Therefore, while extending the form, it is not considered that this will have a material impact as the built form position is the same, if not reduced in some parts; therefore presenting limited change, particularly at this angle.

 

There is no effect to the view corridor from the second floor balcony of No. 20. This commences at RL 44.4; when one adds a standard eye height of 1.6m to this, RL 46 results, which is well above the height of the proposed structure.

 

Therefore, on the basis of this being an oblique view, in the same building alignment as the existing structure and retaining all second floor views, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of visual impact and potential view loss.

 

Objective (b): Visual impact and view loss – public domain

 

Applicant’s response:

Beyond that assessment, even if one was to appreciate the site from a further distance, say mid-way across the waterway (approximately 250m from the site), or even further afield to the opposing beach to the west (some 500m from the site).

 

Views directed back to the site would be classified as distant and, in the context of the site, the slope and the existing dwellings enclosing the site on either side would result in negligible, if any, change in this respect.

 

Therefore, the proposed additions will have no consequent in terms of visual impact when viewed from the waterway.

 

Objective (b): Visual privacy

 

Applicant’s response:

Existing balconies located on the perimeter of the building provided full access and no privacy treatment. These projecting balconies are proposed to be removed and the existing glazing located on the northern elevation is proposed to be reduced by more than 15%.

 

As previously discussed, the shadow impacts will not incur significant impact to the neighbouring buildings. The revised scheme has demonstrated an improvement to the extent of overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

 

Objective (b): Solar access

 

Applicant’s response:

In terms of solar access, the height of the proposal will result in the following:

a. A reduced amount of shadow at 9am on 21 June to 20 Marine Drive, on its northern wall.

b. A minor increase to the lower ground floor level of No. 20 at 12 noon

c. Additional shadow cast over the lower ground and ground floor at 3:00pm.

 

In all circumstances, however, the affected locations will retain three hours of sunlight and therefore not compromise the amenity of these areas of the site.

 

Comment: The applicant’s written request to vary the development standard has been considered and it is concluded that the applicant has justified that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. This conclusion has been reached for the following reasons:

 

§  The increased building height resulting from the proposed development is only for the western portion of the third floor level and lift overrun. Variation to the height is for 3.06m (34% variation) and is located at the rear of the dwelling. When viewed from the street the additional height is not readily visible as depicted below.

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Streetscape.JPG

Fig 4: Photomontages showing the existing (top) and proposed (bottom)

 

§  The extent of the view loss is mainly for the water views from the side elevation of the southern adjoining property and upper level living areas and balconies of the upstream properties. However the overall view loss from the proposal is deemed to be ‘minimal’ with the proposal, because most of the existing water views in an easterly direction from these neighbouring properties are retained. Additional assessment on view sharing has been provided in the ‘View Sharing – Planning Principle’ section of this report.

§  The additional height to the development does not result in any detrimental privacy or shadow impacts to adjoining developments. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that adjoining developments will receive sunlight in excess of 3 hours between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter.  A detailed solar assessment has been provided in the ‘Solar Assessment’ section of this report.

§  The floor space ratio of the development complies with the relevant development standard which demonstrates that the height of the development is not a result of additional floor area being provided to the development.

§  The proposed development is indicative of and consistent with developments located in the vicinity of the subject site. The existing developments in the vicinity of the subject site are multi-levelled dwelling houses of similar bulk and scale. It is noted that a number of dwelling house developments on this side of Marine Drive has an increased building height resulting from the steep fall also.

 

Objective (c): Impact on Heritage Items

 

Comment: There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the site that would be adversely affected by the height of this proposal.

 

Objective (d): Transition in built form and land use intensity

 

Applicant’s response:

It is considered that the proposed additions on the site are consistent with the expectations of the zone and the building form on this location. The intensity of the development is also similar to that which exists on neighbouring sites. Therefore, the proposed additions which exceed the building height controls are appropriate in this regard.

 

Comment: The subject site is located at the centre of the low density area and is unlikely to have any detrimental impact upon nearby lower density residential zones. The height non-compliance would have no bearing on built form or land use intensity and is therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the intention of the control.

 

Objective (f): Areas unlikely to undergo change

 

Applicant’s response:

The varying compositions of building form show contemporary architecture and design, mixed with older building forms. The locality is one that is undergoing change. Therefore, it is considered that, as time progresses a greater level of change will be evident, with more contemporary architectural styles evolving over the existing situation.

This objective is therefore considered irrelevant.

 

Comment: The requirements of objective (f) are not impacted by the proposal.

 

Objective (g): Minimise environmental impacts

 

Applicant’s response:

The proposed additions, which result in non-compliant building height, will not result in adverse environmental consequences.

 

There will be no removal of existing vegetation on the site, with the existing landscaped character and setting, which particularly dominates the western side of the site, will be retained.

 

Adequate storm water management and soil and erosion control measures will be in place to ensure that there are no adverse consequences on the natural topography of the land.

 

This being the case, the proposed non-compliant addition (and indeed the development as a whole), will not have any adverse environmental impacts. No disturbance to rock formations will occur with the proposal, as per Council’s controls.

 

Comment: Given the subject site is significantly constrained by the topography of the land and rock outcrop, subsequently there are limits in area that can be built upon with the retention of the existing dwelling on the site, it is considered to be reasonable to allow flexibility for the building height standard. The proposal is considered to be a better outcome in terms of useability, functionality and amenity for the current and future resident of the subject property whilst having minimal environmental impacts.

 

It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed the matters identified in Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.6 and the proposed development is consistent with the objectives identified in Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings. The height of the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties and does not compromise any significant views or heritage items (of which there are none in the vicinity of the site).

 

“3.    What are the underlying objectives of the zone?”

 

Applicant’s response: The proposal is also consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as follows:

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

As identified previously, the site is located in a low density residential environment, with single dwelling houses on substantially sized allotments. The scale of this means that the dwellings have a limited presence to the street and follow the topography of the land, as they are integrated with the natural landscape, towards the waterway.

 

The proposal seeks to provide for the housing needs of the current owners of the site to enable a long-term solution to residing in this location.

 

·        To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

 

The proposal will not compromise the amenity of adjoining properties, having been designed to take account of the positioning of built form on neighbouring allotment to ensure that visual access; visual privacy and solar conditions are retained. The natural features of the site will be retained, with removal of landscaping minimised. There are no cultural heritage features affecting the site.

 

·        To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

 

As is demonstrated in the assessment of this application, the design and layout of the site will ensure a high degree of both internal and external amenity to ensure that indoor and outdoor living arrangements are not compromised and practical living arrangements are achieved to suit family needs.

 

·        To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

 

As stated above, the removal of vegetation from the site is limited, therefore ensuring the natural character of the foreshore is retained, particularly within the foreshore building area.

 

Comment: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives of R2 – Low Density Residential on the following basis:

 

·        The proposal does not seek to alter the primary use of the dwelling and hence it is consistent with the low density character of the area.

·        The proposal is unlikely to have adverse amenity impact on the surroundings subject to conditions attached to the recommendation of this report.

·        The proposal will provide more useable indoor spaces and hence it provide good amenity for current and future residents of the subject property.

·        The proposal has minimal impact on the existing natural environment and retains most of the existing landscaped areas on the site.

 

“4. Is the variation to the development standard consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012?”

 

Comment: The proposal is considered to be site/contextual responsive and appropriate use of the land, which is consistent with the zone and objectives of the development standard. The proposed variation will allow appropriate residential additions of the existing dwelling and is unlikely to cause any unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

For the above reasons there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the non-compliant height of the dwelling. It is also noted that in supporting this Clause 4.6 variation that it is considered unlikely to generate an undesirable precedent within the area. Therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012.

 

“5.         Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?”

 

Applicant’s response:Clause 4.6(1) provides for flexibility in the application of development standards to particular developments. In this case, if the existing building form and the proposed additions do not comply with Clause 4.3 of the LEP which restricts building height to 9m.

 

As detailed above, the maximum height of the existing building is 12.26m and the height of the proposed building varies with a maximum of 12.06m above existing ground level.

The imposition of the height standard in the context of this application has some difficulty attached to this, having regard to the fall of the land, being some 41m from the eastern side to the western side of the site.

The height control, at Clause 4.3, is not expressly excluded from the operation of Clause 4.6. Therefore, it is open to seek, by written request, that the development standard be relaxed in this case.”

 

Comment: The proposed development will result in increased building height for the western portion of the third floor level and lift overrun which has a maximum height of 12.06m (34% variation). The remainder of the dwelling has a maximum height of 9m above the existing ground level, except for the rear of the existing second floor level of the dwelling where it has a maximum height of 12.26m.

 

This was the best option given that the site is constrained by the steep fall of 41m. The new levels of the dwelling have been stepped into the natural slope of the land; incorporates cantilevered garage; and utilises the existing anchorage points of the dwelling to minimise rock/side slope excavation and disturbance of the slope stability.

 

The submitted structural engineer’s report has explored a design option to utilise the void underneath the cantilevered garage in order to reduce the building height of the dwelling, however it was concluded that the new levels of the dwelling cannot be relocated further towards the eastern side of the dwelling, as this design option ‘will require significant excavation into the side slope. Disturbance to the slope stability will most likely be administered…as previously discussed the zone of critical slip of the slope is identified to be in the proximity where the extent excavation is required for this option. Although this option is manageable, the costs to undertake excavation and stabilisation during construction will likely be more than that required for the proposal (cantilevered garage with a void). Further to this, the proposal (cantilevered garage with a void) has less impact on the slope stability…and is the safest option (proposal)” .

