AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

John Brockhoff (Expert Panel Member)

Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

Annette Ruhotas (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a) 23 Bay Road Oatley

b) Ramsgate Villiage - 193-201 Rocky Point Road, 66-68 Ramsgate Road and 2-6 Targo Road Ramsgate

c) 261 Princes Highway Carlton

d) 1-3 English Street Carlton

e) 296 Forest Road Hurstville

 

 

 

 

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)

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 17 December  2019

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP061-19        296 Forest Road Hurstville (Central Plaza) - MOD2019/0191

(Report by Consultant Planner)

LPP062-19        261 Princes Highway Carlton - DA2018/0059

(Report by Consultant Planner)

LPP063-19        1-3 English Street Kogarah - DA2018/0358

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP064-19        Lot 23, 23 Bay Road Oatley - MOD2019/0097

(Report by Independent Assessment)

LPP065-19        Ramsgate Village Planning Proposal - 193– 201 Rocky Point Road, 66-68 Ramsgate Road and 2-6 Targo Road, Ramsgate - PP2019/0001

(Report by Independent Assessment)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

 


 

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Tuesday, 17 December 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP061-19

Development Application No

MOD2019/0191

Site Address & Ward Locality

296 Forest Road Hurstville (Central Plaza)

Hurstville Ward

Proposed Development

Modification Application - Erection of 4000mm wide by 2000mm deep LED Display Screen mounted on a 5200mm wide by 5000mm high stand with associated speakers and support columns

Owners

Georges River Council

Applicant

Georges River Council

Planner/Architect

Unilumin Group Co Ltd

Date Of Lodgement

23/10/2019

Submissions

One (1)

Cost of Works

N/A

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Georges River Council is the Owner and Applicant of the application

List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy No.64 – Advertising Signage, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Georges River Catchment

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

Hurstville Development Control plan No.2 (Amendment No.9)

List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration

LED Screen Elevation Plan

Steel support structure plan

LED Screen Plan

General Arrangement Site Plan

Report prepared by

Consultant Planner

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No - the applicant can review the conditions when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Site outlined in red

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         The proposal seeks to erect a LED Display Screen measuring 4000mm wide by 2000mm deep on a 5200mm wide by 5000mm high stand together with speakers and their support columns. The LED Display screen is proposed to be a feature facility within the Hurstville Central Plaza (Plaza) and will enable community events, feature events and the like to be televised and or displayed for the general public. This is a compatible form of ancillary development within the Plaza having regard to the proposed activities previously referred to within the:

 

-      Central Plaza Plan of Management 2016, prepared by JMD Design; and

-      Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) report of 18 May 2017 for approval of DA2017/0049 for the creation of the Plaza.

 

Site and Locality

2.         The site is within the Hurstville Town Centre, approximately 20m from the Hurstville rail station, diagonally opposite the main pedestrian entrance to the rail station from Forest Road. The site has an area of approximately 1385sqm, is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of approximately 26m wide x 60m long. The northern end of the site terminates at an existing pedestrian ramp that provides access into the Westfield Shopping Centre. This ramp is located within the road reserve of Crofts Avenue.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

3.         The site is zoned B3 Commercial Core under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed development is assessed as an ancillary activity to the primary use being a “Recreational Area”, known as Central Plaza, this use is permissible in the zone.

 

Submissions

4.         One (1) submission was received which raised a question with regard to the use of the LED digital screen for public entertainment purposes. The submitter was unable to be contacted as phone calls were made and emails sent with no further response being received. It is noted that the documentation accompanying the application clearly identified that the LED screen would be used for community notices and for special events, which may include public entertainment.

 

Conclusion

5.         The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The proposed LED digital screen, speakers and their supporting structures are considered to be ancillary to the permitted use and the relevant assessment provisions. As a result the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

6.         The modification application (MOD2019/0191) is submitted under the provisions of Section 4.55 (1A) and Section 4.15 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 seeking amendments to the approved plans as outlined below:

 

·    Installation of a 4m long by 2m high LED display screen with side speakers on supporting steel framework that elevates the LED screen 5m above ground level. The proposed LED screen is to be located in the front section of the existing landscaped garden bed at the southern end of Hurstville Central Plaza as depicted in Figure 1 below.

·    Installation of four (4) Bose articulated array speakers (100W output) 2 to be fixed adjacent to the proposed LED display screen and two (2) within the Plaza. These speakers are proposed only to be used during special and cultural events with the screen to be mute the remainder of the time.

·    The primary use of the LED display screen and speakers is as a community notice board, community entertainment and for special event and cultural events on a less frequent nature. In this regard it is proposed to be operated on a 24/7 loop for community and Georges River Council information and events updates.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

7.         The subject site is 296 Forest Road Hurstville being Lot 16 DP4799 and is located between Forest Road to the south, Crofts Avenue to the north and Diment Way to the west. The site to the east, 282 Forest Road is currently a construction site which benefits from an approval for a multi-storey commercial and retail building.

 

8.         The site is within the Hurstville Town Centre, approximately 20m from the Hurstville railway station, diagonally opposite the main pedestrian entrance to the rail station from Forest Road.

 

9.         The site has an area of approximately 1385sqm, is rectangular in shape and has dimensions of approximately 26m wide x 60m long. The northern end of the site terminates at an existing pedestrian ramp that provides access into the Westfield Shopping Centre. This ramp is located within the road reserve of Crofts Avenue.

 

10.       As can be seen in the photos below the Plaza is mostly complete with intricate paving throughout, seating areas, landscaped areas and lighting, all combining to create an outdoor area that can be utilised by the community both for general outdoor recreational use as well as for staged events and cultural celebrations.

 

Figure 1: Proposed location of the LED display screen in the front section of the existing landscaped area highlighted in blue

 

 


Figure 2: Onsite photo of “Hurstville Plaza” looking south towards Forest Road where the screen is to be installed

 

Figure 3: Mock-up of proposed LED display screen in Central Plaza (Source: Applicant Document)

 

Figure 4: View looking south to landscaped area where the LED display screen is proposed to be positioned

 

Figure 5: View from back of landscaped area looking north across “Hurstville Central Plaza” where the screen is to be installed

 

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

11.       The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 4.15 "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Section 4.55 (1A) Modification under Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979

12.       The proposal has been considered against the relevant statutory provisions as a matter of minimal environmental impact as follows;

 

(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact

A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

 

13.       Comment: The proposed LED display screen, speakers and support structures are considered to be of minimal environmental impact having regard to the following:

 

·     The structures have a small physical footprint within the Hurstville Central Plaza and will not unreasonably impact the public use of the Plaza;

·     The primary use of the LED display screen is to provide a 24/7 community event displays which would not involve elevated volumes;

·     The LED display screen is proposed to be used to broadcast major social, sporting or community events, which will be audible, these are estimated to be minimal events in number annually.

 

14.       Suitable conditions of consent, dealing with volume controls and frequency of events broadcast, will ensure that the LED display screen and speakers do not unreasonably impact the amenity of the public domain or significantly impact nearby premises.

 

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

15.       Comment: The proposed installation of the LED digital screen and speakers does not change the intent of the original DA (DA2017/0049), which was to create a public plaza in accordance with the Council endorsed (Hurstville Central Plaza) Plan of Management (PoM) prepared by JMD Design, 2016. It is noted that the proposed LED digital screen and speakers are considered to compliment the use being part of the same approved development considering:

 

·     PoM identified activities in the Plaza to include Community Notices but does not specify how this would be achieved, thus Display Screens/Speakers, or any other form of fixed or portable notice board structure, would be an effective and appropriate method to publicise community events.

·     The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) report of 18 May 2017 which granted consent for the creation of Central Plaza noted as follows:

 

-      The Plaza would include erection of a Council signage/notice board; and

-      Identified that a location adjacent to the Westfield ramp would be suitable for a LED screen structure for screening of movies, community notices/events, sporting events and the like.

 

·     The proposed installation of the LED digital display screen and speakers will compliment and strengthen the objectives of the Hurstville Plaza PoM, specifically the recreational use of the Plaza for staging of events and cultural celebrations (one of the key permitted uses under the Plaza PoM).

·     The original electrical plan layout for the Plaza provided suitable outlets in the positions identified for the Screen and speakers, pre-empting future electrical requirements within the Plaza.

·     There is no identifiable adverse impact on general amenity, privacy or overshadowing by the proposal on the adjoining commercial and retail premises.  

 

16.       Suitable conditions of consent can be imposed to ensure that the LED screen and speakers do not adversely impact the amenity of the future public domain or nearby premises, including:

 

i.    Inclusion of a remote cut-out switch should the noise generated create unacceptable amenity concerns for future residents within the proximity of the Plaza;

ii.   Requirement that a bi-annual acoustic report be prepared, and submitted for Council consideration and action on any appropriate recommendations, which carries out an analysis of noise generation on six (6) occasions annually, inclusive of at least three (3) amplified events, from monitoring points at each end of the Plaza, being Forest Road and Crofts Avenue. This procedure should continue for six (6) years from the date of approval to provide a broad analysis of the facilities operational impacts.

iii.  Operation of amplified broadcasts from the LED screen/speakers will be terminated by 10:00pm daily, except where major events are programmed to occur, including festivals (eg Chinese New Year), sporting events (eg Olympic Events) or musical presentations (eg Mardi Gras) or the like, that have been notified to the general public through the LED Screen/Speaker system for a minimum of 14 days prior to the event occurring to ensure the general public are fully informed.

 

(c)   it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)    the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)   a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

17.       Comment: In accordance with the provisions of Councils Public Notification process, the application was placed on neighbour notification for 14 days and one (1) submission was received. The submission was in the form of an enquiry as to the purpose of the display screen whether it was for entertainment purposes. The person who made the submission was contacted by telephone and email but has not responded to these enquiries.

 

Section 4.15 Assessment

18.       An assessment of the application with regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is provided as follows.

 

(a)(i)        any environmental planning instrument,

19.       Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 applies to the site. The relevant provisions of this local environmental plan are addressed as follows.

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

20.       The subject site is subject to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

 

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

21.       The subject site is zoned B3 Commercial Core and the approved use as a “recreation area is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent, the screen and speakers are considered ancillary to this approved use. 

 

Figure 6 – Zoning map with the site outlined in red

 

22.       The proposed installation of the LED digital screen and speakers will strengthen the recreational use of Hurstville plaza for staging of events and cultural celebrations

 

23.       Accordingly the proposed development satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

Clause

Standard

Assessment Under HLEP 2012

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

B3 Commercial Core

 

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

(a) a children’s playground, or

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposed development is an ancillary use within a recreation area, being the “Hurstville Central Plaza” under the Hurstville LEP2012

In the B3 zone, recreation areas are permissible with consent and the subject LED screen and speakers proposed are ancillary to the recreational use.

 

Objectives of the Zone

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

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

Noting these are structure, however they do not exceed 5m in height.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

N/A

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

N/A

5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation

Consent is required for pruning or removal of specified vegetation

N/A

5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by Development Control

Plan

Any tree or vegetation to be removed that is not specified in DCP No.1

 

N/A

6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made to relevant provisions.

 

N/A

6.7 – Essential Services

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

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

* Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

* Suitable vehicular access

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising Signage (SEPP 64)

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

 

Schedule 1

 Assessment Criteria

Proposal

Complies

1.   Character of the area

·    Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

 

·    Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

 

Proposed LED screen and speakers are located in the Hurstville CBD, within Hurstville Plaza which is an area for outdoor entertainment and recreation.

 

 

Yes

 

2.   Special areas

·    Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

 

No environmentally sensitive areas are affected by the proposed LED screen and speakers.

Further conditions of consent will ensure that noise and illumination will not adversely impact any nearby areas.

 

 

Yes

 

3.  Views and vistas

·    Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

 

·    Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

 

·    Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

 

No important views are affected by the proposal.

 

 

5m high screen is located such that it does not affect the skyline or vistas.

 

 

No impacts on any other signage in this locality.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4.   Streetscape, setting or landscape

·    Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

·    Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

·    Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

 

·    Does the proposal screen unsightliness

 

 

·    Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

 

·    Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

 

 

The proposed LED screen is an appropriate size given its intended use and its location in the front of the existing landscaped area at the southern end of Hurstville Plaza.

