Georges River Council – Minutes of Local Planning Panel - Thursday, 12 December 2019

Page 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES


Local Planning Panel

 

Thursday, 12 December 2019

4.00pm

 

Georges River Civic Centre,

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Members:

 

Mr Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Mr Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

Ms Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member)

Mr Cameron Jones (Community Representative)

 

 

 

1.                APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

There were no apologies received

 

 

Helen Deegan declared an interest in Item LPP058-19  - 71-73 Jubilee Avenue Carlton and took no part in the site inspection or the deliberations of this item.

 

2.                PUBLIC SPEAKERS

 

The meeting commenced at 4.00pm and at the invitation of the Chair, registered speakers were invited to address the panel on the items listed below.

 

The public speakers concluded at 5.27pm and the LPP Panel proceeded into Closed Session to deliberate the items listed below.

 

3.                GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL REPORTS

 

LPP057-19        5-11A Wyuna Street Beverley Park

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       John Totterdell (submitter)

          ●       Leesha Payor on behalf of Colin Shanks (submitter)

          ●       Leesha Payor (submitter)

          ●       Benjamin Black (planner)

          ●       Phillip Lord (architect)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

The Panel is satisfied that:

 

1.      The applicants written request under Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 seeking to justify a contravention of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings development standard has adequately addressed and demonstrated that:

 

(a)        Compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

(b)        There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

 

2.      The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standards and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0516 for the site consolidation, tree removal, demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building development comprising sixty four (64) residential units with basement car parking and associated landscaping and site works at 5-11A Wyuna Street, Beverley Park, is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 12 November 2019 except;

 

1.    Amend Condition 1 to read as follows:

 

Description

Reference No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Site Analysis/Site Plan

DA002

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Site Plan

DA005

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Basement 2 Floor Plan

DA100

26/4/2019

B

PBD Architects

Basement 1 Floor Plan

DA101

26/4/2019

B

PBD Architects

Ground Floor Plan

DA102

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Typical L1-3 Floor Plan

DA103

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

L4 Floor Plan

DA104

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

L5 Floor Plan

DA105

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Roof Plan

DA106

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Elevation North

DA201

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Elevation South

DA202

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Elevation East

DA203

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Elevation West

DA204

25/8/2019

C

PBD Architects

Sections AA & BB

DA301

26/4/2019

B

PBD Architects

Sections CC & DD

DA302

26/4/2019

B

PBD Architects

Landscape Plans

L/00, L/01, L/02, L/03, L/04 and L/05

22/11/2018

E

ATC A Total Concept

 

Statement of Reasons

·           The proposal is an appropriate response to the “up-zoning” of the site (including increased Floor Space Ratio and height limits) afforded by the Kogarah “New City Plan”. The six (6) storey building will provide an effective transition between future six (6) and seven (7) storey development facing the Princes Highway and two (2) storey low density residential on the opposite side of Wyuna Street

·           The proposed development complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan except in the height of the development which is considered acceptable having regard to the justification provided in the report above.

·           In this case the Clause 4.6 Statement is considered to be well founded and the non-compliance with the height control is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

·           The proposal generally achieves compliance with the Apartment Design Guide with respect to both internal and external amenity. Building separation requirements in particular are for the most part compliant and where numerically non-compliant, visual privacy impacts will be mitigated by the use of screening and other appropriate measures.

·           The proposed design has been sensitively considered to be consistent with the anticipated desired future character for development in this area.

·           The proposal has effective façade modulation and wall articulation that will serve to provide visual interest and reduce the bulk of the building.

·           The proposal aims to provide a high-quality building that will establish a positive urban design outcome, setting the architectural and planning precedent in the area.

 

Strategic Comments by the Panel

The Panel recommends that Council’s Strategic Planning Team consider a review of the appropriateness of the current zone and controls in the context of the Panel in consideration of the application for 5-11A Wyuna Street Beverly Park, it recommends that Council undertake a comprehensive traffic study/report on the up-zoned area comprising John Street, Wyuna Street and Princes Highway between Park Road and Stubbs Street to address the potential traffic management issues of this locality and identifies and implements options arising from the report.