 

Furthermore the proposed development with a cantilevered garage with a void is considered to be better design outcome in terms of useability, functionality and internal amenity for the residents of the subject property as it provides continuous stair way (from the existing stairway) and lift that can be used on all floor levels of the dwelling, except for the ground floor level with no lift service. These services for the dwelling are considered appropriate for the site, which is constrained by its downslope of more than 45 degrees from the street level to the ground floor level of the dwelling: sites with a grade of more than 45 degrees is not considered suitable for inclinators or other means of providing safe movement for residents if no continuous stair way or lift is provided.  Flexibility in applying the development standard is considered appropriate in this instance due to the specific site circumstances.

 

The development standard relating to height is not excluded from the provisions of Clause 4.6 and a variation to the development standard can be considered.

 

The proposed variation will allow appropriate residential additions of the existing dwelling and is unlikely to cause any unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties. For this reason there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the non-compliant height of the dwelling.

 

Therefore strict compliance with the maximum building height is considered to be both unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposed development.

 

“6.         Is the objection well founded?”

 

Comment: The Clause 4.6 variation is considered to be well founded, and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the proposal for the reasons stated in this report.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

13.         Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is detailed and discussed in the table below.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

 

Georges River Coastal Management Zone Plan (appropriate conditions imposed to comply with Council’s controls, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 and to mitigate impacts on the coastal area)

Yes

 

 

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Part 3 Council permits for clearing of vegetation in non-rural areas)

Deemed to satisfy the provisions of this SEPP as no trees are being removed with this application

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

15.         The extent to which the proposed double garage complies with the car parking provisions is outlined in the table below.

 

Development

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DS1.5 Layout

AS2890.1 – Min. dimensions (double garage) = 5.4m x 5.4m

Min. 6m x 6m

Yes

DS1.9 Ramp, Transitions & Driveways

AS2890.2 – Ramp & transition grades and height clearance over the ramp

Ramp: Less than 1%

Transition ramp: less than 1%

Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

16.         The proposal has achieved a BASIX Certificate and therefore complies with the objectives of Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1. The proposed development also complies with the solar access requirements of Development Control Plan No1 – LGA Wide.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.7 STORMWATER

17.         The development can drain to Georges River via gravity. Appropriate conditions of consent have been attached to this report, should consent be granted.

 

Stormwater Assessment (Re the Proposal/Concept Stormwater Plan)

 

Existing Stormwater System

Gravity to Georges River

Proposed Stormwater System

Gravity to Georges River

Stormwater objectives for development type met?

Consistent

Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)

Yes

Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?

No

Discharge into same catchment?

Yes

Easement required?

No

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 4.4 DWELLING HOUSES ON STANDARD LOTS

18.         The proposed dwelling has been assessed against the requirements of Section 4.4 of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as shown below.

 

Section 4.4

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

PC2. Building Height

DS2.1. Max. ridge height as per LEP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DS2.2. Max. ceiling height to

external wall = 7.2m

 

DS2.4. Buildings to be staggered or stepped into the natural slope of the land (Steep or sloping sites) 

Existing (ridge – second floor level living room): more than 9m – max. 12.26m for a distance of 4.6m

 

Proposed (ridge – third floor level bedroom and stairs): more than 9m – max. 12.06m for a distance of 3.7m

Max. 11.76m

 

 

 

Stepped into the natural slope of the land

No

See discussion under clause 4.6 earlier in this report

 

 

 

 

No (1)

 

 

 

 

Yes

PC3

Setback Controls

 

Front Setback (Building Line):

DS3.1. Minimum setback from the primary street boundary is:

a. 4.5m to the main building face

 

b. 5.5m to the front wall of garage, carport roof

or onsite parking space

or

 

c. within 20% of the average setback of

dwellings on adjoining lots

 

 

 

Min. 11m to lift from the street

 

Min. 6m

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

N/A

Side Boundary Setbacks:

DS3.4. 900mm – ground floor level

 

 

1.5m - first floor level (FSPA)

Ground (garage):  0.9m (north) – 2.9m (south)

 

Third floor level (proposed): 1.34m (north)/same as existing. Anchorage point provided – 1.5m (south)

Yes

 

 

Yes (acceptable)

 

Rear Setback:

DS3.6. Ground floor level – 3m

 

First floor level – 6m

Where a first floor balcony is proposed at the rear, 6m from the balustrade

Ground floor to rear: Min. 43.36m

 

First floor to rear: Min. 43.36m

Yes

 

 

Yes

PC4. Facades

DS4.1. The dwelling house has a front door or window to a habitable room facing the primary street frontage.

 

DS4.2. The dwelling house incorporates at least two of the

following building elements facing any street frontage:

a. entry feature or portico

b. awnings or other features over windows

c. eaves and sun shading

d. window planter box treatment

e. bay windows or similar features

f. wall offsets, balconies, verandas, pergolas

or the like

 

DS4.3. Garage doors are not wider than 6m

The main entrance to the dwelling faces the street frontage

 

 

 

 

A mix of entry feature, porch and wall offsets, used on the façade of the dwelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.5m

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

PC6. Solar access

DS6.1. Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June (exemptions considered for developments that comply with all other requirements but are located on sites with an east-west orientation)

 

DS6.2. Development complies with the Energy Efficiency section in Appendix 1 of this DCP and BASIX requirements

East-west orientation

 

Overshadowing impact is unavoidable due the site orientation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes (2)/discussed below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

PC7. Visual privacy

DS7.1. Windows of proposed dwelling must be offset from neighbouring windows by 1m, especially windows of high-use rooms.

 

DS7.2. Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed living areas.

Window offsets and hi-light windows are used to mitigate privacy impact.

 

 

 

 

Minimal privacy impact

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

PC9. Vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring

DS9.1. Minimum car parking:

2 car parking spaces

2 car parking spaces provided

Yes

 

PC10. Landscaped areas and private open space

DS10.1. 25% of Site Area

 

DS10.3. The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m in any direction.

 

DS10.4. 15sqm of landscaped area to be provided in the front yard

 

DS10.5. An area of Principal Private Open Space is to be

provided which:

a. has a minimum area of 30m2

b. has a minimum dimension of 5m

c. is located at ground level and behind the

front wall of the dwelling

d. is directly accessible from a main living area

More than 25% of the site

 

2m minimum

 

 

 

 

 

Existing: no landscaped area to front

Proposed: 15.2sqm

 

 

 

 

 

More than 30sqm

 

5m x 5m minimum

 

No change to existing

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptable (given existing structure and topography)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Acceptable

PC11. Stormwater

Drainage by gravity to the adjacent road kerb & Council’s drainage system

 

Drainage by gravity to Georges River

 

See stormwater assessment table provided under the heading ‘DCP No 1 – Section 3.7 Stormwater’ section of this report

Yes

PC14.

Balconies and terraces

DS14.1 - Direct access from a  habitable room at the same floor level

 

DS14.2 - Balconies & terraces include fixed planter boxes and /or privacy screens

 

DS14.5 - Terraces must not be visible from the street

 

DS14.6 - Roof top terraces are not provided

Yes

 

 

 

Barbeque area (south):

Privacy screening required

 

 

Not visible from the street

 

 

N/A

Yes

 

 

 

Yes (by condition)

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

N/A

 

(1) Maximum external wall height (ceiling height)

As mentioned earlier in the report, the maximum external wall height has already been breached by the existing dwelling. The non-complaint external wall height is unavoidable for any first floor additions to the existing dwelling due to the 17m fall directly within the building footprint.

 

The proposal on its merit is considered acceptable and is recommended to be supported on the following basis:

 

* The increased external walls on side elevations are only for a maximum distance of 3.7m when compared to the non-complaint building envelope of the dwelling that currently exists on the site. This variation is inevitable due to the steep slope of the site. The areas of encroachment of the new levels of the dwelling are only for the western rear part of the dwelling which has a minimum 1.5m setback from the southern side boundary.

* In respect to view loss, the proposal has been designed with a flat roof to minimise obstruction of views that surrounding properties benefit from across the subject site.

* The impact from overshadowing from the increased external wall of the proposal is considered minimal between 9.00am and 3.00pm midwinter despite the site orientation (east-west). This matter is addressed in the solar assessment below.

* The street facing façade of the dwelling (to Marine Drive) complies with the maximum external wall height requirement and hence it is not considered to adversely impact on the existing streetscape or to set a precedent in the area.

 

(2) Solar access (east-west oriented sites)

The proposed development results a loss of solar access to the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive, especially 1 x ground floor bedroom window and ground floor balcony to the rear of the southern adjoining property facing the common boundary as shown below.

 

The proposal will cast shadows on the southern neighbour’s ground floor living areas and private open space (useable private open space provided within the balconies to the rear of this neighbour’s property) during the mid-winter solstice, but it is capable of providing the morning sunlight (from 9am to 12midday) to the majority of the private open space (balconies to the rear) of this neighbour’s property due to the height difference between the two properties. The proposed development has a maximum ridge level of RL44 (garage roof) and a maximum ceiling level of RL40.3 for the third floor level which are located below the southern neighbour’s first floor rear balcony level of RL44.4. The extent of shadows is shown on the shadow elevations provided below:

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Shadow elevation 22 Jun 9am.JPG

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Shadow elevation 22 Jun 12pm.JPG

Fig 5: Elevational shadow diagram (9am)

Fig 6: Elevational shadow diagram (12pm)

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\21 Jun 3pm.JPG

Fig 7: Elevational shadow diagram (3pm)

 

The proposal on its merit is considered acceptable and is recommended to be supported on the following basis:

 

* Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 Section 4.4 – Dwelling Houses allows concession on solar access requirement for east-west oriented sites. Nevertheless the proposal provides a minimum 3hours of sunlight on the main living room windows and private open space of the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive.