 

The screen will add to the visual interest of this outdoor recreational and entertainment venue.

 

 

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

The proposed LED screen is a neat and attractive structure that is not unsightly.

 

The LED screen is lower than all adjacent buildings in the area and is also lower than the numerous light poles within the Plaza.

 

Existing landscaped garden bed requires maintenance but this is independent of the LED screen.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

5.   Site and building

·    Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

 

·    Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

 

 

·    Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

 

The proposed LED screen is an appropriate size given its intended use and its location in the front of the existing landscaped area at the southern end of Hurstville Plaza.

 

 

The screen has been designed and proportioned to suit its purpose and the site conditions of the Plaza in which it is situated.

 

Yes this modern LED screen is an innovative way of providing information to the public.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

6.   Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

·    Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

 

The screen is at a height that keeps it safe from the public and the public safe from it being elevated 5m at its highest point and 3m at its lowest point. The site is well lit and located within the front of a landscaped area so is not a hazard to pedestrians.

 

 

Yes

 

7.   Illumination

·    Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

 

·    Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

·    Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

 

·    Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

 

·    Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

 

The illumination level of the proposed LED screen is approximately 14 to 18k lumens. The 12 light poles in the Plaza give out 11.6k lumens each. Accordingly the LED screen is not considered to provide an unnecessary degree of illumination.

Further, it will be conditioned that :

1.   the illumination level must be adjustable so that if illumination levels cause a public nuisance then the level of illumination can be reduced.

2.   a curfew can be made by a condition of consent if a public nuisance is caused.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

8.   Safety

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

 

 

 

 

 

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

 

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

 

No, the screen faces away from Forest Road and is at the opposite of the plaza to Crofts Avenue, being some 55m away and unlikely to be affected as a pedestrian ramp to Westfield runs between the Plaza and Crofts Avenue.

 

Proposed LED screen is elevated 3m above ground level so it does not affect pedestrian or bicycle safety.

 

Proposed LED screen is elevated 3m above ground level so does not reduce sightlines for pedestrians

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

25.       The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal does not generate any additional stormwater, therefore remaining consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

26.       Not applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 (Remediation of Land)

27.       The proposal involves minor excavation works, excavated holes to accommodate support poles, in a location that has recently been redeveloped for public use.  As part of the development application to create Central Plaza, DA2015/0176, a Hazardous Building Materials Survey, dated 23 December 2014 and prepared by HIBBS & Associates Pty Ltd, was considered as part of the approval of the demolition of the existing building on the land. It is unlikely that any contamination issue would now eventuate from the proposed minor excavation works.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

28.       The Department of Planning and Environment has announced a Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, which will repeal and replace the current State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land.

 

29.       The main changes proposed include the expansion of categories of remediation work which requires development consent, a greater involvement of principal certifying authorities particularly in relation to remediation works that can be carried out without development consent, more comprehensive guidelines for Councils and certifiers and the clarification of the contamination information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates.

 

30.       Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land.

 

31.       Given the recent development of this location to create the Central Plaza it is not considered the excavation for the footings is considered acceptable and it is not unlikely that contamination will be experienced.

 

Draft Environment SEPP

32.       The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018.

 

33.       This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property.

 

·      Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·      Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·      Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

 

Any other matters prescribed by the regulations

34.       The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan No 2 Amendment No 9

35.       The relevant Development Control Plan (DCP) is the Hurstville DCP No 2 Amendment No 9, relating to the Hurstville town centre “Retail Core”, which came into effect on 28 February 2019.

 

36.       The DCP calls up key principles of the Hurstville City Centre Concept Masterplan 2004 which included the creation of a new sequence of linked public spaces comprising arcades, public squares and pocket parks that capitalise on topography.

 

37.       Part 4.5.2 of the DCP states the desired future character is for, “New development will build on its highly active pedestrian environment, and multiple narrow retail frontages, interlinked with laneways and arcades”. Activating the ground level is recognised as important and within the public domain the use of widened footpaths for passive activities (outdoor dining, retailing, seating, landscaping) should generate a vibrant and lively environment. The proposed modification to accommodate a LED Digital Screen and associated speakers within the Hurstville Central Plaza reacts positively to the public area policies by enhancing and increasing the use of the Plaza and attracting people to this public space.

 

Part 6.1 of Hurstville DCP No 2 Public Domain

38.       Part 6.1 Public Domain of the DCP states that:

 

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

 

Clause 6.1.5.3 – Advertising Opportunities from New Technologies..…….Controls….... (b) Signage involving animation, video screens and other forms of movement are generally inappropriate, where they are likely to adversely impact on residential areas or pedestrians amenity or safety, or are likely to distract motorists.”

 

39.       The proposed LED Screen and Speaker concept is considered to be consistent with the goals and intent of Part 6.1 as stated above, especially as the advertising/broadcasting of special events and cultural events help attract and entertain the public within the Hurstville Central Plaza and do not result in unreasonable or adverse amenity concerns on residential properties.

 

Variations or Non-Compliances

40.       The proposed LED screen and speakers are considered to comply with the requirements of Hurstville DCP No 2; accordingly there are no variations or non-compliances.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

41.       There are no natural environment issues associated with the proposed LED screen and speakers.

 

Built Environment/ Urban Design

42.       The proposed LED screen and speakers will enhance the built environment of the town centre by attracting the public to this area and providing entertainment during special events and cultural events, as well as providing the general public with information at other times.

 

43.       The locality accommodates development that is commercial/retail in nature with the nearest residential apartments being over 100 metres from the LED screen position.  On this basis late night operation of the LED screen would not currently result in any significant amenity impacts.  It is noted, however, that shop top housing is a permissible form of housing within the B3 Commercial Core Zoning and therefore opportunity exists for residential development to occur in the future in this locality and due regard needs to be given to the amenity that would be available to that future residential component.

 

44.       On this basis it is considered appropriate to impose the following conditions on the amplified operation of the LED screen during evenings that would ensure reasonable evening/late night amenity can be maintained in the locality:

 

a)    Inclusion of a remote cut-out switch should the noise generated create unacceptable amenity concerns for future residents within the proximity of the Plaza;

b)    Requirement that a bi-annual acoustic report be prepared, and submitted for Council consideration and action on any appropriate recommendations, which carries out an analysis of noise generation on six (6) occasions annually, inclusive of at least three (3) amplified events, from monitoring points at each end of the Plaza, being Forest Road and Crofts Avenue. This procedure should continue for six (6) years from the date of approval to provide a broad analysis of the facility operational impacts.

c)    Operation of amplified broadcasts from the LED screen/speakers will be terminated by 10:00pm daily, except where major events are programmed to occur, including festivals (eg Chinese New Year), sporting events (eg Olympic Events) or musical presentations (eg Mardi Gras) or the like, that have been notified to the general public through the LED Screen/Speaker system for a minimum of 14 days prior to the event occurring to ensure the general public are fully informed.

 

Social Impact

45.       It is anticipated that the proposed development will have a positive social impact upon the broader Hurstville community by providing a facility to broadcast public information and significant events as well as enhancing the use of this area for special and cultural events.

 

46.       It is relevant to consider the potential for Third Party Advertisements occurring as part of the LED Digital Screen operation. Generally the screening of special events may include unintended commercial advertising as part of these events over which Council would have no control should the event be appropriate for broadcast. Third Party Advertising use of the LED Digital Screen, whether for local or wider community advertisers, is not unreasonable where due consideration is given to:

 

·    manner/nature of advertising, ie intrusive flashing signage may not be suitable;

·    content of the advertisement, ie suitable language and attire should be encouraged;

·    suitability of the advertiser, ie alcohol or gaming industry may not be appropriate;

·    community notices remaining the predominant advertisement use of the facility.

 

Economic Impact

47.       It is anticipated that the proposed development will have a positive economic impact upon the broader Hurstville Centre by enhancing the operation of the public domain and helping to make the centre a more attractive, desirable destination and overall enhancing the value of adjoining development. Potential also exists for community economic benefits through increased revenue from the measured sale of third party advertising space, as referred to above at paragraph 46, to appropriate advertisers whilst not being to the detriment of community notice advertising.

 

Suitability of the Site

48.       The site is suitable for the proposed development as it is an extension of the Hurstville Central Plaza as an area for community notices, community functions, entertainment, outdoor recreational activities and as a community meeting place.

 

REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Pubic Submissions

49.       The proposal was notified between 29 October 2019 to 12 November 2019.  The day after the exhibition period one (1) submission was received. The submission did not raise objection to the application but rather questioned whether the proposal would be for entertainment purposes. Officers of Council attempted to respond to the inquiry by both telephone and email but have been unable to directly contact the submitter. It is considered that the description of the development in the application clearly illustrates that the LED Digital Screen would be utilised for both community and general notices and broadcasting of events, which by their nature could be an entertainment event in some instances.

 

50.       It is concluded that no issues have been raised that would preclude the work proceeding or give rise to the need for any significant amendments to the plans as submitted.

 

Council Referrals

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

 

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

 

CONCLUSION

53.       The application has been assessed having regard to Section 4.55(1A) and Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Hurstville Development Control Plan (DCP).

 

54.       The proposal has been considered on its merits and is considered to be acceptable for the reasons outlined within this report. The proposal is reasonable given that the objectives of the controls have been reasonably satisfied.

 

55.       Following a detailed assessment contained within this report, it is considered that MOD2019/0191 should be approved subject to the modified conditions of consent which will ensure protection of late evening amenity on residential apartments in the locality.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS  

Statement of Reasons

56.       The erection of the LED Digital Screen, Speakers and support structures within the Hurstville Central Plaza is recommended for approval having regard to:

·      The proposed use was considered to be an appropriate use within the Plaza during assessment of the original approval to create the Plaza, DA2017/0049;

·      The proposed use is a suitable facility to promote community advertisements, special events and public use of the Plaza;

·      The proposed use is considered to be an acceptable extension of the original approved Plaza development;

·      The proposed use is unlikely to result in any significant adverse amenity impacts for the locality;

·      Suitable noise and light controls can be implemented and managed to ensure that the public amenity is not significantly impacted;

·      The proposal is considered to be a minor modification to the approved Plaza development which remains substantially the same development.

 

57.       That the Georges River Local Planning Panel, as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.55 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, grant approval to the requested modifications for the installation of an LED Digital Screen, Speakers and support structures (MOD2019/0191) to Development Consent DA 2017/0049 dated 27 June 2017 for construction of a public plaza including landscaping, paving, seating and public amenities at 296 Forest Road (and Diment Way), Hurstville, submitted on 23 October 2019 subject to the development consent being modified as follows:

 

1.    Condition 1 to be modified as follows:

 

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:

 

Architectural plans – Submitted with Mod 2019/019, including:

 

Reference No.

Date

Description

Revision

Prepared by

Dwg L2000

09/12/18

General Arrangement Plan

J

Group GSA Pty Ltd

N/A

Undated

LED Screen Specifications and Elevations

N/A

N/A

N/A

Undated

Loudspeaker Noise Impact Diagram

N/A

N/A

 

(This condition is amended as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23.    Health - Lighting - General Nuisance - Any lighting on the site shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to other premises in the area or to motorists on nearby roads and to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill or glare. Flashing, moving or intermittent lights or signs are prohibited.

 

(This condition is amended as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

2.    Conditions to be deleted:

 

                   Nil

 

3.    Insert the following additional conditions to be numbered in the consent as follows:

 

General Conditions

 

1C    Modified Consent- Modification Application MOD2019/0191 approval only relates to works for the erection of the proposed LED screen and frame, the four (4) speakers and the use of the LED screen and speakers.

 

Requirements of other Government Agencies

 

6A     Ausgrid-The proposed LED screen and speakers must comply with relevant Ausgrid Network Standards and Safework NSW Codes of Practice for construction works near existing electrical assets. The “as constructed” minimum clearances to Ausgrids infrastructure must not be encroached by the building development. It also remains the responsibility of the developer and relevant contractors to verify and maintain these clearances onsite.

 

Prior to issue of Construction Certificate

 

9A     Engineers Certification-The steel frame and LED screen shall be constructed in accordance with details submitted by a suitably qualified structural Engineer and the structure shall be certified by this Engineer as structurally adequate (i.e. complies with AS/NZS 1170 Parts 1, 2, & 3.)