 

Furthermore Council should give consideration to the rezoning of the eastern side of John Street and Wyuna Street Beverley Park between Park Road and Stubbs Street to provide a transition from the R3 zone to the adjoining R2 zone within this precinct putting in place appropriate controls to manage transition between zones.

 

Council should give consideration to providing a transition in development form of the properties within the R3 zone between Park Road and Stubbs Street Beverley Park to provide a built form transition between the R3 zoned land and the R2 zoned land on the eastern side of John Street and Wyuna Street Beverley Park.

 

 

LPP058-19        71-73 Jubilee Avenue Carlton

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Suzanne O’Connor (submitter)

          ●       Jim Apostolou (applicant)

          ●       Stephen Kerr (planner)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

Helen Deegan declared an interest in Item LPP058-19  - 71-73 Jubilee Avenue Carlton and took no part in the site inspection or the deliberations of this item.

 

The decision of the remaining Panel members was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Deferral

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0277 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of five (5) storey shop top housing development containing twenty three (23) residential apartments, ground level commercial/retail space and basement parking at 71-73 Jubilee Avenue, Carlton, be deferred and invites the applicant to submit an application under Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 seeking to amend the development application with amended plans to address the matters identified in the assessment report.  Such an application must be made within 60 days of the date of this determination.

 

The application is to be referred back to a public meeting with the majority of the same Panel members.

 

Strategic Comments by the Panel

The Panel recommends that Council’s Strategic Planning Team consider a review of the appropriateness of the current zone and controls in the context of consideration of the application for 71-73 Jubilee Avenue Carlton raised concerns with the B6 zoning controls as outlined in Clause 6.9 – Development in Zone B6 and the ability for the allotments within this zone, given the allotments sizes and depths and no amalgamation plan, for the current lot layouts to provide development designs that can meet the criterion outlined in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, particularly in the ability to provide vehicle servicing and access arrangements.

 

 

LPP059-19        89-91 Railway Parade Mortdale

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Jim Apostolou (applicant)

          ●       Andrew Robinson (planner)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0439 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey shop top housing development containing a commercial/retail tenancy on the ground floor and a total of nineteen (19) apartments and thirty one (31) car parking spaces within the basement and associated site works at 89-91 Railway Parade, Mortdale, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposal fails to meet the objectives of Clause 2.3 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The development is located in the B2 Local Centre zone and the proportion of the retail component on the ground floor of the development is deficient in size (comprising of only 6% of the GFA) and will not adequately satisfy the key objectives of the zone which aim to create a development that will “provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area and to encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.” The site is located in a business zone and is considered to be developed as an extension of the Mortdale Town Centre and as such emphasis for redevelopment is to create a viable and functional town centre with the integration of a variety of business uses. The development fails to fulfil the intent and purpose of the zone.

 

2.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposed design and built form will establish and undesirable precedent for future development in the street and zone and will have a poor relationship to the siting and setbacks of the approved mixed use development at 85-87 Railway Parade, Mortdale (currently under construction). The proposal is not considered to be in keeping or in character with the desired future character of development within this B2 precinct. The building in its current form will be a bulky and visually dominating element when viewed from the street as the building setback at the front is not in keeping with 85-87 Railway Parade, Mortdale.

 

3.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposal fails to comply with the control, objectives, purpose and intent of Part 3G (Separation distances) of the Apartment Design Guide as part of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development as the development fails to provide for adequate side setbacks and physical separation distances and does not satisfy the intent of the control which is to provide for an equitable sharing of setbacks and provide acceptable levels of physical separation between buildings to reduce potential amenity impacts for occupants and neighbours. The lack of physical separation along the western side will adversely affect the amenity of No.93 Railway Parade by accentuating the visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

4.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposal fails to comply with  Part D1, Section 3.5 (Setbacks) of the Kogarah Development Control Plan in that the building does not provide for a minimum 3m side setback where it adjoins the residential dwelling house at 93 Railway Parade, Mortdale. The lack of setback, separation and the proposed scale and bulk of the building will have a detrimental and adverse amenity and visual impact onto this immediately adjoining property.