 

* Overshadowing results mainly from the site orientation and multi-level construction of the proposal.

 

* As discussed in this report, reasonable attempts have been made to improve solar access through the provision of a stepped building form that responds to the topography of the site. It would be unreasonable to insist on other methods of construction such as side slope excavation or single storey construction (whether the application is for a single dwelling house or a dual occupancy building) for all northerly aspect properties in the street as this would only be the viable option to restrict overshadowing impact on all properties to the south, the overshadowing impact is not the only determining factor in the assessment of this application and more onerous standards with respect to the development such as the single storey construction are not required under Section 79C(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 4.7 OUTBUILDINGS

19.         The extent to which the detached pavilion to the rear of the site complies with the outbuilding controls is outlined in the table below.

 

Section 4.7

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

PC1 Floor Space Ratio

Combined floor space cannot exceed the maximum permitted floor space for the site under the LEP

Proposed GFA = 310.8sqm (includes storage and bathroom within the detached pavilion to rear)

 

(FSR = 0.32:1)

Yes

PC2 Maximum Height

Maximum height is 3m

Max. 3m

Yes

PC3 Setbacks

Minimum side setback is 0.9m

1.2m (south)

 

Yes

 

PC4 Landscaped Open Space

25% of the site

More than 25%

Yes

PC5 External Finishes and Claddings

External finishes and claddings have low reflectivity

Conditioned as part of this report

Yes (by condition)

PC7 Stormwater

 

To comply with relevant:

Council policy, BCA and Australian Standard

Refer to the ‘stormwater assessment’ in DCP No1 - Section 3.7 Stormwater

Yes

 

 

Section 94 Contributions

20.         The proposed development requires payment of $8,845.19 of Section 94A contribution based on the provisions of Georges River Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

 

Contribution Type

Contribution Amount

Total Contributions:

$8,845.19

 

Prescribed Matters

21.         Not applicable.

 

Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts

 

Natural Environment

22.         No trees are to be removed from the site. Overall the proposal incorporated sufficient landscaped areas to soften the building especially when viewed from the street. The proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact upon the natural environment as a site/waste management plan, sediment and erosion control plan and drainage plans have been considered and addressed any potential impacts.

 

Built Environment

23.         The proposal does not result in any unacceptable material built environment impacts. The Development Control Plan variations sought with this application are considered acceptable and the site has genuine site constraints with the existing topography and irregular shape of the land. 

             

In terms of overshadowing, the proposal allows a minimum of 3 hours to private open space and windows to habitable rooms on the adjoining properties as required under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as detailed under the ‘Solar access’ section of this report. View loss has been discussed under the ‘Submissions – view sharing assessment’ section of this report.

 

Suitability of the site

26.         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.

 

Submissions

27.         Ten(10) letters were sent to adjoining residents during two (2) rounds of notification periods of fourteen (14) days each round in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Eight (8) submissions (inclusive of duplicate submissions from the same submitter) were received in response to this application. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows.

 

Non compliance with LEP and DCP

28.         Non-compliances with Hurstville LEP 2012 and DCP No 1, particularly in regards to:

 

·   Hurstville LEP numerical standard to the maximum building height

·   Number of storeys (5 storeys as originally submitted)

·   Hurstville LEP objectives of Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

·   Bulk and Scale of the development (excessive size, out of scale and overdevelopment)

 

Comment: The applicant has amended the plans from that originally submitted so that the dwelling house stepped into the natural contours and is three (3) storeys for the entire length of the dwelling that resembles the existing three (3) storey dwelling on the site. The proposed development is not considered to be out of scale when compared to other existing developments in the area that have increased building height due to the topography The overall FSR is well below the maximum allowed.  The concern relating to the non-compliant building height has been addressed in the Clause 4.6 section of this report, which is recommended to be supported.

 

The development’s compliance and variations to the provisions of the relevant requirements are discussed in the report above.

 

Location and size of the proposed garage

29.         Concerns with the proposed garage being located further away from the front boundary, particularly in regards to:

 

·   Potential view loss with the new location of the garage

·   Not keeping with the current established setback of the existing garages of surrounding properties (No 14, 20, 22 and 24 Marine Drive have less than 500mm garage setback from Marine Drive)

·   Increased size of the proposed garage

 

Comment: The proposed garage provides 6m front setback that complies with the current DCP controls. The increased garage setback is considered acceptable as it reduces the dominance of the garage upon the streetscape and provides landscaped areas on the sides of the driveway for visual relief. Also the proposed parking solution improves the current parking situation whereby on-street parking is limited in its availability on Marine Drive.

 

View loss

30.         Concerns with a potential view loss from the proposed development, particularly in regards to:

 

·   Potential view loss with the increased building height of the subject property

·   Water views from ground floor living areas and first floor main bedroom of the southern adjoining property at 20 Marine Drive

 

Comment: The applicant has amended the plans from that originally submitted so that the increased building height is reduced to 3.06m above the maximum 9m permitted rather than 7.22m with the original submission.

 

View sharing assessment

24.         In considering the impact on the built environment the potential view loss as a result of the development has to be considered. The potential view loss relates to the views from the uphill properties on the other side of Marine Drive and 20 Marine Drive which benefits from the existing dwelling to gain side water views and adjoins the southern boundary of the subject site.

 

The applicant has amended the plans from that originally submitted so that the dwelling house stepped with the natural contours and in consideration of the findings of the submitted structural engineer’s report.

 

Land and Environment Court Planning Principles

25.         To determine whether or not this is reasonable the four (4) step assessment as cited from the View Sharing – Planning Principle (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140) by the NSW Land and Environment Court was implemented and considered as follows:

 

First Step –    Water view is valued more than land view.

Whole view valued more than partial view (eg water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one which is obscured.

 

Comment: The views in concern are water views of Georges River. The water view of the uphill property at No 9 Marine Drive is unlikely to be affected (refer to Fig 4 and photo below), however a partial side view from the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine will be affected. No 20 Marine Drive has direct whole water view mainly in a westerly direction which is unlikely to be affected by the proposed development.

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\9 Marine Drv.JPG

Fig 8: Existing view from No 9 Marine Drive

 

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Water view from ground fl balcony- pre.JPG

Description: C:\Users\kkim\Desktop\Desktop\18 Marine Drive Oatley\17 11 17 Amended plans\Water view from first fl balcony.JPG

Fig 9: Pre-development view from the ground floor balcony of No 20 Marine Drive

Fig 10: Post-development view from the ground floor balcony of No 20 Marine Drive

 

Second Step -        The part of the property, that the views are obtained (eg protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front or rear boundaries).

Standing view or view from sitting position.

Expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

Comment: No 20 Marine Drive obtains views across the side boundary. The water view is from the sides of ground floor and first floor rear balconies with the water views available from both sitting and standing positions. The proposal will retain most of the direct whole water views in the westerly direction as the proposed dwelling is stepped into the natural contours and is located well below this neighbour’s property as well as it includes a flat roof to minimise obstruction of views of from the southern neighbour’s upper living areas through the subject site.

 

Third Step -   Extent of the impact / whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. Impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued as more time is likely to be spent in kitchens).

Impact may be assessed quantitatively, or qualitatively (it is usually more useful to assess the view loss this way as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating).

 

Comment: The proposal will mainly impact on the living areas and balcony at the ground floor level of the southern property, which is a partial side view of Georges River. Overall the proposal is considered have ‘minimal’ loss of views, because most of the existing water views from this neighbouring property is retained.

 

Fourth Step - Reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. Compliance with all planning controls would be more reasonable than one that breaches them;

     a) Impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable,

     b) Complying proposal, to determine whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours/ if not, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Comment: The proposal as amended is a more skilful design that results in a better outcome for the site and is considered to be acceptable. The increased building height is results in a relatively minor view loss from the side of the ground floor balcony and living areas on the side elevation of the neighbour’s property.

 

Therefore the proposal in its current form that complies with the majority of planning controls is considered acceptable and the view sharing is considered to be reasonable.

 

Overall the proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable impacts built environment impacts subject to conditions of consent.

 

Overshadowing

31.         Concerns were raised in relation to a potential overshadowing impact, particularly in regards to:

 

·   By any account “three hours of sunlight” in an entire day is inadequate’

·   Clothes drying area within the ground floor balcony will be overshadowed particularly during mid-winter

 

Comment: The proposal provides a minimum 3hours of sunlight on the main living room windows and ground floor balcony of the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive in accordance with DCP No 1.

Solar access has been discussed under the ‘DCP – solar access’ section of this report.

 

Privacy

32.         A concern was raised in relation to the rear balcony from the third floor level of the dwelling. This rear balcony has been deleted with the amended proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation of this report to require appropriate privacy screening for the rear balcony/barbeque area at the second floor level of the dwelling.