 

Prior to issue of Occupation Certificate

 

20A  Health - LED Screen Lighting Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a suitably qualified consultant shall certify that the lighting from the use of the LED screen shall comply with AS/NZS 4282:2019: Control of the obstructive effects of outdoor lighting.  The development shall at all times comply with these standards.

 

Ongoing Conditions

 

23A  Health - LED Screen- The use of the LED screen shall not cause a nuisance or annoy the occupants of nearby premises, nor cause a nuisance to motorists on nearby roads. In this regard the use of the LED screen must comply with AS/NZS 4282:2019 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting

 

23B  Health - LED Screen Hours of operation - Hours of operation are approved as follows:

a)      The core hours of operation of the amplified speaker system shall be limited to 8am to 10pm daily, apart from those days of operation for special events. Special events may include, festivals (e.g. Chinese New Year), sporting events (e.g. Olympic Events), musical presentations (e.g. Mardi Gras) or the like,

b)      The core hours of operation of the LED Screen shall be 24 hours daily.  Should screen brightness become an identifiable issue for local amenity then suitable restrictions are to be placed on screen lumen levels from 10pm to 8am daily, through the use of an automatic dimmer switch or by remote control via the operator.

c)      Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, the manner and hours of operation of the LED screen and speakers may be modified to accommodate the special events that may periodically occur and where the modification has been suitably notified for a period of fourteen (14) days on the LED screen display. 

d)      Council will review the operation of the facilities on the bi-annual anniversary of the original consent  or as part of any modification request referred to in (c) above, and will consider, among other things:

i.     any acoustic assessment undertaken in accordance with the conditions of consent for this modification application;

ii.    the performance of the operator of the Plaza facilities in relation to the compliance with the development consent conditions;

iii.   any substantiated complaints received; and

iv.   any views expressed during public consultation or from other stakeholders including the Police.

e)      Following a review, Council may allow the use to continue to operate for the hours specified in (a) and (b) above, require the use to revert to the core hours of operation specified in (a) and (b) above or otherwise modify the condition as considered appropriate.

f)       The purpose of the reviewable condition is to allow ongoing assessment of the hours of operation in relation to neighbourhood amenity, public safety and operational performance and allow management to demonstrate successful practices in relation to the above.

 

23C  Health - Noise Control - The use of the LED screen and associated speakers must not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended).

 

23D  Health - Acoustic Certification - Prior to the commencement of the use, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant shall certify that, subject to any appropriate amelioration measures being undertaken, the operation of the LED screen and associated speakers shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended) and Regulations.

 

23E  Health - Periodic Acoustic Report - Verification of Noise report – On a bi-annual basis for a minimum period of six (6) years from the date of commencement of operation, an acoustic assessment is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, in accordance with the EPA's Noise Policy for Industry and submitted to Council for consideration. This report should include but not be limited to:

i.     an analysis of noise generation on six (6) occasions annually, inclusive of at least three (3) amplified events (if at least three events are held annually), carried out from monitoring points at each end of the Plaza, being Forest Road and Croft Avenue. 

ii.    details verifying that the noise control measures can be implemented which are effective in attenuating noise to an acceptable noise level; and

iii.   that the use is not calculated to give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as defined under the provision of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 (as amended).

 

Consolidated Conditions of Consent DA2017/0049

 

Schedule A – Conditions of Consent

 

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

 

Reference No.

Date

Description

Revision

Prepared by

DA_C2.01

16/02/17

Locality Plan

1

Northrop

DA_C3.01

06/03/17

Site work and Stormwater Management Plan

2

Northrop

160861 1001

17/02/17

Landscape Plan

B

Group GSA Pty Ltd

L144M_SK02-01

17/02/17

Lighting category intent

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-02

17/02/17

Lighting design intent

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-03

17/02/17

Lighting intent legend

B

N/A

L144M_SK02-04

17/02/17

Propose electrical equipment

B

N/A

Dwg L2000

09/12/18

General Arrangement Plan

J

Group GSA Pty Ltd

N/A

Undated

LED Screen Specifications and Elevations

N/A

N/A

N/A

Undated

Loudspeaker Noise Impact Diagram

N/A

N/A

 

(This condition is amended as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

1A.      The inground fixings and table settings adjacent to the north western boundary near 300 Forest Road are to be deleted.

 

1B.      The substation is to be placed underground if permitted by Ausgrid.

 

1C.      Modified Consent - Modification Application MOD2019/0191 approval only relates to works for the erection of the proposed LED screen and frame, the four (4) speakers and the use of the LED screen and speakers.

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

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

 

          (a)     Fees to be paid:

 

Fee types, bonds and contributions

 

Fee Type

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation)

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

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

(c)  Erecting a structure or carrying out work

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

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

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

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

 

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

 

6A       Ausgrid-The proposed LED screen and speakers must comply with relevant Ausgrid Network Standards and Safework NSW Codes of Practice for construction works near existing electrical assets. The “as constructed” minimum clearances to Ausgrids infrastructure must not be encroached by the building development. It also remains the responsibility of the developer and relevant contractors to verify and maintain these clearances onsite.

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

7A.      Ausgrid - Substation or Kiosk - Ausgrid shall be consulted to determine the relocation of the substation from Diment Way and this is to be addressed as follows:

 

(a) written confirmation of Ausgrid's requirements is to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate; and

(b) Ausgrid's requirements are to be met before the issue of the Occupation 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    location of protective site fencing;

·    location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

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

·    provisions for public safety;

·    dust control measures;

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

·    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·    method used to provide protective measures for tree preservation;

·    provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·    location and size of waste containers/skip bins;

·    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·    method used to provide construction noise and vibration management;

·    construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

(a)  piers

(b)  footings

(c)   slabs

(d)  columns

(e)  structural steel

(f)   reinforced building elements

(g)  swimming pool design

(h)  retaining walls

(i)    stabilizing works

(j)    structural framework

 

9A       Engineers Certification - The steel frame and LED screen shall be constructed in accordance with details submitted by a suitably qualified structural Engineer and the structure shall be certified by this Engineer as structurally adequate (ie complies with AS/NZS 1170 Parts 1, 2, and 3).

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

(iv)    Details of planting procedure and maintenance;

(v)     Details of drainage and watering systems.

(vi)    Undergrounding of the substation if permitted by Ausgrid

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)   The developer /builder must notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition.  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 Georges River Council advising of the demolition date, details of the WorkCover licensed asbestos demolisher and the list of residents advised of the demolition.

 

c)   On demolition sites where buildings to be demolished contain asbestos, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words “DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm is to be erected in a prominent visible position (from street frontage) on the site. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos material has been removed from the site to an approved waste facility.

 

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

 

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

 

DURING WORK

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

 

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

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

20A.    Health - LED Screen Lighting - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a suitably qualified consultant shall certify that the lighting from the use of the LED screen shall comply with AS/NZS 4282:2019: Control of the obstructive effects of outdoor lighting.  The development shall at all times comply with these standards.

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

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

 

22.       Development Assessment - Completion of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate.

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS

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

 

23.       Health - Lighting - General Nuisance - Any lighting on the site shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to other premises in the area or to motorists on nearby roads and to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill or glare. Flashing, moving or intermittent lights or signs are prohibited.

 

(This condition is aamended as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23A.    Health - LED Screen - The use of the LED screen shall not cause a nuisance or annoy the occupants of nearby premises, nor cause a nuisance to motorists on nearby roads. In this regard the use of the LED screen must comply with AS/NZS 4282:2019 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23B.    Health - LED Screen Hours of operation - Hours of operation are approved as follows:

a)    The core hours of operation of the amplified speaker system shall be limited to 8am to 10pm daily, apart from those days of operation for special events. Special events may include, festivals (eg Chinese New Year), sporting events (eg Olympic Events), musical presentations (eg Mardi Gras) or the like,

b)    The core hours of operation of the LED Screen shall be 24 hours daily.  Should screen brightness become an identifiable issue for local amenity then suitable restrictions are to be placed on screen lumen levels from 10pm to 8am daily, through the use of an automatic dimmer switch or by remote control via the operator.

c)    Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, the manner and hours of operation of the LED screen and speakers may be modified to accommodate the special events that may periodically occur and where the modification has been suitably notified for a period of fourteen (14) days on the LED screen display. 

d)    Council will review the operation of the facilities on the bi-annual anniversary of the original consent  or as part of any modification request referred to in (c) above, and will consider, among other things:

i.    any acoustic assessment undertaken in accordance with the conditions of consent for this modification application;

ii.   the performance of the operator of the Plaza facilities in relation to the compliance with the development consent conditions;

iii.  any substantiated complaints received; and

iv.  any views expressed during public consultation or from other stakeholders including the Police.

e)    Following a review, Council may allow the use to continue to operate for the hours specified in (a) and (b) above, require the use to revert to the core hours of operation specified in (a) and (b) above or otherwise modify the condition as considered appropriate.

f)     The purpose of the reviewable condition is to allow ongoing assessment of the hours of operation in relation to neighbourhood amenity, public safety and operational performance and allow management to demonstrate successful practices in relation to the above

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23C.   Health - Noise Control - The use of the LED screen and associated speakers must not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended).

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23D.   Health - Acoustic Certification - Prior to the commencement of the use, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant shall certify that, subject to any appropriate amelioration measures being undertaken, the operation of the LED screen and associated speakers shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended) and Regulations.

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

23E.    Health - Periodic Acoustic Report - Verification of Noise report – On a bi-annual basis for a minimum period of six (6) years from the date of commencement of operation, an acoustic assessment is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, in accordance with the EPA's Noise Policy for Industry and submitted to Council for consideration. This report should include but not be limited to:

 

i.   an analysis of noise generation on six (6) occasions annually, inclusive of at least three (3) amplified events (if at least three events are held annually), carried out from monitoring points at each end of the Plaza, being Forest Road and Croft Avenue. 

ii.  details verifying that the noise control measures can be implemented which are effective in attenuating noise to an acceptable noise level; and

iii. that the use is not calculated to give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as defined under the provision of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 (as amended).

 

(This condition is added as part of MOD2019/0191 (DA2017/0049))

 

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

 

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

 

ADVICE

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

 

Not applicable

 

Schedule B – Prescribed Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       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.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Final Plans - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Tuesday, 17 December 2019

LPP061-19              296 Forest Road Hurstville (Central Plaza)

[Appendix 1]          Final Plans - 296 Forest Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 35

 




Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 17 December  2019

Page 93

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Tuesday, 17 December 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP062-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0059

Site Address & Ward Locality

261 Princes Highway Carlton

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing building, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a new five (5) storey shop top housing development including two (2) levels of basement parking

Owners

Kirshu Pty Ltd

Applicant

MHN Design Union

Planner/Architect

MHN Design Union

Date Of Lodgement

22/02/2018

Submissions

Two (2)

Cost of Works

$15,471,770.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

SEPP 65 Application under Ministers Direction of  23 February 2018

List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017,

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy – Remediation of Land,

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration

Architectural Plans, Statement of Environmental Effects,

Cardno Flood Report, Hydraulic Report

Traffic Assessment Report, Acoustic Report, BASIX

 

Report prepared by

Consultant Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed, and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

Not Applicable Recommendation is for Refusal and the refusal reasons are available at the time the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of the subject site and locality outlined in red

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         The development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation, tree removal and the construction of a five (5) storey shop top housing development comprising thirty six (36) units (13 x 1 bedroom, 21 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units), one level of commercial/restaurant/café floor space, and two (2) levels of basement car parking for a total of ninety-seven (97) car parking spaces, new landscaping and associated site works. Two (2) business/retail tenancies totalling 1,289sqm, with dual access points off Ecole Street and Princes Highway, are to be located on the ground floor with vehicular access and a loading bay proposed from Ecole Street. Communal open space is provided on the podium level above the retail tenancy.

Figure 2: Photomontage of the proposed development as viewed from the Princes Highway frontage and the corner of Ecole Street (Source: MHN Union Architects).

 

Site and Locality

2.         The subject site is legally identified as Lots 33 - 36 in DP 13023, with a street address of 261-265 Princes Highway, Carlton. The site is located on the corner of Princes Highway and Ecole Street, Carlton.

 

3.         The subject site is located within 900m of Carlton Railway Station and approximately 1.5km to the south west of the Kogarah Town Centre.