 

5.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposal fails to comply with Part B4, Section 5 (Loading Requirements) of the Kogarah Development Control Plan in that the building does not provide for a Loading Bay to service the commercial component.

 

6.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the development fails to satisfy the provisions of Part B4, Section 4 of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012 in respect to vehicular access and parking due to the narrow site width which creates a poorly defined main entry point and the narrow width compromises the width of the driveway which is only 3.3m. This narrow access is insufficient for a development of this scale and density. The narrow width of the driveway will potentially cause conflicts between vehicles entering and leaving the site and create queuing on the street. Pedestrian sight distances are also comprised due to the driveway width. In this respect the proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of AS2890 in respect to vehicular access arrangements for the site.

 

7.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the development fails to satisfy the provisions of Part B5, Section 2 (Waste and Recycling Requirements) of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012 in respect to the design and size of the waste storage area. This area does not cater for a designated waste area associated with the commercial component of the development. The current bin storage area will need to be reconfigured to include space allocation for the commercial component in conjunction with the residential bin storage.

 

8.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in respect to sites suitability to accommodate this scale and form of development. The narrow site width will establish an undesirable built form precedent for future development in the precinct. Whilst this development does not require an electrical substation, adjoining single sites may require this element in the future rendering the site’s largely undevelopable. Site consolidation and amalgamation is required in this case to create a more viable, attractive and integrated development that will result in a better streetscape outcome for the future.

 

9.    The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the Applicant has failed to provide enough evidence to justify that the adjoining site at No.93 Railway Parade cannot be purchased and the owner is not open to selling the site for a genuine market value.

 

10.  The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(b) in that the proposal will have an adverse economic impact in the longer term for the locality due to the inappropriately sized commercial component of the development and the failure to deliver the growth in employment land in this business zone.

 

11.  The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(b) in that the development is not considered to be suitable for this site given the site’s narrow width  which restricts the potential to create a viable and functional ground floor commercial uses, an adequately sized driveway access and a built form that is more conducive to the business zone and the design is not considered to be consistent and sympathetic with the built form of recently approved mixed use developments within the precinct.

 

12.  The proposed development fails to satisfy the provisions of Section 4.15 (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in that the proposed development is not in the public interest as it does not satisfy the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone and will establish an undesirable urban design and planning precedent for the site and immediate area due to the form and siting of the building.

 

 

LPP060-19        38 Hillcrest Avenue Hurstville

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Radhika Sharma (applicant)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. REV2019/0012 for the Review of Determination - Construction of a secondary dwelling and removal of trees at 38 Hillcrest Avenue, Hurstville, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the built environment as the development will impact the existing neighbouring dwelling to the rear, and the existing dwelling on the subject site, and the proposal will provide inadequate areas of private open space.

 

2.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant environmental planning instruments in terms of the following:

 

(a)  The proposal fails to satisfy the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 as the proposal requires the removal and transplant of existing site trees, one of which is identified as a critically endangered species under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

3.         Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections Chapter C1 of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013:

a.    Section 1.2.2 – building height of a detached secondary dwelling;

b.    Section 1.2.4.3 – rear setback of a detached secondary dwelling.

 

4.         Impacts on the Environment - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the following aspects of the environment:

 

(a)  Natural environment:

                       i.          The proposal does fails to provide an adequately sized deep soil area which precludes the planting of canopy trees at the rear of the site; and

                      ii.          The proposal includes the removal and transplant of existing site trees, one of which is identified as a critically endangered species under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

5.         Suitability of Site - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

(a)  The site cannot adequately accommodate the proposed dwelling without significant adverse impacts on the existing trees on the site and breaching the maximum height control and minimum rear setback control.

 

6.         Public interest - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest and is likely to set an undesirable precedent within the locality.

 

 

 

4.                CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

The meeting concluded at 6.25pm

 

 

 

                                                                                    

 

Paul Vergotis

Chairperson

 

Michael Leavey

Expert Panel Member

 

 

 

Helen Deegan

Expert Panel Member

 

Cameron Jones

Community Representative