 

General concerns and suggestions with this application

33.         The following general concerns in relation to this application were submitted by the neighbours:

 

·   Visual impact on the natural setting of the area (from Marine Drive and Georges River)

·   Character of the local neighbourhood

·   Undesirable precedent with the out of scale development

·   Public interest

·   Disruption – traffic and associated noise from the development during demolition and construction

 

Comment: The proposal has been amended to address the above concerns and is considered to be compatible with the existing dwelling house on the subject site as discussed in the report. Appropriate conditions have been included to deal with the concern relating to demolition and construction works for the proposed development.

 

Mediation/Public Meeting

34.         A formal mediation or public meeting has not been conducted for the development application however the development assessment officer met with resident objectors on site, viewed their properties, and discussed their concerns.

 

Public Interest

35.         The proposed development is of a character that does not conflict with the public interest for the reasons stated in this report.

 

Consultation – Internal Referrals

 

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

36.         Council’s Development Engineer has examined the application and raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being attached to any consent granted.

 

Conclusion

37.         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 the relative State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. 

 

The request for a Clause 4.6 variation to the maximum building height and Development Control Plan variation to the maximum external wall height are supported for the reasons stated in this report, given the subject site is constrained with the existing rock formations and natural slope. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in any unacceptable material built environment for the reasons detailed in the report.

 

The Development Control Plan variations to the maximum external wall height and solar access are supported for the reasons stated in this report. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in any unreasonable impacts on both natural and built environment for the reasons detailed in the report.

 

Eight (8) submissions were received in relation to the proposal. These submissions have been discussed and addressed in the report.

 

Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

DETERMINATION

38.         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 DA2017/0114 for the alterations and additions to dwelling – additional levels to dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling, new terrace and pavilion to rear, new garage and front fence on Lot 154 DP 11934 and known as 18 Marine Drive OATLEY, 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.         DEV6.1 - 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:

 

Description

Reference No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Site Analysis Plan

DA01

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Site Plan

DA02

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Floor Plans (Demolition)

DA03 - DA06

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Ground Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA07

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

First Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA08

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Second Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA09

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Third Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA10

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Garage Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA11

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Roof Plan (Proposed)

DA12

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Section (AA)

DA13

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Section (BB)

DA14

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Section (CC)

DA15

15/11/17

F

Those Architects

Elevation (North)

DA16

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (South)

DA17

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (East)

DA18

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (West)

DA19

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Pavilion Plan

DA20

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Pavilion Elevations

DA21

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

GFA Calculations

DA22 - DA24

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Shadow Diagrams

DA25 - DA30

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Elevational Shadow Diagrams

DA31 - DA36

15/11/17

C & D

Those Architects

View Analysis Montages

DA52 - DA56

15/11/17

B

Those Architects

Schedule of Colours and Finishes

--

28/04/17

--

Those Architects

Survey Plan

19220-1

02/09/16

--

Norton Survey Partners

Waste Management Plan

DA51

--

A

Those Architects

 

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.

 

2.         APR7.2 - Section 138 Roads Act 1993 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.

 

Separate approval is required 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) listed below.

 

An application is required to be lodged and approved prior to the commencement of any of the following works or activities;

 

(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 (eg Opening the road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

 

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

 

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

 

(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 Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.  For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 9330 6400.

 

3.         APR7.3 - Vehicular Crossing - Minor Development - Constructing a vehicular crossing and/or footpath requires a separate approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 prior to the commencement of those works.

 

To apply for approval, complete the Driveway Crossing on Council Road Reserve Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s Website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au. Lodge the application form, together with the associated fees at Council’s Customer Service Centre, during business hours. Refer to Section P1 and P2, in Council’s adopted Fees and Charges for the administrative and inspection charges associated with Vehicular Crossing applications.

 

An approval for a new or modified vehicular crossing will contain the approved access and/or alignment levels which will be required to construct the crossing and/or footpath. Once approved, all work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s specifications applicable at the time, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

4.         APR7.5 - Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council, in the case of local or regional roads, or from the RMS, in the case of State roads, for every opening of a public road reserve to access services including sewer, stormwater drains, water mains, gas mains, and telecommunications before the commencement of work in the road.

 

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.

 

5.         GOV8.12 - Sydney Water - Tap in TM - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Tap in TM to determine whether the development application will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met.  The approved plans will be appropriately endorsed.  For details please refer to ‘Plumbing, building and developing’ section of Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then see ‘Building’, or telephone 13000 TAP IN (1300 082 746).  The Certifying Authority must ensure that a Tap in TM agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to the issue of 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.

 

6.         CC9.1 - Fees to be paid - 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 (available at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au).

 

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 S94 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.

 

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 summary of the fees to be paid are listed below:

 

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service Corporation.  See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/

Builders Damage Deposit

$1,900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$150.00

 

Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017

$8,845.19

 

General Fees

The 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.

 

Development Contributions

The Section 94 contribution is imposed to ensure that the development makes adequate provision for the demand it generates for public amenities and public services within the area.

 

A Section 94A contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan.

 

Indexation

The above contributions will be adjusted at the time of payment to reflect changes in the cost of delivering public amenities and public services, in accordance with the indices provided by the relevant Section 94 Development Contributions Plan.

 

Timing of Payment

The contribution must be paid and receipted by Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

Further Information

A copy of the all current Development Contributions Plans may be inspected or a copy purchased at Council’s offices (Georges River Civic Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville and Kogarah Library and Service Centre, Kogarah Town Square, Belgrave Street, Kogarah) or viewed on Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

 

7.         CC9.13 - Low reflectivity roof - Roofing materials must be low glare and reflectivity. Details of finished external materials including colours and texture must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

8.         CC9.32 - Erosion & Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to ensure:

 

(a) Compliance with the approved Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

 

(b) Removal or disturbance of vegetation and top soil is confined to within 3m of the approved building area (no trees to be removed without approval)

 

(c) All clean water runoff is diverted around cleared or exposed areas

 

(d) Silt fences, stabilised entry/exit points or other devices are installed to prevent sediment from entering drainage systems or waterways

 

(e) All erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition, excavation and/or development works

 

(f) Controls are put into place to prevent tracking of sediment by vehicles onto adjoining roadway

 

(g) All disturbed areas are rendered erosion-resistant by turfing, mulching, paving or similar

 

(h) Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004.

 

These measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of work (including demolition and excavation) and must remain until works are completed and all exposed surfaces are landscaped/sealed.

 

9.         CC9.33 - Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report - Private Land - A professional engineer specialising in structural or geotechnical engineering shall prepare a Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report detailing the current structural condition of adjoining premises including but not limited to:

 

(a) All neighbouring buildings likely to be affected by the excavation as determined by the consulting engineer.

 

The report shall be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

A copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report is to be provided to the adjoining properties (subject of the dilapidation report), a minimum of 5 working days prior to the commencement of work. Evidence confirming that a copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining properties must be provided to the PCA.

 

Should the owners of properties (or their agents) refuse access to carry out inspections, after being given reasonable written notice, this shall be reported to Council to obtain Council’s agreement to complete the report without access. Reasonable notice is a request for access in no sooner than 14 days between 8.00am-6.00pm.

 

10.       CC9.34 - Stormwater System - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Final detailed plans of the drainage system, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering, shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate.

 

All stormwater shall drain by gravity directly to Georges River in a drainage system in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

 

The design of this proposed drainage system must be prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application. 

11.       CC9.36 - Detailed Stormwater Drainage Design - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

12.       CC9.4 - Damage Deposit - Minor Works - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

 

(a) Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $1,900.00

 

(b) Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $150.00

 

(c) Submit to Council, before the commencement of work, a photographic record of the condition of the Council nature strip, footpath and driveway crossing, or any area likely to be affected by the proposal.

 

At the completion of work Council will inspect the public works, and the damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage occurs. Otherwise the amount will be either forfeited or partly refunded according to the amount of damage.

 

13.       CC9.48 - Structural details - Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns and 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.

 

14.       CC9.51 - Engineer’s Certificate - A certificate from a professional Engineer specialising in structural engineering certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure, to support all proposed additional superimposed loads shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

15.       CC9.54 - Geotechnical report - Geotechnical Reports: The applicant must submit a Geotechnical Report, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in geotechnical engineering who holds the relevant Certificate of accreditation as required under the Building Professionals Act 2005 in relation to dilapidation reports, all site works and construction.  This is to be submitted before the issue of the Construction Certificate and is to include:

 

(a) Investigations certifying the stability of the site and specifying the design constraints to be placed on the foundation, any earthworks/stabilization works and any excavations.

 

(b) Dilapidation Reports on the adjoining properties including, but not limited to all properties with a common boundary to the site prior to any excavation of site works.  The Dilapidation Report is to include assessments on, but not limited to, the dwellings at those addresses and any external paths, grounds etc.  This must be submitted to the PCA and the adjoining residents as part of the application for the Construction Certificate.  Adjoining residents are to be provided with the report five (5) working days prior to any works on the site.

 

(c) On-site guidance by a vibration specialist during the early part of excavation.

 

(d) Measures to minimise vibration damage and loss of support to other buildings. Where possible any excavation into rock is to be carried out with tools such as rock saws which reduce vibration to adjoining buildings and associated structures. Where a hydraulic hammer is to be used within 30 metres of any building (other than a path or a fence) the report shall detail the maximum size of hammer to be used and provide all reasonable recommendations to manage impacts.

 

(e) Sides of the excavation are to be piered prior to any excavation occurring to reinforce the walls of the excavation to prevent any subsidence to the required setbacks and neighbouring sites.