 

4.         The site is located on the Princes H with a frontage of approximately 39.90m to Princes Highway, a secondary frontage of 47.945m to Ecole Street with a splay to the corner of Ecole Street and Princes Highway of 2.145m. The site is currently occupied by a single storey; brick and iron roofed building previously used as a timber centre and has been a petrol station in the past.  A majority of the site is hardstand area and access to the site is via Ecole Street.

 

5.         The site is generally square in shape with a total area of 2,066sqm and a slope of approximately 1.0m from the northern corner to the western corner and a gentle grade along the eastern boundary to the Princes Highway frontage.  Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is via Ecole Street.

 

6.         Across the Princes Highway from the site at 124 Princes Highway is the St Georges Leagues Club and associated child care centre, with the Beverley Park Golf Club further to the south east. To the east of the subject site across Ecole Street is the Carlton South Public School and 253 Princes Highway which currently has an application with Council for shop top housing which is presently under appeal. On the western side of Jubilee Avenue is 71-73 Jubilee Avenue which is the subject of a shop top housing development, this application is being reported to the Georges River Local Planning Panel on 12 December 2019. On the opposite side of Jubilee Avenue is Jubilee Oval and Kogarah Park. To the north and west of the site, in Ecole and Wheeler Streets, are various forms of low scale residential development.

 

7.         Council amended its planning controls on 26 May 2017 via Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 Amendment No.2, and introduced a new zoning, B6 Enterprise Corridor applying to the land fronting the Princes Highway between Westbourne Street and Jubilee Avenue, and half of the block between Francis Street and Westbourne Street. The new zoning provides a height and floor space uplift to allotments within this area to permit a higher density of development.   

 

Zoning and Permissibility

8.         The site is zoned ‘B6 Enterprise Corridor’ under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). The development is defined as ‘shop top housing’ under KLEP, which is a permissible land use with consent in this zone, subject to compliance with a 65% maximum residential component under Clause 6.9.

 

Figure 3 - zoning of the subject site and surrounding allotments

 

Submissions

9.         The development application was publicly exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. Two (2) submissions were received.

 

10.      Amendments to the application received during the course of its assessment were not required to be publicly notified in accordance with the development control plan, as they related primarily to drainage works and did not result in significant additional environmental impacts.

 

Reason for referral to the Local Planning Panel

11.      This development application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination as it comprises development to which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies as required by the Ministerial Direction of 23 February 2018.   

 

Planning and Design Issues

12.      The proposal’s bulk, scale and form is generally considered an appropriate design response to the site when considered against the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development by the Design Review Panel.  It is noted that a minor non-compliance for  side boundary setbacks (being 259mm or 4.3% variation) to the western boundary with 3 Ecole Street occurs as a 6m minimum setback is required due to habitable rooms facing this boundary.

 

13.      The proposal also fails to comply with the additional local provision for Development in Zone B6 contained within Clause 6.9 of KLEP 2012. This clause requires that the proposed development must not contain more than 65% of the gross floor area for shop top housing and a land use other than shop top housing have a minimum of 500sqm in gross floor area. The proposal provides 67.9% of its gross floor area as shop top housing and only 1289sqm (32.1%) of its gross floor area as business/retail floor space. The 65% requirement under Clause 6.9 is considered to be a development standard by definition and thus if it cannot be achieved the development should be supported by a Clause 4.6 variation to justify the non-compliance. In this instance a Clause 4.6 submission has not been lodged and the proposal is considered to be a prohibited development as it does not comply with the standard. Failure to meet the minimum alternative use floor space is contrary to the intent of the zoning and will create an undesirable and inappropriate precedent in this recently up-zoned locality.

 

14.      The B6 Enterprise Corridor zone was introduced to encourage appropriate businesses and offer a range of employment opportunities. The intent of the new B6 zone was to renew the enterprise corridor and activate the street frontage through commercial/retail space, whilst also permitting a percentage of residential floor area above. The design is inconsistent with the desired future character of this precinct being the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone, as the development has not been designed to cater for a range of employment uses, including business, office, retail and light industrial uses.           

 

15.      The subject land is identified as being subject to the 1 in 100 year flood inundation and inadequate reports/documentation has been submitted to adequately address this concern, see Figure 4 below.

 

Figure 4: Flooding Map and 1 in 100 year flow path (Source Intramaps).

Blue – Flood Planning Area

Blue hatched – 1 in 100 year flood extent

 

16.      The subject land is within the 1 in 100 year flow path extending from Carlton Station down to Beverley Park, and the proposed building footprint will more than double the size of the existing commercial building footprint currently constructed within the flow path.  It is evident that the larger structure will result in higher and broader flows and will adversely impact the amenity of neighbouring land.

 

17.      A public submission has raised concern with the orientation of the balconies/windows towards Carlton Public School. It is noted that the subject land is separated from the school by Ecole Street and thus acceptable separation is achieved, whilst it is also noted that the potential for overlooking is limited to the school carpark and back of the assembly hall only.  Concern was also raised at the timing of demolition and construction periods, which should have suitable safety and remediation measures in place and preferably be programmed for during school holiday periods.  Other amenity concerns raised related to traffic and whether the proposal will comply with recently adopted development standards.

 

18.      The location of the loading bay at ground level adjacent to the entry ramp and residential entry points is not considered appropriate. The proposed loading bay will rely on a turntable service to ensure medium rigid vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction. Vehicular and pedestrian safety is a concern given the site is located fronting a main road and is diagonally opposite the Carlton South Public School. The multiple vehicle and pedestrian openings along Ecole Street is likely to lead to confusion and potential conflicts in this location. The multiple pedestrian access points along Princes Highway are not considered well designed and result in confusion see Figure 5 below.

 

Figure 5:  Ground Plan extract – multiple street entries (Source MHNUnion Architects).

 

Conclusion

19.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plans. Given the non-compliance with the side boundary setbacks under the Apartment Design Guidelines, the minimum alternative use area requirements for the B6 zone, design concerns with the flooding management, pedestrian and vehicular concerns with access/egress, overlooking concerns from the balconies/windows, the proposed development is considered to result in an unacceptable planning outcome.

 

20.      As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

21.      The development proposed is for the demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation, tree removal and the construction of a five (5) storey shop top housing development containing, thirty six (36) residential units, and one level of business/retail floor space above two (2) levels of basement car parking. In an attempt to resolve the drainage issues various sets of plans were lodged for consideration.

 

22.      The most recent set of amended plans included a series of design changes which identified the need for the introduction of stormwater culverts to be inserted below the ground floor level, within the basement carpark, to drain flood water through to the Princes Highway drainage system in order to retain the current flow path of the overland flow across the site.

 

23.      Details of the proposed design and layout of the development are as follows:

 

Basement 2 Plan

-     57 Residential car parking spaces (which includes 1 x car wash bay, 1 x accessible space and 7 of these spaces are for visitors).

-     Sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces (12 resident and 4 visitor).

-     Three (3) lift and lobby areas.

-     Thirty six (36) Storage areas.

-     Two (2) fire egress stairs.

 

Basement 1 Plan

-     40 Car parking spaces comprising two (2) accessible spaces.

-     Eight (8) commercial bicycle parking spaces. 

-     One (1) lift and lobby area (Only lift 3 services this level).

-     Two (2) fire egress stairs.

-     Three (3) garbage rooms.

-     Switch, communication and plant rooms.

-     Two (2) culverts for stormwater transfer.

 

Ground Floor Plan

-     1,272sqm of commercial/retail floor space with no sanitary facilities.

-     Lift and lobby areas for the tenancies.

-     Fire stair access to residential levels.

-     Three (3) residential lift and lobby areas.

-     Six (6) fire egress stairs.

-     Loading bay with truck turntable, vehicular and pedestrian access off Ecole Street.

-     Substation room and fire hydrant boosters fronting Ecole Street.

-     Service entry for commercial tenancies from the loading bay area.

-     Deep soil zone (165sqm) located in the north western portion of the subject site.

-     Pedestrian pathways and tenancy bin storage adjacent to deep soil area.

-     Two (2) pedestrian commercial entries off Princes Highway, with lift accessible access and two accesses off Ecole Street.

-     Basement driveway access.

 

Level 1 Floor Plan 

-     4 x 1 bedroom apartments (one of which has a private courtyard).

-     6 x 2 bedroom apartments (all of which have private courtyards).

-     Three (3) Lift lobby areas and four (4) fire stairs.

-     Communal area comprising 528sqm with communal toilet.

 

Level 2 Floor Plan 

-     4 x 1 bedroom apartments.

-     6 x 2 bedroom apartments.

-     Three (3) Lift lobby areas and four (4) fire stairs.

-     Suspended walkway to connect two building elements and provide level access to lifts for Units 2.09 and 2.10.

 

Level 3 Floor Plan 

-     4 x 1 bedroom apartments.

-     6 x 2 bedroom apartments.

-     Three (3) Lift lobby areas and four (4) fire stairs.

-     Suspended walkway to connect two building elements and provide level access to lifts for Units 3.09 and 3.10.

 

Level 4 Floor Plan 

-     1 x 1 bedroom apartment.

-     3 x 2 bedroom apartments.

-     2 x 3 bedroom apartments.

-     Two (2) Lift lobby areas and three (3) fire stairs.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

24.      The subject site is legally identified as Lots 33 to 36 in DP 13023, and has a street address of 261 Princes Highway, Carlton. The site is located on the corner of Princes Highway and Ecole Street Carlton.  

 

25.      The subject site is located within 900m of Carlton Railway Station and approximately 1.5km to the south west of the Kogarah Town Centre.

 

26.      The site is a rectangular parcel of land and has north eastern frontage of 50.08m to Ecole Street, a secondary south eastern frontage of 41.295m to Princes Highway with a splay to the corner of Ecole Street and Princes Highway of 2.145m. The site is currently occupied by a single storey commercial building previously used as a timber centre and has been a petrol station in the past with a majority of the site a hardstand area. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is via Ecole Street.

 

27.      The site has a total area of 2,066.5sqm. The land has a slope of approximately 1.0m from the rear to the front along the Ecole Street frontage and is relatively flat along the Princes Highway frontage.

 

28.      Immediately to the east of the development site is 253 Princes Highway which accommodates an existing commercial/retail building with an at grade car park accessed via Ecole Street.

 

29.      A development application was lodged on this site for a six (6) storey shop top housing development (DA2019/0116) which is currently under appeal with the Land and Environment Court.

 

30.      Immediately further to the east of the site at 71-73 Jubilee Avenue has an application with Council for a shop top housing development, this is being reported to Georges River Local Planning Panel on 12 December 2019. The site currently accommodates a vehicle hire facility, whilst further to the north east is Carlton South Public School.

 

Figure 6: Princes Highway photograph of development site (Source SEE, GSA Planning).

 

Figure 7: Ecole Street photograph of development site (Source SEE, GSA Planning).

 

31.      Across the Princes Highway from the site at 124 Princes Highway is the St Georges Leagues Club and associated child care centre, with the Beverley Park Golf Club further to the south east. To the north east of the subject site across Jubilee Avenue is Jubilee Oval and to the north east is Kogarah Park. To the west of the site are commercial premises along Princes Highway and residential housing in Ecole and Wheeler Streets.

 

32.      The site is suitably serviced for stormwater purposes, see Figure 8 below. As illustrated at Figure 4 above, the site is impacted by overland flow affectation and management of inundation is required. It should be noted that Figure 8 indicatively identifies the Sydney Water service (Sewer) which extends across the southern portion of Lot 33, which is considered to be impacted by the development and may require relocation as part of any development of the subject land.

 

Figure 8: Development Services impacting locality (Source Intramaps).

Olive green – indicative location of Sydney Water infrastructure

Blue and Black lines and symbols – stormwater pit and pipes

 

Planning Assessment

33.      The subject site has been inspected and the development has been assessed under the relevant Section 4.15, Matters for Consideration of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

34.      Compliance with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies is summarised in the table as follows and discussed in more detail thereafter.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure

Yes

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

No, refer to discussion further within report.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

35.      SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land in order to reduce the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.

 

36.      Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. The consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether or not the land is contaminated.