 

16.       CC9.6 - Site Management Plan - A Site Management Plan detailing all weather access control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

17.       CC9.78 - Waste Management Plan - A Waste Management Plan incorporating all requirements in respect of the provision of waste storage facilities, removal of all materials from the site that are the result of site clearing, extraction, and, or demolition works and the designated Waste Management Facility shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

18.       CC9.83 - 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:

 

(a) Location of existing and proposed structures, services and  existing trees;

 

(b) Details of earthworks including mounding and retaining walls and planter boxes;

 

(c) Location of proposed plants and a plant schedule showing the plant symbol,  botanical name/ common name; quantity; pot size/; and mature height x width.

 

(d) Details of planting procedure and maintenance;

 

(e) Landscape specification;

 

(f) Details of drainage and watering systems;

 

(g) Details of garden edging and turf; and

 

(h) Any required fencing, retaining walls and other structures not shown on other approved architectural and engineering plans.

 

19.       CC9.85 - Tree Removal prohibited - This consent does not approve the removal or pruning (branches or roots) of any trees on the subject property, Council’s public footway, public reserves or on neighbouring properties.

 

20.       CC9.87 - Tree Protection and Retention - The following trees shall be retained and protected:

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No

1 x Eucalyptus tree

Rear of the dwelling on the subject site

1 x Eucalyptus tree

No 20 Marine Drive to the south of the subject site

 

Details of the trees to be retained must be included on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

General Tree Protection Measures

 

(a) All trees to be retained shall be protected and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site. 

 

(b) The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970 -2009 Protection of trees on development sites. 

 

(c) Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist (AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture).

 

(d) The Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone to implement the tree protection measures as required.

 

(e) Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009, a protective fence consisting of 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence 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 in the table above. 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.

 

(f) No services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree unless approved by Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone’ attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

 

Excavation works near tree to be retained

 

(g) 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.

 

(h) 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.

 

(i) Tree Protection Zone 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.

 

Details satisfying this condition shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

Pier and Beams

 

(j) To preserve the as marked on prepared by dated, the footings of the proposed  shall be isolated pier and beam construction within a metre radius of the trunk. The piers shall be hand dug and located such that no roots of a diameter greater than 50mm are severed or injured in the process of any site works during the construction period. The beam shall be located on or above the existing soil levels.

 

Details of this construction method shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

21.       CC9.9 - BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. A277273_05 must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

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.

 

22.       PREC10.1 - Demolition & Asbestos - The demolition work shall comply with the provisions of Australian Standard AS2601:2001 - Demolition of Structures, NSW Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & 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 PCA 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 & Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011 unless specified in the Act and/or Regulation that a license is not required.

 

All demolition work including the removal of asbestos, shall be undertaken in accordance with the Demolition Code of Practice (NSW Work Cover July 2015)

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

 

23.       PREC10.10 - 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.

 

24.       PREC10.14 - Registered Surveyors Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to the PCA at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

 

(a) Set out before commencing excavation.

 

(b) Floor slabs or foundation wall, before formwork or commencing brickwork.

 

(c) Completion of Foundation Walls - Before any construction of flooring, detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent boundaries and floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.

 

(d) Completion of Floor Slab Formwork - Before pouring of concrete/walls construction, detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent boundaries and floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.  In multi-storey buildings a further survey must be provided at each subsequent storey.

 

(e) Completion of any Roof Framing - Before roof covered detailing eaves/gutter setback from boundaries.

 

(f) Completion of all Work - Detailing the location of the structure (including eaves/gutters) relative to adjacent boundaries and its height relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.  A final Check Survey must indicate the reduced level of the main ridge.

 

Work must not proceed beyond each stage until the PCA is satisfied that the height and location of the building is proceeding in accordance with the approved plans.

 

25.       PREC10.15 - Utility Arrangements - Arrangements are to be made with utility authorities in respect to the services supplied by those authorities to the development. The cost associated with the provision or adjustment of services within the road and footway areas is to be at the applicant’s expense.

 

26.       PREC10.2 - 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.  Such notification is to be a clearly written note giving the date demolition 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 Council advising of the demolition date, details of the SafeWork 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.

 

27.       PREC10.3 - 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.

 

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.

 

28.       CON11.1 - Site sign - Soil & Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a durable site sign, issued by 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.

 

29.       CON11.11 Physical connection of Stormwater to site - No work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system from the land the subject of this consent directly to Georges River via effective erosion control fully located on the development site.

 

30.       CON11.12 - Cost of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on Council property.  Care must be taken to protect Council's roads, including the made footway, kerbs, etc., and, where plant and vehicles enter the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered at their ends.  This construction shall be maintained in a state of good repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

 

31.       CON11.13 - Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.  Penalty infringement Notices may be issued for any offences and severe penalties apply.

 

32.       CON11.2 - Hours of construction for demolition and building work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity is permitted on Sundays, or Public Holidays.

 

Note: A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

 

33.       CON11.21 - Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt.

 

Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials shall be submitted to the PCA and Council, where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

34.       CON11.24 - Excavation works near tree to be retained - Excavation around the tree/s to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root system will not be adversely affected.

 

Where the Tree Protection Zone 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.

 

35.       CON11.3 - Ground levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment boundary, except where indicated on approved plans or approved by Council.

 

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.

 

36.       OCC12.19 - Works as Executed and Certification of Stormwater works - Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the stormwater drainage  system  has  been  constructed  in  accordance  with  the  approved  design  and  relevant  Australian Standards.

 

A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Georges River Council, from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Consultant/Engineer.

 

This Plan and Certification shall confirm that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system satisfies the conditions of development consent and the Construction Certificate stormwater design details approved by the Certifying Authority.

 

The works-as-executed drainage plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer in conjunction with a Registered Surveyor and the works-as-executed plan must include the following details:

(a)     The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes.

 

37.       OCC12.27 - Vehicular crossing - Minor development - The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works shall be constructed by a private contractor at the expense of the applicant, in accordance with the Vehicular Crossing Approval issued by Council’s Engineering Services Division and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works and the issued. 

 

Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

 

NOTE: No stencilled or coloured concrete may be used outside the boundary of the property.

 

The work must be completed before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

38.       OCC12.4 - BASIX Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate in the plans approved with the Development Consent, must be implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

39.       OCC12.5 - BASIX Compliance Certificate - A Compliance Certificate must be provided to the PCA regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate before any Occupation Certificate is issued.

 

40.       OCC12.6 - Completion of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate.

 

41.       OCC12.7 - Post Construction Dilapidation report - Private Land - At the completion of the construction works, a suitably qualified person is to be engaged to prepare a post-construction dilapidation report.  This report is to ascertain whether the construction works associated with the subject development created any structural damage to the following adjoining premises:

 

The report is to be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.  In ascertaining whether adverse structural damaged has occurred to the adjoining premises, the PCA, must compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report required by conditions in this consent.

 

Evidence confirming that a copy of the post-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining properties subject of the dilapidation report must be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

42.       OCC12.9 - Driveways and parking spaces - Minor Development - Internal driveways and parking spaces are to be adequately paved with concrete or bitumen, or interlocking pavers to provide a dust-free surface.

 

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.

 

43.       ONG14.27 - 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.

 

44.       ONG14.5 - Maintenance of Landscaping - All trees and plants forming part of the landscaping must be maintained.  Maintenance includes watering, weeding, removal of rubbish from tree bases, fertilizing, pest and disease control, replacement of dead or dying plants and any other operations required to maintain healthy trees, plants and turfed areas.

 

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.

 

45.       ADV17.13 - Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

 

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

 

46.       ADV17.2 - Long Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986. More information about the scheme and the levy amount you are required to pay to satisfy a condition of your consent can be found at http://www.longservice.nsw.gov.au.

 

The required Long Service Levy payment can be direct to the Long Service Corporation via their web site https://online.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy.  Payments can only be processed on-line for the full levy owing and where the value of work is between $25,000 and $6,000,000. Payments will be accepted for amounts up to $21,000, using either MasterCard or Visa.

 

47.       ADV17.5 - Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

 

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

 

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year.  Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

 

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

 

48.       ADV17.7 - Council as PCA - Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA.  However, if an alternative fire solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation.  In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

 

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.

 

49.       PRES1001 - Clause 97A – BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

 

50.       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.

 

51.       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.

 

52.       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.

 

53.       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.

 

54.       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.

 

55.       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.

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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.

 

58.       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.

 

59.       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.

 

60.       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 Development Assessment Officer, below on 9330-6400 during normal office hours.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

IHAP - Architectural plans - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

Attachment View2

IHAP STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STATEMENT - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

Attachment View3

Photos - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.2                           18 Marine Drive Oatley

[Appendix 1]           IHAP - Architectural plans - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

 

 

Page 96

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.2                           18 Marine Drive Oatley

[Appendix 2]           IHAP STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STATEMENT - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

 

 

Page 123

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.2                           18 Marine Drive Oatley

[Appendix 3]           Photos - 18 Marine Drive Oatley

 

 

Page 152

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Page 157

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

 

IHAP Report No

3.3

Application No

PP2017/0002

Site Address & Ward Locality

12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Revised Planning Proposal - Rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purposes) to R2 Low Density Residential with maximum FSR of 1:1 and building height of 9m

Report Author/s

Strategic Planner

Owners

Learning Links

Applicant

Capital Syndications Pty Ltd

Zoning

 SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose)

Date Of Lodgement

8/06/2017

Submissions

 N/A

Cost of Works

 N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

 For consideration and to seek endorsement to present the revised Planning Proposal report to Council

 

 

Recommendation

1.   That the Georges River IHAP recommends to Council that the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) as follows, be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a.   To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

b.   To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

c.   To include a maximum building height of 9m.

d.   To amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Plan

Figure 1: Aerial view of 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights

 

Executive Summary

1.           A Planning Proposal was lodged by Capital Syndications Pty Ltd for the site at 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights (refer Figure 1) to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”).