 

37.      As part of the sale of this land in 2015 by the previous landowner, Ausgrid, a Detailed Site Investigation Report, dated July 2015 was prepared by Prensa and was submitted with the application, which concludes:

 

“The analytical results for soil and groundwater detected in samples analysed as part of this investigation indicated that there were no exceedances above adopted investigation levels, screening levels or groundwater assessment criteria that are considered significant……………..

 

Based on the review of historical information, the field observations, and the analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling, while the former site uses indicated a potential source of contamination, the risk of the site being significantly contaminated is considered to be low…………….

 

It is recommended that the USTs identified on site are removed, and a validation assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified environmental consultant, to assess the risk posed by the presence of residual contamination associated with the USTs and to evaluate whether the site is suitable for a high density residential or commercial/industrial land use.”

 

Additionally, the application relies on an assessment under AS4976-2008 “The removal and disposal of underground petroleum storage tanks” prepared by Prensa. There is an Underground Petroleum Storage System Validation Report, dated July 2015, which concluded as follows:

 

“Based on the findings of the DSI and this UPSS Validation assessment completed by Prensa in October-December 2014 and February-March 2015, respectively, we have identified no reason with regard to potential for contamination that the site would not be suitable for the proposed high density residential use or ongoing commercial/industrial land use…………

 

With respect to the lead contamination in soil remaining in situ at the site, the site is currently not suitable for low density residential land use.  In the unlikely event that the site may be redeveloped for a low density residential land use, the isolated soil displaying evidence of elevated lead concentrations will require management to reduce the potential risk to human health.”

           

38.      Based on the information provided, it is evident that the site remains contaminated with lead trapped between two concrete slabs that will need to be removed and/or remediated as part of any approval which requires excavation on site exposing the contamination.  

 

39.      In conclusion, should approval be granted, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be required to address the contamination removal. Given the density applicable to this site, it is likely that basement car parking will be proposed resulting in excavation which will result in the removal of the contaminated material and remediation of the site. Should contaminants not covered by the RAP be experienced during the development of the site, the development will need to cease and a remedial action plan being developed.  Appropriate conditions would be imposed if the development was to be supported requiring remediation of the land to occur.

 

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

40.      The State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 aims to ensure consistency in the implementation of a scheme to encourage sustainable residential development throughout New South Wales (also referred to as the ‘BASIX scheme’).

 

41.      A BASIX certificate accompanies the DA verifying that the relevant water, energy and thermal comfort targets have been met by the proposal. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the commitments required under the BASIX certificate will be satisfied by the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

42.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The Policy also examines and ensures that the acoustic performance of buildings adjoining a rail corridor or busy arterial road is acceptable and internal amenity within units is reasonable given the impacts of adjoining infrastructure development

 

43.      The DA was referred to Ausgrid on 17 September 2019 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing this report, no response had been received. The DA may be determined in the event that no response has been received from Ausgrid within twenty one (21) days, ie 8 October 2019.

 

44.      Clauses 101 (Development with a frontage to a classified road), 102 (Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development) and 103 (Excavation in or immediately adjacent to corridors) of the SEPP, are relevant to this DA on the basis that the proposal involves the construction of residential accommodation on land adjacent to the road corridor of Princes Highway (having an annual average daily traffic volume exceeding 20,000 vehicles) and is likely to be adversely affected by road noise and/or vibration.

 

45.      The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for comment as the Princes Highway is an arterial road under their jurisdiction and RMS concurrence is required in accordance with Clause 101 of the Infrastructure SEPP. The proposal was forwarded to the RMS for concurrence on 17 September 2019.  RMS provided a formal response on 16 October 2019 and raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard conditions, in particular the following:

 

“Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the Roads and Maritime’s stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.”

 

If approval was to be granted, and suitable stormwater management measures development for implementation, the recommended conditions would be included as part of the consent.

 

46.      Clause 102 of the SEPP is relevant and states:

 

“(3) If the development is for the purposes of residential accommodation, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a)     in any bedroom in the residential accommodation—35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am,

(b)     anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.”

 

47.      An Acoustic Assessment Report was submitted with the application prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates, dated 20 March 2018. The report addresses road traffic noise impact from Princes Highway and adjoining roads, and mechanical plant noise. The Draft Guidelines (Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline) include noise levels to be achieved for habitable areas (living and dining spaces, excluding kitchens, garages, hallways etc) of 40dB(A) at anytime.

 

48.      If the development approval was to be granted a condition on the consent would be necessary to ensure the recommendations of the acoustic report are implemented during the construction of the building and appropriately certified to be consistent with the recommendations of the acoustic report after installation and prior to occupation.

 

49.      The provisions and requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP have been addressed and satisfied by the proposal.

 

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

50.      The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (‘Vegetation SEPP’) regulates clearing of native vegetation on urban land and land zoned for environmental conservation/management that does not require development consent. 

 

51.      The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of: 

 

a.   Native vegetation above the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) threshold where a proponent will require an approval from the Native Vegetation Panel established under the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016; and

b.   Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP). 

 

52.      The Vegetation SEPP repeals clauses 5.9 and 5.9AA of the Standard Instrument - Principal Local Environmental Plan, with the regulation of the clearing of vegetation (including native vegetation) below the BOS threshold being through any applicable DCP.

 

a.    No issues arise in terms of the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP, as there is no significant vegetation on the site or within the footpath area of Ecole Street or Princes Highway immediately fronting the site. 

 

53.      The proposal seeks the removal of two (2) trees, T7 and T8 (Yellow Gum White Ironbarks) which are both located adjacent to the Ecole Street boundary. T8 is considered to be in poor health and should be removed whilst T7 is a healthy eucalypt which is adjacent to the building footprint and will be adversely impacted by the development.

 

54.      T7 is considered able to be retained in a modified design, if the proposal had regard to the tree position. A more considered design would enable the retention of this tree and provide some bulk softening of the building façade at this northeast corner of the site which adjoins low density residential development. Should the application be approved then conditions could be imposed where the two (2) trees to be removed be replaced by four (4) trees within the deep soil western landscaped area.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

55.      The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to improve the design quality of residential apartment development in New South Wales.

 

56.      The proposed development meets the pre-requisites for the application of the SEPP 65 in that it constitutes development for the purpose of ‘shop top housing’ in a proposed building of more than three (3) storeys and having more than four (4) dwellings. Therefore, it must be assessed against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

57.      A design verification statement dated 15 February 2018 has been provided by Brian Meyerson Registered Architect (Registration No. 4907) in accordance with Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

58.      The DA has been reviewed by the Design Review Panel (DRP) and their comments are further detailed in the DRP discussions below.

 

Design Review Panel

59.      The initial plans that accompanied the application were referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) on 5 April 2018. The application was previously reviewed at Pre DA Stage (PreDA2017/0028) and the comments in relation to that submission are reiterated in the Table below in italics, with comments in relation to the current application following. The Panel was generally supportive of the form and character of the design. 

 

60.      Contextually this property and a number of other properties between Westbourne Street and Jubilee Avenue fronting the Princes Highway have been rezoned to B6 Enterprise Corridor to allow for developments that permit a floor space of 2:1 and a maximum height of 21m. The introduction of the B6 zone aims to ensure that bulky goods retail is grouped at a highly accessible location close to the major centre, whilst also permitting a mix of uses such as business, office and light industry. Residential development is also permissible however, the main objective of the zone is to encourage the redevelopment for commercial development there the floor space associated with residential has been restricted. The subject proposal needs to increase the amount of commercial space and reduce the amount of residential floor space to be consistent with the intent of the zoning.     

 

61.      The design quality principles of SEPP 65 are addressed as follows, in the context of the DRP comments.  Commentary in response has been provided by the Assessment Officer where necessary.

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 

DRP Comment

General comment

Context and Neighbouring 

Character 

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. 

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well-designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood. 

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change. 

DA  DRP comments

The site is located on the Princes Highway on a corner allotment and adjacent to Ecole Street. The site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor under the KLEP and to the rear of the site is a single storey house in an R2 zone. There are existing trees on the north western rear boundary adjacent to the house. In this precinct the existing development along the Highway is likely to see the zoning potential taken up.

Princes Highway is an arterial road and the subject site is exposed to constant high level noise. Ecole Street is a quiet residential street with minimal traffic.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

The site also adjoins low density residential areas especially to the north west. Therefore this interface needs to be provided with deep soil zone and existing trees must be retained and supplemented.

 

The site has been reasonably well described however the transitioning zone and the high levels of traffic noise have not been sufficiently prioritised in the current proposal.

The proposal has been amended after advice received from the Pre-DA and DRP. The building design has been altered from a U-shape to an L-shape building form and relocated the landscaped area from the south west boundary to the north west, providing a landscape buffer to the neighbouring low density housing.

 

The modified plans have resulted in an increase in the residential floor space and a reduction in the commercial floor space from 1,782sqm with a residential component of 1,145sqm), to 1,289sqm of commercial with a residential component of 2723sqm, resulting in only 32.1% retail or commercial component.

 

The design has been prepared with only limited regard to the flooding impacts affecting to the site.  Due regard to flood and overland flow treatment in the design was required and this has been consistently raised as an ongoing concern to address the management of the potential for flooding on site.

Built Form and Scale 

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

 Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

 Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook. 

Basic plan form and massing is well considered and largely deals with the issues relating to road noise, residential amenity, and north east orientation. The communal open space at first floor level is generous in size, and easy to access. It is positive that an over 5m setback on the rear/side boundary has been provided to retain the existing trees and provide a buffer to the R2 zone.

 

The following detailed issues should be addressed:

 

·   Resolution of the internal floor levels with the street frontages and public domain is problematic. The internal floor level is in some instances 1.6m above the footpath. The architect advised this is due to Council’s flood level requirements, however the Panel is concerned this may be excessive and significantly compromises the street frontage. It is recommended this be reviewed in further detail.

·   The streetscape amenity on the Princes Highway is poor. Consider a setback of the ground floor frontage to allow for an awning within the subject site and sufficient space for the access stairs/wheelchair lifts. This would further allow for tree planting along the length of the Princes Highway frontage in the verge providing improved amenity for the units in the development.

·   Location of the substation in the deep soil zone appears to not meet the usual access requirements of electricity supply authorities and should be located closer to Ecole Street and clear of deep soil zone.

·   Provide adequate screening to ensure satisfactory acoustic conditions along open corridors and the courtyard space between the two (2) blocks facing Princes Highway.

·   Provide sun protection for retail frontages along both Princes Highway and Ecole Street. The narrow awning on its own would be inadequate.

·   Access from the commercial parking basement and the commercial tenancy space has not yet been resolved. The location of the lift and a stair needs to be considered taking into consideration potential for future subdivision of the tenancy space. The following matters should be taken into account - the accessibility risks of having one (1) lift and the needs of people with shopping trolleys, prams and strollers, as well as non-ambulant persons.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

The layout comprises a U shape form with two (2) open galleries to the south of each wing. The circulation is awkward and does not provide universal access to the central courtyard or through site visual links. Notably all of the setbacks are insufficiently sized which is liable to create issues at DA stage.

 

It is recommended that the built form is amended to include the following:

·   Extend the highway facing wing to create a zero setback at its southern end

·   Create a large garden facing the southern boundary

·   Widen the Ecole Street wing to incorporate some double loaded circulation and cross through units

·   Provide a deep soil zone 6m wide to the north west boundary

·   Relocate the driveway to allow for the deep soil zone (building to bridge over it)

·   Provide clear visual corridors into the communal open space; it is better for lobbies to have clear views to the garden

·   It appears to make more sense to have both residential entries from Ecole Street, a residential street; and allow all commercial access from Princes Highway.

The proposal complies with the permitted FSR development standard under KLEP2012.

 

The proposals bulk and scale is an appropriate response to the site up-zoning.

 

Concerns remain with design aspects of the proposal relating to floor levels, street presentation, multiple entry points, substation location and access level, and internal layout arrangements.

Density 

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context. 

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

DRP DA Comments

Complaint and acceptable. However if minor exceedance is required to incorporate horizontal circulation spaces and enclosures for acoustic reasons, this is not an issue to the Panel given the generally high quality of the application.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

Acceptable provided built form and acoustic and air quality issues are resolved.

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR for the site.