 

2.           The IHAP considered the Planning Proposal for the site at its meeting on 26 October 2017. The proposal presented to the IHAP was to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.5:1 and maximum building height control of 9m, consistent with the adjoining B1 Neighbouring Centre. Note: The SP2 Infrastructure Zone does not have FSR and height controls.

 

3.           The IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal at the request of the proponent and recommended that the proponent address the following:

·    Consistency of the existing zoning pattern;

·    The required land uses for the continued operation of Learning Links and to ensure the future long term economic viability of the site; and

·    Built form controls that minimise the adverse impact on the adjoining low scale R2 Low Density Residential development.  It is advisable that a built form analysis of the proposed controls is undertaken.

 

4.           In making the decision to defer the planning proposal, the Georges River IHAP discussed with the proponent the following recommended changes to the current planning controls:

 

·    A change to the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

·    Changing the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

·    Changing the maximum building height to 9m; and

·    Amending Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for the subject property.

 

5.           The Panel provided the following reasons for its decision:

The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built form The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built form outcome.

 

6.           This report considers the Planning Proposal in regards to Division 10 Existing uses of Part 4 Development assessment of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and deems the ‘centre-based child care facility’ component of the site to be permissible on the subject site.

 

7.           By letter dated 6 November 2017 the proponent has written to Council in response to the deferral and has advised as follows:

·    That they accept a change in the proposed zoning from B1 to R2 with site specific permissions within Schedule 1 to the LEP;

·    That they accept a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

·    That they agree to a maximum building height to 9m;

·    That amending Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for the subject property does not assist Learning Links as they do not meet the criteria for an educational establishment under the NSW Standard Instrument for LEPs;

·    That Schedule 1 includes the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

 

8.           This report recommends that the IHAP support the requested amendments to the HLEP 2012 and that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

9.           Although the proposal seeks a rezoning from SP2 to R2, which will result in a broader range of land uses being permitted on the site, the proposal does not seek development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls under the SP2 Infrastructure zone and the proposal is requesting height and FSR controls that are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones.

 

10.         The formula in Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land value under the PP or DA.

 

11.         The proposal also provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties. The existing development is a community facility registered as a not for profit organisation.  As such, Council has not applied the Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy (adopted 1 August 2016) to the Planning Proposal.

 

Report in Full

Proposal

12.         The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) for two (2) lots at the Leaning Links site (No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights) was submitted by Capital Syndications Pty Ltd on behalf of the owner on 8 June 2017.

 

13.         The two lots are known as Lot 58 DP 206906 and Lot 59 of DP 206906 and have a primary street frontage to Pindari Road and a secondary frontage to Pindari Road Reserve.

 

14.         The Planning Proposal lodged on 8 June 2017 sought:

·    To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

·    To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1.5:1; and

·    To include a maximum building height of 9m.

 

15.         The IHAP considered the Planning Proposal for the site at its meeting on 26 October 2017. The IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal at the request of the proponent and recommended that the proponent address the following:

·    Consistency of the existing zoning pattern;

·    The required land uses for the continued operation of Learning Links and to ensure the future long term economic viability of the site; and

·    Built form controls that minimise the adverse impact on the adjoining low scale R2 Low Density Residential development.  It is advisable that a built form analysis of the proposed controls is undertaken.

 

16.         In making the decision to defer the planning proposal, the Georges River IHAP discussed with the proponent the following recommended changes to the current planning controls:

 

·    A change to the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

·    Changing the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

·    Changing the maximum building height to 9m; and

·    Amending Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for the subject property.

 

17.         The Panel provided the following reasons for its decision:

The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built form The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built form outcome.

 

18.         As a result of the IHAP consideration of the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 26 October 2017, the Planning Proposal has been amended by letter dated 6 November 2017 from Innova Capital and now requests the following:

·    To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential zone;

·    To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

·    To include a maximum building height of 9m; and

·    To amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

 

19.         The Planning Proposal as amended also proposes to include maximum FSR and building height controls for the site that are consistent with adjoining R2 Zoning. The maximum FSR proposed is 1.1 and the maximum building height proposed is 9m.

 

20.         The proposed zoning and development standard changes are shown in Figures 10 to 12 below.

 

The Site and Locality

21.         The subject site includes two (2) lots within a combined area of 1,170m2 which are known as No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights and comprise:

 

·    Lot 58 in DP 206906 (No. 12 Pindari Road) is generally rectangular in shape which measures approximately 580m2 and has a frontage of approximately 15.85m to Pindari Road.

 

·    Lot 59 in DP 206906 (No. 14 Pindari Road) is irregular in shape which measures approximately 590m2 and has a frontage of approximately 18.97m to Pindari Road and 38.105m to Pindari Road Reserve.

 

22.         The subject site is owned and occupied by Learning Links which from a legal entity perspective is a company. Learning Links provide a range of services that help support children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy.

 

23.         By letter dated 6 November 2017 Innova Capital has advised that Learning Links is not defined as an educational establishment under the NSW Standard Instrument for Local Environmental Plan as it does not meet the criteria for the definition of an “educational establishment” which is defined as:

educational establishment means a building or place used for education (including teaching), being:

(a)  a school, or

(b)  a tertiary institution, including a university or a TAFE establishment, that provides formal education and is constituted by or under an Act.

 

24.         The subject site consists of the following building and open space elements as shown in Figures 2, 3 to 4 below:

 

·    An elevated building facing Pindari Road with basement area (former church building) that is partitioned as used as an administrative office, tuition rooms and storage space.

 

·    A single storey building to the rear of the site accessed from Pindari Road Reserve that is connected to the main building. This is used as a child care centre (pre-school).

 

·    An outdoor play and recreation area that is partly covered and adjoins the neighbouring dwelling at No. 10 Pindari Road. A high security gate to the outdoor play area runs along the Pindari Road front boundary.

 

 

Description: H:\12-14 Pindara Road, Peakhurst Heights\IMG_8562.JPG

Figure 2: Site as viewed from Pindari Road frontage

 

Description: H:\12-14 Pindara Road, Peakhurst Heights\IMG_8529.JPG

Figure 3: Site viewed from Pindari Road Reserve

 

Description: H:\12-14 Pindara Road, Peakhurst Heights\IMG_8549.JPG

Figure 4: Outdoor play/recreation area as viewed from Pindari Road

 

25.         A summary of the surrounding land is provided below and shown in Figures 5 and 6 below:

 

·    North: To the north of the site are low density residential dwelling houses. No.10 Pindari Road which immediately adjoins the site is a single storey brick dwelling house with pitched roof form and side carport. No. 8 Pindari Road is a two storey dwelling house with pitched roof form.

 

·    East: To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Pindari Road, is Peakhurst South Public School.

 

·    South: Immediately to the south of the site is a public open space area that is known as Pindari Road Reserve. The child care component of the subject site is accessed from this reserve. Further south of the reserve is the Peakhurst Heights Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre.

 

·    West: To the west of the site are low density dwelling houses that front Karwarra Place, which is a cul-de-sac.  The rear boundaries of Nos. 4 and 5 Karwarra Place border the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

26.         It should be noted that there are no heritage items on or within the vicinity of the site.

Description: H:\12-14 Pindara Road, Peakhurst Heights\IMG_8550.JPG

Figure 5: Adjoining low density residential uses along Pindari Road

 

Description: H:\12-14 Pindara Road, Peakhurst Heights\IMG_8533.JPG

Figure 6: Adjacent shop top housing development in the

Peakhurst Height Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre

 

EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

 

27.         The Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the site and the following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

Zoning

 

28.         The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) as shown on the extract of the Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_002 below (Figure 7).

 

29.         The adjoining land to the south is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Peakhurst South Public School on the opposite side of Pindari Road is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

30.         The current SP2 zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and “for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map”.

 

31.         With respect to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in 1968 (refer to discussion below in paragraph 46).

 

32.         The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 is considered overly restrictive to allow the range of uses that are existing on the site and is out of date as the site has not been used as a public of public worship for over 25 years.

 

33.         An assessment was undertaken as to the most appropriate future zoning of the site, consistent with the surrounding zoning. The intention of Learning Links is to formalise the existing uses on the site and to allow future expansion of the community facility to permit offices ancillary to the existing uses, health consulting rooms.

 

34.         With respect to the adjoining R2 – Low Density Residential Zone, the objective of the zone is to provide for the housing needs of the community as well as to encourage development of sites for a range of housing types. Community facilities, health consulting rooms and centre based child care facilities would be permissible in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone. The additional land uses sought by the proponent - office premises; restaurant or café – would need to be included in Schedule 1 to the Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

35.         This approach would allow the primary use of the site as a community facility being maintained. The proposed zoning – now R2 and maximum FSR (1:1) and height limits (9m) are considered appropriate in the context of the adjoining low density residential development. It should be noted that the adjoining low density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height limits of 9m.