Note: Although compliant with the FSR control, the proposal fails to meet the minimum commercial/retail floor space component of the FSR (which equates to 35% of the 2:1 floor space).

Sustainability 

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. 

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

DRP DA Comments

Satisfactory subject t BASIX

 

Pre DA DRP comments

Alternative methods of ventilating the Highway facing units will be required in this case. Deep soil must meet ADG requirements and the existing trees on the north west boundary must be kept.

The DA proposal must include a well-considered raft of sustainability measures including the use of solar panels, water collection and re-use and other means to reduce energy use. Consider the use of kill switches for all units.

The proposal is BASIX compliant.

 

Landscape 

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. 

 

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks. 

 

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management. 

DRP DA Comments

The following is recommended:

·   Further review of the communal courtyard - this should consider a smaller series of spaces alongside the larger space. This is to allow for capacity for a number of residents to share the space for a range of activities.

·   Provision of additional facilities such as toilet (adjacent to or replacing the services duct at the western end of the building), children’s play areas, bbq, additional seating.

·   Planting the narrow paved zone between Units 1.08 and 1.09 - this would provide additional buffer to the Princes Highway and provide privacy from overlooking from the bridge

·   Provide additional tree planting on the rear boundary to supplement the existing trees

·   Move the substation – refer comments above under ‘Built Form’

·   Provide street tree planting on the Princes Highway – refer comments above under ‘Built Form’

 

Pre DA DRP comments

See notes above about deep soil zone and the retention of existing trees. The Panel recommends a landscape architect be consulted early in the design process to resolve site layout issues. All communal spaces must be universally accessible and clearly visible from all lobbies.

The Panel encouraged the use of green screen planting to the façade along Princes Highway. The Panel also encouraged the use of roof terraces for communal open space.

Notably the basement car park fills the site. This is unacceptable as deep soil to meet ADG requirements is essential on this site. Set downs and provision for soil depth to ADG standards are required for all communal open spaces proposed.

Landscaping is provided at ground level and within the Level 1 Podium communal open space area.

 

In response to the DRP comments the applicant modified the proposal to introduce a communal toilet at the Podium level and introduced a landscape buffer between the residential building forms, between Units 1.08 and 1.09 at the Podium level to provide additional screening.

 

Amenity 

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident wellbeing. 

 

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility. 

DRP DA Comments

Generally of very good standard, particularly in terms of solar access and ventilation. A minor refinement would be to reconfigure the south eastern fire stair to provide a wider opening to the southern unit’s main bedrooms minimising the snorkel arrangement presently proposed.

 

The long narrow corridors at the ground floor providing access to residential lobbies 2 and 3 are spatially poor and claustrophobic. Some serious and creative thought should be given to making the access experience for residents pleasant and inviting.

 

The Panel was concerned that the adaptation process for the adaptable units would involve too many structural and plumbing changes and recommend that the plan of these units should be as close to the post adaptation layout as possible. The Panel also recommended that there should be more diversity in the adaptable units with thought being given to concentrating them at the Level 1 with immediate access to the communal area.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

See notes above regarding impacts of traffic noise and air quality as currently proposed. The units in themselves are well designed, however some of them do not have well resolved entries and their layouts adversely impact the building circulation and through visual links. The units appear not to be provided with sufficient storage.

 

See notes above regarding insufficiently sized setbacks between the habitable spaces and boundaries generally.

 

The driveway location requiring the removal of existing trees is not acceptable.

 

Residential lobbies should be more generous.

 

It is recommended that the commercial space is resolved to work with the residential layout, rather than vice versa.

The modified plans continue to have minor design issues for the residential amenity, including the continued snorkel effect off the master bedrooms for Units 1.10, 2.10 and 3.10, continuation with long individual access corridors to the residential lobbies and the small street front presentations for access to the lobbies

 

Apart from Units 1.10, 2.10 and 3.10, all units will provide a high level of internal and external amenity and the development complies overall with the ADG controls for solar access, cross ventilation, unit sizes and private open space areas.

Safety 

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose.

 

Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

 

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

DRP DA Comments

See comments above regarding to retail floor level and access to lobbies.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

The large loading dock needs to be secured to avoid security issues. Gates to the communal area need to be provided from adjacent podium level residential courtyards.

 

Concerns remain with the separation, and in some instances isolation of, the residential lobby entries, particularly that adjacent to the substation/basement car park entry.  A design with a more consolidated entry connecting the three lobby lifts would be more acceptable and provide a safer more defined and prominent entry.

 

 

.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction 

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. 

 

Well-designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix. 

 

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents. 

DRP DA Comments

See comments above regarding to retail floor level and access to lobbies.

 

Pre DA DRP comments

A good mix of units has been proposed. However the layout requires substantial review as noted above.

The plans incorporate a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units.

 

A suitable unit mix is proposed with a variety of unit layouts.

 

 

Aesthetics 

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure.

 

Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. 

 

The visual appearance of a well designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape. 

DRP DA Comments

Satisfactory – high quality.

 

Pre DA DRP Comments

The sheet of reference examples includes a number of interesting architectural solutions that could work very well for a unit in this context. However the building language as proposed is undeveloped to achieve these aims.

 

The schedule of colours, materials and finishes are suitable in the locality.

 

Apartment Design Guide

62.      Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is detailed in the compliance table as follows.

 

Section

Design Criteria

Proposed

Comply

3D - Communal and public open space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (2066 x 0.25 = 516.6sqm)

 

Where it cannot be provided on ground level it should be provided on a podium or roof

 

Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

The primary area of communal open space is provided on the podium level and has an area of 582sqm (28%).

2 hours of sunlight is achieved to at least 50% of the Podium Level communal open space area, which is the principle area of communal open space for the development. The deep soil area in the western portion of the site is also available for use.

Yes

3E – Deep soil zones

Deep soil zones are required at a sliding scale in this clause.

 

For a site area of >1500sqm, the deep soil zone requirement is 7% with minimum 6m dimensions.

 

Deep soil area is 160sqm (7.7%) and 5.691m in width and extends across the western boundary of the site and complies.

 

The ADG recommends that on larger sites, >1500sqm, larger areas of deep soil should be provided.

Yes - It is noted however, that the site is square in shape and offers an opportunity for greater deep soil to be provided.

3F – Visual privacy

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved.

 

Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

Habitable - 6m

Non-habitable – 3m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

Habitable – 9m

Non-habitable – 4.5m

 

 

 

 

 

Ground  to Level 4:

South - Nil (blank wall)

West – 5.471m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The upper floor is the fifth level of the development

South - Nil (blank wall)

West - 17m.

 

 

 

 

 

No - The proposal has a 5.741m setback to the adjoining west residential boundary and does not achieve the 6m standard

 

Yes

 

3G – Pedestrian Access and Entries

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain

 

Multiple entries (including communal building entries and individual ground floor entries) should be provided to activate the street edge

The proposal provides for multiple residential entries to Princes Highway and Ecole Street.  These entries remain narrow and uninviting and could be designed to provide a common highly legible entry point.

No - As this situation could be addressed to provide a safer more pronounced and defined entry point.

3H – Vehicle Access

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes

The main driveway access point has been located from the secondary street frontage in Ecole Street.

A loading bay is also proposed at ground level with separate driveway access from Ecole Street, relying on as turntable for manoeuvrability.

No - The location of the driveway is the most appropriate location for the subject site given it is away from the corner. The congested design around the driveway, loading bay, fire booster, substation and residential lobby facilities is not an ideal outcome.

3J – Bicycle and car parking

For development of this nature the following standards would apply:

Commercial 1 space per 40m²

Bulky Good 1 space per 40m²

1.0 car space per 1 Bed Unit

1.5 car space per 2 Bed Unit

2.0 car space per 3 Bed Unit

1.0 visitor car space per 5 Units

 

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street

Given the site is over 800m from Carlton Railway Station the required residential parking is calculated in accordance with the KDCP guidelines.

·   1 bed units 1.0 x 13 = 13.0 spaces

·   2 bed units 1.5 x 21 = 31.5 spaces

·   3 bed units 2.0 x 2 = 4.0 spaces

·   1 Visitor space per 5 units = 7.2 spaces

Totalling 55.7 spaces with 57 provided.

Commercial/Bulky Goods requires:

1,289/40 = 32.2 spaces

Proposal has 40 spaces

A visitor space doubles as a carwash bay on basement level 2.

Twelve (12) bicycle spaces have been provided for the residents and four (4) for visitors.

Eight (8) bicycle spaces have been provided for the commercial.

Yes.

4A – Solar and daylight access

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter

Application contends 100% (36 units) compliance achieved for a minimum of 2 hours sunlight in midwinter.

 

It appears questionable as to whether Units 1.09, 2.09 and 3.09 will achieve the 2 hour standard; however, even with these units excluded the proposal would achieve compliance with 33 units (92%)

 

N/A

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

4B – Natural ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed.

 

Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.

72% (26 units) are cross ventilated.

Yes

4C – Ceiling heights

Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

·    Habitable rooms 2.7m

·    Non-habitable rooms 2.4m

·    For 2 storey apartments: 2.7m for main living area floor

2.4m for second floor, where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area

·    Attic spaces: 1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

·    If located in mixed use areas - 3.3m for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use

 

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

All of the proposed units have ceiling heights of 2.7m.

 

The commercial component includes floor to ceiling at ground of 4100mm and first floor residential has 2800mm.  The proposal does not comply with the ADG flexibility requirement, although this could be achieved conditionally, if required, as the building is comfortably under the height control.

 

No - The desire for flexibility in use over the first two floor levels is not supported by the proposed design. The desirability for this flexibility is inherent in the B6 zoning of the land and should be required.

4D – Apartment size and layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

Studio – 35sqm

1 bedroom – 50sqm

2 bedroom – 70sqm

3 bedroom – 90sqm

 

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5sqm each

 

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12sqm each.

All apartments meet minimum internal size requirements.

N/A

56sqm

75sqm

95sqm

 

Calculated accordingly.

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.

Provided and within the prescribed range.

Yes

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5m x the ceiling height.

All within the prescribed range.

Yes

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

All within the prescribed range.

Yes

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm and other bedrooms 9sqm (excluding wardrobe space)

All master bedrooms comply.

Yes

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

All bedrooms comply.

Yes

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

·    3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

·    4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

All living rooms comply.

 

 

 

Yes

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.

All of the proposed units are in excess of 4m in width internally.

Yes

4E – Private open space and balconies

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·    Studio apartments require 4sqm with no min depth

·    1 bedroom apartments require 8sqm with min depth 2m

·    2 bedroom apartments require 10sqm with min depth 2m

·    3+ bedroom apartments require 12sqm with minimum 2.4m depth

 

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.

 

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15sqm and a minimum depth of 3m.

All balconies achieve the minimum area and depth requirements associated with the unit type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculated accordingly.

 

 

Units Fronting Ecole Street have courtyards of 13sqm – 14sqm and 2-3m width, however, they also have 8sqm balconies and are considered to achieve the intent of the standard.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Although 15sqm and 3m in width is not achieved, the resident amenity is satisfied.

4F – Common circulation and spaces

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight.

 

A maximum of 3 units at each level for each lift.

Yes

For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.

N/A

N/A

4G - Storage

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

 

·    Studio apartments 4m3

·    1 bed apartments 6m3

·    2 bed apartments 8m3

·    3+ bed apartments 10m3

 

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

All units have compliant total storage volumes as per the ADG for each unit type.

N/A

7m³

9m³

10m³

 

At least 50% of the required storage is located within the apartment.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4H – Acoustic Privacy

Adequate building separation is provided within the development and from neighbouring buildings/adjacent uses.

 

Window and door openings are generally orientated away from noise sources

 

Noisy areas within buildings including building entries and corridors should be located next to or above each other and quieter areas next to or above quieter areas

Storage, circulation areas and non-habitable rooms should be located to buffer noise from external sources

An assessment in respect to the acoustic compliance of the scheme has been discussed in detail above. If the application was to be supported conditions would be imposed to achieve the noise criterion set by RMS for internal amenity.

 

Yes

4J – Noise and Pollution

To minimise impacts the following design solutions may be used:

 • physical separation between buildings and the noise or pollution source

• residential uses are located perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses

• buildings should respond to both solar access and noise. Where solar access is away from the noise source, non-habitable rooms can provide a buffer

• landscape design reduces the perception of noise and acts as a filter for air pollution generated by traffic and industry

The design solution within the ADG which seeks to minimise noise and acoustic impacts have been considered through the design and layout of apartments.

If the application was to be supported than a condition for compliance with the acoustic criterion would be imposed.

Yes

4K- Apartment  Mix

A range of unit types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future

 

The unit mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building

The development offers a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units in the following manner;

13 x 1 bedroom units = 36%

21 x 2 bedroom units = 58%

2 x 3 bedroom = 6%

Yes

4L – Ground floor apartments 

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor units are located.

 

Design of ground floor units delivers amenity and safety for residents

No ground floor units proposed.

N/A

4M- Facades

Facades should be well resolved with an appropriate scale and proportion to the streetscape and human scale.

The building façade provides articulation along the street frontages at an appropriate scale.  Due to the flood affected nature of the site, the ground level is elevated 1600mmabove the ground level along the Princes Highway frontage. It is noted that the access arrangement to the residential lobbies is disjointed, convoluted and sporadic along the frontages.

No - The design provides for reasonable articulation but does not adequately respond to lobby entry needs leading to a complex and busy and note well defined streetscape.

4N- Roof Design

Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Incorporates sustainability features.

The roof design is a standard flat roof form.

 

Yes

4O – Landscape Design

Landscape design is viable and sustainable, contributes to the streetscape and amenity

Suitable landscaping has been proposed which complies with minimum requirements. 

Yes

4P – Planting on structures

Planting on structures – appropriate soil profiles are provided, plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance, contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces

Suitable landscaping is proposed as part of formal Landscape Plan.

Yes

4Q – Universal Design

Universal design – design of units allow for flexible housing, adaptable designs, accommodate a range of lifestyle needs

Satisfactory, adaptable units proposed for Units 1.04, 2.04, 3.04, 4.04, 1.07, 2.07 and 3.07.

Yes

4R – Adaptive reuse

Adaptive reuse as unit of existing buildings- new additions are contemporary and complementary, provide residential amenity while not precluding future adaptive reuse.

N/A as the development is new.

N/A

4S Mixed Use

Mixed use developments are provided in appropriate locations and provide active street frontages that encourage pedestrian movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residential levels of the building are integrated within the development, and safety and amenity is maximised for residents.

The proposal provides an active street frontage and a practical connection between the development and the public domain considering the flood level clearance requirements. This does, however, result in a high street front commercial/retail entry which physically disconnects the development from pedestrians at street level.

 

The residential units are located from the first floor level and above and have been integrated into the development.

The unit entry foyer locations and sizes remain matters of concern for safety and amenity reasons, being narrow, isolated and not well designed.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

4U – Energy Efficiency.

Development incorporates passive environmental design, passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer, natural ventilation minimises need for mechanical ventilation

Appropriate building orientation and a compliant BASIX certificate has been provided.

Yes

4V – Water management and conservation

Water management and conservation – potable water use is minimised, stormwater is treated on site before being discharged, flood management systems are integrated into the site design

The stormwater drainage plans have been assessed and remain an issue for Council’s Drainage Engineers as they do not adequately respond to the existing flooding and overland flow issues and remains unsatisfactory.

No

4W – Waste Management

Waste management – storage facilities are appropriately designed, domestic waste is minimised by convenient source separation and recycling

The residential bin stores are appropriately located within basement level 1.

The commercial bin stores are located adjacent to the deep soil area and in proximity to the flooding culverts and area considered inappropriately located and treated.

Yes

 

 

 

 

No, if the proposal is approved would require relocation.

4X – Building Maintenance

Building design provides protection form weathering

 

Enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost

Satisfactory.

Yes

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Environment SEPP

63.      The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018.

 

64.      This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property.

 

·      Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·      Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·      Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

 

65.      The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

66.      The Department of Planning and Environment has announced a Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, which will repeal and replace the current State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land.

 

67.      The main changes proposed include the expansion of categories of remediation work which requires development consent, a greater involvement of principal certifying authorities particularly in relation to remediation works that can be carried out without development consent, more comprehensive guidelines for Councils and certifiers and the clarification of the contamination information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates.

 

68.      Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land.

 

69.      As part of the sale of this land in 2015 by the previous landowner, Ausgrid, a Detailed Site Investigation Report, dated July 2015 was prepared by Prensa and was submitted with the application, which concludes:

 

“The analytical results for soil and groundwater detected in samples analysed as part of this investigation indicated that there were no exceedances above adopted investigation levels, screening levels or groundwater assessment criteria that are considered significant……………..

 

Based on the review of historical information, the field observations, and the analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling, while the former site uses indicated a potential source of contamination, the risk of the site being significantly contaminated is considered to be low…………….

 

It is recommended that the USTs identified on site are removed, and a validation assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified environmental consultant, to assess the risk posed by the presence of residual contamination associated with the USTs and to evaluate whether the site is suitable for a high density residential or commercial/industrial land use.

 

Additionally, the application relies on the findings of the Underground Petroleum Storage System Validation Report, dated July 2015 prepared by Prensa, which concluded as follows:

 

“Based on the findings of the DSI and this UPSS Validation assessment completed by Prensa in October-December 2014 and February-March 2015, respectively, we have identified no reason with regard to potential for contamination that the site would not be suitable for the proposed high density residential use or ongoing commercial/industrial land use…………

 

With respect to the lead contamination in soil remaining in situ at the site, the site is currently not suitable for low density residential land use.  In the unlikely event that the site may be redeveloped for a low density residential land use, the isolated soil displaying evidence of elevated lead concentrations will require management to reduce the potential risk to human health.”

           

70.      Based on the information provided, it is evident that the site remains contaminated with lead trapped between two concrete slabs that will need to be removed and/or rehabilitated as part of any possible approval which requires excavation on site exposing the contamination.  

 

71.      In conclusion, should approval be granted and excavation takes place, unexpected contamination maybe found during demolition, excavation and construction.  Appropriate conditions would be required for the work to cease, investigations to be undertaken and an details of the remediation of the land to occur to be submitted to Council.

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Zoning and Permissibility

72.      The subject site is zoned Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012). See figure 3 above.

 

73.      The proposed development contains residential accommodation and a commercial component which are collectively defined as ‘shop top housing’ and is permissible in the zone.

 

74.      The objectives for development in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone are as follows:

 

·      To promote businesses along the main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses.

·      To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses).

·      To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity.

·      To provide for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed use development

 

75.      The proposed development is considered inconsistent with the economic basis of the above objectives. The proposal provides commercial activities at ground level in two tenancies with a floor space area equivalent to only 32.1% of the proposed floor space, and inadequate floor to ceiling height at the first floor to accommodate possible conversion to commercial if required in the future. The proposal fails to provide sufficient commercial space to maintain opportunities for business and retail development suitable to high exposure locations.

 

76.      The introduction of the new land use zone B6 – Enterprise Corridor Zone in 2017 was intended to ensure that bulky goods retail, business, office, retail and light industry was appropriately located and encouraged in this precinct. Failure to meet the minimum commercial floor space defeats the intent of the zoning and the amendments to the KLEP2012 in that regard. This will set an undesirable precedent which undermines the objectives of the recently up-zoned area.

 

77.      The requirement for commercial floor space with an active street frontage is part of the strategic planning outcome sought by the B6 rezoning. Residential apartments are permissible as shop top housing style of development within the zone albeit with a restricted component; however, the main objective of the zone is to encourage the renewal of commercial/bulky goods retailing development. The amount of residential floor space permitted in this zone is a maximum of 65% of the gross floor area and in this instance the proposal seeks 67.9%. 

 

78.      Considering the objective of the B6 zone is to provide a range of employment uses including business, office, retail, bulky goods and light industrial, failure to provide a suitable loading bay would be inconsistent with the zone objectives in that these uses would not be viable without an adequate loading bay facility. The proposal seeks to use a turntable to enable a small rigid truck (9.3m in length) to access/egress the site in a forward motion, this is considered to be constraint for tenants both in the size of vehicles and accessibility, particularly for a bulky goods operation, as is proposed.   

 

79.      An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of Kogarah LEP 2012 is detailed in the compliance table below:

 

Clause

Objectives/Provisions

Comment

Complies

2.2 Zone 

B6 Enterprise Corridor

The proposal is defined as ‘shop top housing’ development which is a permissible land use in the zone.

If the required retail/ commercial floor space cannot be achieved then the development would be prohibited by default.

No - Currently the development does not achieve the 35% commercial floor space required.

2.3 Objectives

Objectives of the zone

To promote businesses along main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses.

To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses).

To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity.

 

To provide for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed use development.

Only 32.1% of the development is proposed to be commercial in two tenancies. 

 

67.9% of the development is residential, exceeding the 65% permitted.

 

The percentage of floor space provided for commercial and residential uses is not consistent with the zone objectives or Clause 6.9 of KLEP2012 in that it does not permit a range of employment uses due to the restricted area of the commercial tenancy. The focus on the zoning is to promote renewal of the up-zoned B6 sites along the Princes Highway through renewal of commercial development permitting a residential use but only as a shop top housing development with a restricted floor area.

 

The design and configuration of the building does not cater for a suitably located loading bay, carpark driveway, residential lobbies and service access that will cater for a safe and effective commercial component of the development. Given the zoning is focused on providing a range of employment uses, the lack of a suitably located and sized loading bay does not meet the objectives of the zone to service the needs of the commercial component of the development.

No

4.3 - Height of buildings

The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the height of buildings on the subject site to 21m.

The proposal has a building height of up to

19.4m (to the top of the lift overrun) or 18.8m (RL 27.62 to the top of the Parapet).

Yes.

4.4 - Floor space ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the floor space ratio for buildings on the subject site to 2:1.

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 1.94:1.

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl 4.5

Calculated accordingly.

Yes

4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

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.

Nil.

N/A

5.10 - Heritage conservation

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)  to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

The subject site is not identified as a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area, nor is it immediately adjoining a heritage item or heritage conservation area. It is not a recognised archaeological sites or an identified site of aboriginal significance.

The site is in proximity of a heritage item of local significance known as Kogarah Park/Jubilee Oval (including Reserve, War Memorial and Oval).

 

 

Yes

6.1 - Acid sulfate soils

 

 

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.

The subject site is not identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being affected by any particular class of acid sulfate soils.

N/A

6.2 - Earthworks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The proposed development includes excavation and associated earthworks to accommodate two levels of basement car parking. The basement carpark essentially extends the full length and width of the site apart from being setback from the western boundary to accommodate the deep soil zone and the TPZ for the healthy trees located along that boundary. This setback is identified by the Applicant as sufficient to provide an adequate TPZ for the retention of six (6) existing trees on the adjoining site.

Yes

6.3 - Flood planning

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land,

(b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change,

(c)  to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.

The subject land is classified as flood affected in the Beverley Park Overland Flow Risk Management Study and Plan 2007. The identified 1 in 100 ARI flooding level is identified as RL 9.9m (AHD) and recommended finished floor level is 10.4m (AHD).

A Flood Assessment was submitted with the application. However, this has been assessed as inadequate, see discussion in Stormwater Engineers comments, as the building is located within the primary flow channel and will result in higher levels of flooding on neighbouring lands.

No.

The development has been assessed as unsatisfactory with respect to flood levels and treatment of overland flow.

6.5 - Airspace operations

The objective of this clause is to protect airspace around airports

 

The proposed development will not penetrate the prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport and will not require a ‘controlled activity’ within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996.

Yes

6.9 – Development in Zone B6

The objective of this clause is to provide viability of development and to maintain opportunities for business and retail development that is suited to high exposure locations.

 

No more than 65% of the gross floor area of the building will be used for shop top housing or tourist and visitor accommodation. 

 

Consent must not be granted for a land use other than shop top housing or tourist ad visitor accommodation with a gross floor area of less than 500sqm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The residential component of the shop top housing development is 2,723sqm (67.9%)

 

 

 

The area of commercial uses (other land use) is proposed to be 1,289sqm (32.1%).

No - A Clause 4.6 variation has not been provided.