 

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd.zip\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ExistingZoning.jpg

Figure 7: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Land Zoning Map

Land Uses

 

36.         The existing uses on the site are defined as a ‘community facility’ and a ‘centre-based child care facility’ under the HLEP 2012. Under the SP2 Zoning of the site child care centres are prohibited. Both of these uses are however permitted in a R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

37.         The HLEP 2012 defines ‘community facility’ as:

 

“a building or place:

 

(a) Owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit organisation, and

(b) Use for physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

But does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation”.

 

38.         The HLEP 2012 defines a ‘centre-based child care facility’ as:

 

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

(i)         long day care,

(ii)        occasional child care,

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

(iv)       preschool care, or

 

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

 

but does not include:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

39.         Learning Links was community founded and has evolved into a community body that has government recognition and some government funding. The legal entity is that of a company limited by guarantee, which is a specialist form of public company expressively designed for non-profit organisations. It is not defined as an educational establishment.

Development Standards

40.         Height of Buildings: the site has no nominated maximum building height as shown on the extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet HOB_002 below (Figure 8).

 

41.         The adjoining and surrounding land has a maximum building height of 9m.

 

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd.zip\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ExistingHOB.jpg

Figure 8: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Height of Buildings Map

 

42.         Floor Space Ratio: the site has no nominated maximum Floor Space Ratio as shown on the extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet FSR_002 below (Figure 9).

 

43.         The surrounding and adjoining low density residential housing has a maximum FSR of 0.6:1. Land to the south in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone has a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

 

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\DAADVR3Q\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ExistingFSR.jpg

Figure 9: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Floor Space Ratio Map

 

APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

44.         The chronological events of the Planning Proposal are described below:

 

·    On 8 June 2017, the applicant’s Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) was lodged with Council.

·    On 19 June 2017, an email was sent to the applicant setting out areas to be further addressed in the Planning Proposal.

·    On 10 July 2017, the applicant submitted the additional information requested by Council.

·    On 4 August 2017, the applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal with proposed mapping.

·    On 26 October 2017 IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal and recommended the following changes to the Planning Proposal:

o A change to the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

o Changing the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

o Changing the maximum building height to 9m; and

o Amending Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for the subject property

o

·    By letter dated 6 November 2017 the proponent amended the Planning Proposal to seek the following:

o To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

o To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

o To include a maximum building height of 9m.

o To amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

 

45.         The site has a long history of being owned and occupied by Learning Links which is a community facility and associated child care centre.

 

46.         Council’s records show the following Building Application and Development Application approvals for the site:

 

·    BA-758 was granted in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville to use the rear of the site as a “pre-school kindergarten”. At this time, the site was being used as a place of public worship by the Baptist Church’.

·    DA 479/90 was granted on 18 December 1990 by former Hurstville City Council for office space and after school accommodation.

·    Section 96 Modification for DA 479/90 was granted on 10 May 1995 to amend Condition 4 relating to operating hours. The S96 states that “the pre-school operates between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday. The office and after school accommodation operates between the hours of 9.00am and 7.00pm, Monday to Friday”.

·    DA 970/99 was granted on 9 December 1999 by former Hurstville City Council for access stairs and ramp to front of building.

 

47.         The SP2 Infrastructure zone was not extensively reviewed in the preparation of the HLEP 2012. The SP2 zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and “for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map”.

 

48.         In regards to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in 1968 (as detailed above in paragraph 46).

 

49.         The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 is considered overly restrictive. The current SP2 zoning for the site is considered out-dated. The site has not been used as a public of public worship for over 25 years.

 

50.         The proposed R2 Low Density Residential zoning for the site and the additional Schedule 1 uses (office premises; restaurant or café) allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed zoning and maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate. The adjoining low density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height limits of 9m.

 

Summary of Planning Proposal Request

51.         The Planning Proposal request submitted on 4 August 2017 included the following documents which form the basis of the Planning Proposal request considered in this report:

 

·    Planning Proposal report revised 2 August 2017 (refer Attachment 1)

·    Appendix 1 – Copy of Submission on the Draft Georges River Council Employment Lands Study (refer Attachment 2)

·    Appendix 2 – Site Survey

 

52.         The Planning proposal was amended by letter dated 6 November 2017 from Innova Capital. A copy of the letter is contained in Attachment 3.

 

53.         The Planning Proposal requests the following amendments to the HLEP 2012 in relation to the site:

 

·    Amend Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_002 to rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential.

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map - Sheet HOB_002 to include a maximum height limit of 9m.

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map – Sheet FSR_002 to include a maximum FSR of 1:1.

·    Amend Schedule 1 – Additional permitted Uses to include the following:

 

Use of certain land at 12 and 14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst

(1)  This clause applies to land at 12 and 14 Pindari Road Peakhurst being Lot 58 and Lot 59 DP.206906.

(2)  Development for the purpose of an office premises; restaurant or café is permitted with development consent.

 

54.         The proposed changes to the LEP maps are outlined below (Figures 10 to 12):

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd.zip\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ProposedZoning.jpg

Figure 10: Proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone

 

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd.zip\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ProposedHOB.jpg

Figure 11: Proposed Building Height Map to 9m

 

Description: C:\Users\cmcmahon\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\DAADVR3Q\PP2017-0004_12-14PindariRd_ProposedFSR.jpg

Figure 12: Proposed FSR Map of 1:1

 

THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

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

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

 

56.         Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 outlines that a planning proposal must explain the intended effect and the justification for making the proposed instrument and must include the following components:

 

·    A statement of the objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed instrument (Part 1).

·    An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument (Part 2).

·    The justification for those objectives, outcomes and the process for their implementation (Part 3).

·    Maps, where relevant, to identify the intent of the planning proposal and the area to which it applies (Part 4).

·    Details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken on the planning proposal (Part 5).

 

57.         The information below addresses the requirements for Planning Proposals.

 

Objectives and Intended Outcomes

58.         The objective of the Planning Proposal is to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

 

a.   Changing the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential.

b.   Providing a height of building control of 9m (currently there is no maximum height).

c.   Providing a Floor Space Ratio control of 1:1 (currently there is no maximum FSR).

d.   Amending Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to include office premises; restaurant or café.

 

59.         The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:

 

a.   Ensure the existing and approved use of the land is a permissible form of development in the zone.

b.   Ensure principal building envelope controls (height and FSR) are legislated to allow for any future redevelopment of the site.

c.   Provide certainty in the community in relation to any future redevelopment of the site.

 

Explanation of Provisions

60.         The proposed intended outcomes will be achieved by amending the Hurstville LEP 2012 as follows:

 

a.   Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential.

b.   Amend the Height of Buildings Map to include a maximum height limit of 9m.

c.   Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to include a maximum FSR of 1:1.

d.   Amend Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to include office premises; restaurant or café as being permitted with consent on the site

 

61.         It is noted that currently under the HLEP 2012 there are no maximum height or FSR controls for the site due to its SP2 Infrastructure zoning.

 

62.         The Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the standard controls that apply to the development of R2 Low Density Residential zoned land from the perspective of permissible uses and maximum building heights. This is considered appropriate given the surrounding context and the existing usage of the site as a community facility and centre-based child care facility.

 

63.         The maximum FSR surrounding the site is 0.6:1. The Planning Proposal seeks an FSR of 1:1.

 

64.         The Planning Proposal impacts the relevant zoning map, height of buildings map and FSR map. The Planning Proposal also impacts Schedule 1 to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Strategic Planning Context

65.         The revised draft South District Plan (October 2017) and draft Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities are on public exhibition until mid-December 2017 and apply to the Georges River Council area.

 

66.         Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the current plans and strategies (A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy), draft plans, draft Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities, draft revised South District Plan, Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 and Draft Employment Lands Study is provided below.

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy)

 

67.         The Planning Proposal is consistent with the aims of A Plan for Growing Sydney which was adopted in December 2014. It achieves the following relevant Goals and Directions:

 

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

·    Direction 1.10: Plan for education and health services to meet Sydney’s growing needs.

 

68.         The Planning Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by retaining employment land that is currently used as a child care centre and community facility that helps support children with learning difficulties and disabilities. The location of the site, opposite Peakhurst South Public School, benefits the community and future residents.

 

Goal 3:          Sydney’s great places to live

·    Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs

 

69.         The Planning Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by allowing permissible uses that revitalise the local community and contribute to an attractive suburb. The proposal ensures the site be used for employment land providing business activity for the area and meeting the needs of a growing population.

 

Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan – A metropolis of three cities

 

70.         The draft Greater Sydney Region Plan has ten directions:

·    A city supported by infrastructure

·    A collaborative city

·    A city for people

·    Housing the city

·    A city of great places

·    A well connected city

·    Jobs and skills for the city

·    A city in its landscape

·    An efficient city

·    A resilient city

 

71.         The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the ten provisions of the draft Plan.

 

Draft South District Plan

 

72.         In relation to the revised draft South District Plan (October 2017) which proposes a 20 year vision for the South District, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the following planning priorities:

 

·    Planning Priority S1 Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

·    Planning Priority S2 Working through collaboration

·    Planning Priority S3 Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

·    Planning Priority S4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

·    Planning Priority S5 Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs and services

·    Planning Priority S6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

·    Planning Priority S7 Growing and investing in the ANSTO research and innovation precinct

·    Planning Priority S8 Growing and investing in health and education precincts, and Bankstown Airport trade gateway as economic catalysts for the District

·    Planning Priority S9 Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

·    Planning Priority S10 Protecting and managing industrial and urban services land

·    Planning Priority S11 Supporting growth of targeted industry sectors

·    Planning Priority S12 Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

·    Planning Priority S13 Protecting and improving the health and enjoyment of the District’s waterways

·    Planning Priority S14 Protecting and enhancing bushland, biodiversity and scenic and cultural landscapes and better managing rural areas

·    Planning Priority S15 Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

·    Planning Priority S16 Delivering high quality open space

·    Planning Priority S17 Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently

·    Planning Priority S18 Adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change

 

73.         The Planning Proposal to rezone the site to R2 Low Density Residential addresses a number of planning priorities in the Plan but specifically in relation to: S3 Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs; S4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities; S6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage; and S8 Growing and investing in health and education precincts, and Bankstown Airport trade gateway as economic catalysts for the District.

 

74.         The proposal protects the employment land of the Learning Links site and the provision of existing children’s educational support services in the local community.

 

75.         The proposed rezoning provides opportunities for new ancillary uses to cluster around existing health and education facilities. The site’s immediate adjacency and accessibility to Peakhurst South Public School addresses priorities of the Plan in relation to planning for connected and stronger economic and employment centres where proximity of health and educations assets creates significant opportunity to drive economic activity and a sustainable and liveable city.

 

Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025

 

76.         The former Hurstville City Council endorsed the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 on 3 June 2015. It is the overarching strategy for Council’s objectives and operations. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the principles of the Plan.

 

Draft Employment Lands Study

 

77.         A report on the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study was considered by Council at its meeting on 3 April 2017 where Council resolved to place the draft Study on public exhibition.

 

78.         The area to the south of the subject site is zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone and is known as the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct

 

79.         The draft Study considers Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as a centre that has opportunity to accommodate growth. The Precinct is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Key land uses in the zone are neighbourhood shops and shop top housing such as hairdressing, yoga studio, and podiatry.

 

80.         Surrounding land uses are predominantly low density residential. The Learning Links site and Peakhurst South Public School are located on Pindari Road and adjoin the Precinct.

 

81.         The current development standards within the Precinct are a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and building height limit of 9m. The draft Study makes the following recommendations in respect to the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct:

 

a.   Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

b.   Increase the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

c.   Review land uses in the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to allow additional land uses.

 

82.         The draft Study identifies the opportunity across all B1 Neighbourhood Centres as an increase of permitted maximum height of building. The current height limits the potential for the permitted FSR of 1.5:1 to be realised.

 

83.         The subject site is not included in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as it is not currently zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

 

84.         The Learning Links facility is one of the largest employers in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct. The site generates a significant amount of employment for the local area and wider community.

 

85.         It comprises approximately 22 full time staff, 47 part time staff, 122 causal staff and 1 volunteer. Submissions on behalf of the subject site were made during the public exhibition of the draft Employments Lands Study requesting consideration of inclusion into the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

 

86.         The site, despite currently being zoned SP2 Infrastructure plays a vital role in providing employment for the precinct. The Planning Proposal supports the viability of the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct. 

 

State and Regional Statutory Framework

87.         State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) deal with matters of State or regional environmental planning significance. A review of the prevailing list of SEPPs was conducted by the applicant at the time of lodgement (dated 8 June 2017) and no applicable SEPP was identified.

 

88.         On 1 September 2017, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 was gazetted.

 

89.         The SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State by:

(a)          improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for educational establishments and early education and care facilities, and

(b)         simplifying and standardising planning approval pathways for educational establishments and early education and care facilities (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(c)          establishing consistent State-wide assessment requirements and design considerations for educational establishments and early education and care facilities to improve the quality of infrastructure delivered and to minimise impacts on surrounding areas, and

(d)         allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or use of surplus government-owned land (including providing for consultation with communities regarding educational establishments in their local area), and

(e)         providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing, and

(f)           aligning the NSW planning framework with the National Quality Framework that regulates early education and care services, and

(g)         ensuring that proponents of new developments or modified premises meet the applicable requirements of the National Quality Framework for early education and care services, and of the corresponding regime for State regulated education and care services, as part of the planning approval and development process, and

(h)         encouraging proponents of new developments or modified premises and consent authorities to facilitate the joint and shared use of the facilities of educational establishments with the community through appropriate design.

 

90.         The SEPP also introduces a common assessment framework made up of the Child Care Planning Guideline and non-discretionary development standards. The Guideline contains key national requirements and planning and design guidance for child care facilities and will generally prevail over local development control plans.

 

91.         The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP by legitimising the existing centre-based child care facility land use on the subject site and henceforth allowing future upgrades and/or expansion of the early education facility on site. This will ensure the essential services currently provided on the site are protected whilst promoting the employment growth and viability of the Peakhurst Heights Neighbourhood Centre.

 

S117 MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS

 

92.         Ministerial Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 set out a range of matters to be considered when preparing an amendment to a Local Environmental Plan.

 

93.         The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant ministerial directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 1 below:

 

S117 Direction

Assessment

3.1 Residential Zones

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The Planning proposal seeks to rezone the land from SP2 to R2. The R2 zone will allow a range of residential uses as well as uses that support the local community.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The site is proposed to be rezoned to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone.

 

The proposal also seeks to amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of A Plan For Growing Sydney, as assessed in report above.

 

 

EXISTING USE RIGHTS

 

94.         Under Division 10 Existing uses of Part 4 Development assessment of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, existing use is defined as the use of a building, work or land for which development consent was granted before the commencement of a provision of an environmental planning instrument having the effect of prohibiting the use.

 

95.         In accordance with the above definition, the existing development on the site is deemed to possess existing use rights in that the use of a ‘centre-based child care facility’ was approved prior to the commencement of the HLEP 2012. The use was approved as a ‘pre-school kindergarten’ under BA-758 in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville. The former Hurstville City Council also approved ‘office space and after school accommodation’ in 1990 under development application DA 479/90.

 

96.         The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential Zone will ensure the ‘centre-based child care centre facility’ is a permissible form of development in the zone. The existing child care centre benefits the community which is the intent of the existing special use zone ‘Church and Community Purpose’.

 

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

97.         The Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements. The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

 

98.         Clause 5.3 of the Policy states that where either a Planning Proposal is proposed, or development consent is sought, which will result in an exceedance of development standards, resulting in an inherent increase in value of the land or development, the concept of land value capture may be used to assess the appropriate contribution.

 

99.         Although the proposal seeks a rezoning from SP2 to R2, which will result in a broader range of land uses being permitted on the site, the proposal does not seek development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls under the SP2 Infrastructure zone and the proposal is requesting height and FSR controls that are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones.

 

100.       The formula in Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land value under the PP or DA. In this regard, it would be difficult to assess the uplift as there may not be any uplift due to the existing use rights on the land.

 

101.       As outlined above, the existing development is community facility registered as a not for profit organisation. The site is owned by Learning Links and operates as a community facility that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The site also consists of a community based pre-school that is owned and run by Learning Links.

 

102.       The Planning Proposal is seeking to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and allowing for a broadening of land uses that would be consistent with the existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to R2. The proposed height and FSR are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones, being 9m and 1:1

 

103.       The proposal also provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties.

 

104.       For these reasons, Council has not applied the VPA Policy to the Planning Proposal.

 

Community Consultation

105.       Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

106.       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.

 

107.       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.

 

108.       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 (if required),

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

 

Conclusion

109.       The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential Zone allows for the continuation of existing and approved community facility and centre-based child care facility uses.

 

110.       The proposed R2 zoning is considered an appropriate zone for the site. It allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater flexibility for redevelopment of the site for future upgrades and expansions. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed new zone ensures that future uses are compatible with existing surrounding uses.

 

111.       The proposed zoning and maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate.

 

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

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of Planning Proposal request

8 June 2017

Report to Georges River IHAP on Planning Proposal

December 2017 (this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

December 2017

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

March 2018

Anticipated timeframe for completion of any further technical information

April 2018

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

May 2018

Commencement and completion dates for community consultation period

June 2018

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

July 2018

Reporting to Georges River IHAP on community consultation

August 2018

Reporting to Council on community consultation and finalisation

August 2018

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

September 2018

Anticipated date for notification.

September 2018

 

113.       It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the DPE and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

 

NEXT STEPS

114.       The Planning Proposal 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 forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

115.       If Council resolves not to support the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has the opportunity to request a pre-Gateway Review by the Planning Panels under the delegation of the Greater Sydney Commission. An applicant has 40 days from the date of notification of Council’s decision to request a review.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Original Planning Proposal lodged

Attachment View2

Copy of submission on the Draft Georges River Council Employment Lands Study

Attachment View3

Letter dated 6 November 2017 from Innova Capital amending the Planning Proposal

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.3                           12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

[Appendix 1]           Original Planning Proposal lodged

 

 

Page 186

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.3                           12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

[Appendix 1]           Original Planning Proposal lodged

 

 

Page 225

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.3                           12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

[Appendix 1]           Original Planning Proposal lodged

 

 

Page 226

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.3                           12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

[Appendix 2]           Copy of submission on the Draft Georges River Council Employment Lands Study

 

 

Page 228

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) - Tuesday, 5 December 2017

3.3                           12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

[Appendix 3]           Letter dated 6 November 2017 from Innova Capital amending the Planning Proposal

 

 

Page 231