 

80.      The proposed development fails to adequately respond to:

 

·    The intent and objectives of the B6 Zone Objectives,

·    Flooding impacts assessment and amelioration measures; and

·    Commercial operation expectations under Clause 6.9 of the KLEP;

 

81.      On this basis the proposal is recommended for refusal due to its non-compliance with the objectives and standards under KLEP2012, and the lack of a Clause 4.6 Submission to support the variation of the development standard under Clause 6.9 – Development in Zone B6.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

82.      The provisions of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013) are relevant to the proposed development. Several controls within the KDCP 2013 are inconsistent with the scale of development now permitted under the KLEP 2012 (as amended on 26 May 2017).

 

83.      It is also noted that in the hierarchy of planning controls, Development Control Plans cannot prescribe more onerous corresponding controls than those in a Local Environmental Plan.

 

84.      An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant controls in the KDCP 2013 is detailed in the compliance table below.

 

Part B General Controls

Part

Objectives/Controls

Comments

Complies

B1 - Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas

The objectives of this part are to:

·      Ensure development protects and enhances the environmental and cultural heritage of Kogarah;

·      Ensure proposed development is sympathetic to heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas;

·      Provide guidance on appropriate design, siting, bulk, materials, landscaping and streetscape character.

The subject site is not a heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area. It does not adjoin a heritage item however there is a heritage item located in proximity of the site, being Kogarah Park and Jubilee Oval. The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon these heritage items.

 

Yes

B2 - Tree Management and Green Web

The objectives of this part include the following:

·    Ensure the protection of existing trees which contribute to the visual amenity and environment of the City of Kogarah;

·    Protect trees within and adjacent to development sites;

·    Maximise healthy tree canopy coverage across the City of Kogarah.

The applicant has provided an Arborist Report, dated 29 January 2018, prepared by ELKE, which concludes two Yellow Gum White Ironbark trees should be removed due to poor condition or likely impacts from the proposed development. Seven (7) trees are to be retained and have been provided with adequate TPZ’s and are to be accompanied by 4 replacement trees should the application be approved.

No - Concern is raised at removal of T7 being a healthy tree that could be retained where a suitable redesign of the building footprint is pursued.

B3 - Developments near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors

The objectives of this part are to:

·    Ensure an appropriate acoustic amenity can be achieved for development near transport corridors, particularly residential development and other noise sensitive land uses;

·    Provide additional acoustic design or mitigation measures that may be necessary;

·    Development fronting a busy road or a rail corridor should be designed and sited to minimise noise impacts.

An acoustic report was prepared and is deemed satisfactory subject to noise mitigation measures been implemented.

This has been discussed in detail above.

Should the application be approved suitable conditions would need to be imposed to ensure compliance with the report recommendation for internal amenity.

Yes

B4 - Parking and Traffic

The objectives of this part are to:

·     Minimise traffic congestion and ensure adequate traffic safety and management;

·    Ensure an adequate environmental quality of parking areas (including both safety and amenity);

·    Provide adequate car parking for building users and visitors, depending on building use and proximity to public transport.

The site is over 800m from Carlton Railway Station and hence the required residential parking is calculated in accordance with the KDCP guidelines.

Concerns are raised relating to the truck access for the site and Ecole Street which will necessitate trucks to traverse the two lanes to enable access/egress to and from the loading bay via Ecole Street.

Yes the proposal complies with car parking provision requirements.

 

No

 

Referenced in the ADG traffic and access assessment earlier in this report.

 

Residential Parking

The site is located over 800m from Carlton Railway Station and is located outside the strategic centre. The KDCP2013 car parking rates apply.  

 

·    13 x 1 bedroom units x 1.0 = 13.0 required

·    21 x 2 bedroom units x 1.5 = 31.5 required

·    2 x 3 bedroom unit x  2.0 = 4.0 required

·    Visitors 36 units (1 per 5) = 7.2 required

 

Total of 55.7 spaces required

 

57 spaces have been provided

The plans have been designed to accommodate 57 car spaces within Basement Level 2 to facilitate the residential needs of the development.

 

 

 

Yes

Car wash bay

1 bay, which can also function as a visitor space

1 car wash bay has been provided on Basement Level 2 within a visitor space.

Yes

Bicycle parking

Residential

1 space per 3 dwellings

(12 spaces) + 1 space per 10 dwellings for visitors (3.6 spaces)

= 15.6 spaces required

 

Commercial

1 space per 5 car parking spaces = 40 spaces required

Total required = 8 spaces 

12 resident and 4 visitor bicycle parking spaces are provided within basement 2.

 

 

 

 

8 Commercial bicycle parking spaces proposed within Basement Level 1.

Yes

 

Commercial and Bulky Goods parking

1 space per 40sqm gross floor area (offices/bulky goods)

Based on the commercial floor area of 1,289sqm – 33 spaces are required. 

40 spaces provided.

Yes

 

Loading requirements

Retail

Floor area 15sqm to 500sqm – 1 bay required

Floor area >500sqm to 1500sqm – 2 bays required

 

Commercial

Floor Area 1000sqm – 2000sqm - 1 bay required

Floor area > 500sqm to 10000sqm – 2 bays required

 

Design of loading bay 

Minimum bay width  - 3.5m

Minimum bay length – 9.5m

The subject proposal has 1,289sqm of commercial/bulky good floor space requiring a single loading bay.

The loading bay measures 9.5m x 9.85m and has been provided at ground level adjacent to the basement driveway.

Yes

B5 - Waste Management and Minimisation

The objectives of this part are to:

·    Encourage best practice in waste management that minimises waste generation, facilitates waste separation and maximises reuse and recycling;

·    Ensure quality design of waste management facilities that complement the building design and minimise noise, odour and visual impacts on adjacent uses and the public domain;

·    Ensure suitable and efficient waste storage, recycling and collection in all development.

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was submitted with the application and was referred to Council’s Waste Officer.

 

The residential bin storage area is located within basement level 1.

 

 

 

The commercial bin storage is proposed to be located adjacent to the deep soil landscaping and the stormwater culvert inlets on the western elevation. This arrangement is considered unsatisfactory due to its proximity to the landscaped area/deep soil zone and neighbouring the property.

There is no dedicated area adjoining the bin room or within the development that can be used for storing bulky goods.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

The required residential bins have been provided.

 

Commercial bin storage area is unsatisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No bulky storage area provided.

 

 

 

B6 - Water Management

The objectives of this part are to:

·      Reduce flooding and drainage impacts within and downstream of the development site;

·      Reduce pollutant loads exported to the waterways via the stormwater system;

·      Conserve water and reduce mains water consumption.

The development has been assessed as having design concerns in order to manage existing overland flood flows that impact the site. These impacts include the necessity to raise the floor level some 1.6m above street level, and also general management and redirecting of flows to the proposed culverts.

 

The proposed method of stormwater management has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and is unsatisfactory and requiring further review.

No

B7- Environment Management

 

 

The objectives of this part are to:

·     Apply principles and processes that contribute to ecologically sustainable development;

·     Reduce the impacts of development on the environment;

·     Increase the resilience of development to the effects of climate change;

·     Ensure that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced;

·     Reduce the use of potable water;

·     Ensure that development can adapt to climate change.

A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application verifying that the relevant water, energy and thermal comfort targets have been met by the proposal.

 

Should the application be approved, conditions of consent will be included to ensure the commitments required under the BASIX certificate will be satisfied by the proposed development.

Yes

 

Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

85.      Council at its Environment and Planning Committee Meeting dated 24 June 2019 resolved to adopt the Georges River Interim Policy DCP.

 

86.      The Interim Policy is a public policy that is to be used as a guide to set a consistent approach for the assessment of residential development within the LGA. It is a supplementary document, meaning that current DCP controls will prevail if they are considered best practice. The Interim Policy has no statutory recognition in the assessment of DAs pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act).

 

87.      An assessment of the proposal has been carried out against the provisions of the Interim Policy as set out in the following table.

 

Interim Policy – Georges River DCP 2020

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Site Frontage

20m

 

47.935m to Ecole Street and 39.90m to Princes Highway with splayed corner of 2.145m.

Yes

 

Building Height

The relevant LEP controls relating to building height will prevail over DCP controls that relate to height in storeys

The proposal is fully compliant with the KLEP 2012 height limit.

Yes

Private Open Space

The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for private open space

The proposal is compliant with the ADG’s private open space requirements.

Refer to “4E – Private Open Space and Balconies” within the ADG Compliance Table above.

Yes,

As discussed at 4E above.

Communal Open Space

The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for COS

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide with respect to Communal Open Space.

Refer to “3D – Communal Open Space” within the ADG Compliance Table above.

Yes

 

Parking

In accordance with 'A Plan for Growing Sydney' (Department of Planning and Environment):

·    If located in a strategic centre (ie Kogarah CBD and Hurstville CBD) and within 800m of a Railway, the “Metropolitan Regional Centre (CBD)” rates apply.

·    If located within 800m of a railway and outside the strategic centres the “Metropolitan Subregional Centre” rates apply.

·    If located outside of 800m of a Railway, the relevant DCP applies.

The site is located >800m of Carlton Railway Station and is located outside the strategic centre. As such the KDCP2013 rates apply.  

 

·    13 x 1 bedroom units x 1.0 = 13.0 required

·    21 x 2 bedroom units x 1.5 = 31.5 required

·    2 x 3 bedroom unit x  2.0 = 4.0 required

·    Visitors 36 units (1 per 5) = 7.2 required

 

Total of 55.7 spaces required

 

57 spaces have been provided.

 

Yes

Solar Access

The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for solar access

 

The proposal is considered to be compliant with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Solar Access requirements as detailed within the ADG Compliance Table above.

Refer to “4A – Solar and Daylight Access” within the ADG Compliance Table.

Yes

 

Developer Contributions

88.      The proposed development, if approved, would require the payment of developer contributions under Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is increasing the density of the locality by the construction of 36 new apartments. If the development was to be approved a condition outlining the required contributions would be imposed.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

89.      The extent of excavation for the proposed development will adversely affect the natural environment as the proposal in its current form will result in impacts on T7 “Yellow Gum White Ironbark”, being a healthy tree on the site which will be removed solely to accommodate the development footprint. Preferably the extent of excavation should be reduced in this area and the provision of an increased setback to the basement to ensure the longevity, integrity and visual amenity of the existing mature tree on site and within the residential allotment adjoining. 

 

Built Environment

90.      The proposed development is consistent with the height and floor space planning controls contained in KLEP 2012. Under Clause 6.9 – Development in Zone B6, a restriction of 65% on the amount of residential floor space associated with Shop Top Housing in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone applies. This restriction is considered to be a prohibition; the application does not comply with the 65% standard. As noted at Paragraph 13 of this Report, a Clause 4.6 variation to the standard has not been lodged in support of the application and thus the proposal is a prohibited form of development.

 

91.      The built form is considered acceptable and appropriate for the site, noting the elevated ground level results from the flood impacts of the site. The design attempts to achieve a scale, bulk and height that is consistent with the desired character of the streetscape and surrounds for the new B6 Enterprise Corridor objectives and zoning, however, the site flooding constraint results in a commercial/retail component which will be disconnected from street level pedestrian usage.

 

Social Impact

92.      The proposed development, in principle, will cater for a cross-section of the community and could assist with providing for additional housing in the area. The construction of this shop top housing development, with the floor space allocations as proposed, would be inconsistent with the B6 zoning of the land.

 

Economic Impact

93.      The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the B6 zone which focuses on the ability of the Enterprise Corridor zone to encourage appropriate businesses and offer a range of employment opportunities. The proposal fails to provide the minimum floor space for the commercial component and this will adversely affect the future economic viability of the zone. The overall commercial space is restricted and limited on its function and use given the lack of floor space assigned to the commercial component, whilst the residential floor space component exceeds the calculated outcomes.

 

Suitability of the site

94.      The site is zoned B6 – Enterprise Corridor. The proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone. The site is suitable for the construction of a shop top housing development in an area that has been “up-zoned” for this purpose.  Although the site is suitable for this form of development, the overall design and amenity of the development is not considered to be acceptable given the proposal is a prohibited development as it fails to meet the intent and objectives of the zoning through a balance of commercial and residential floor space, including not exceeding 65% residential component, and the variation has not been supported by a Clause 4.6 statement and an appropriate design response to the flood prone nature of this land has not been achieved.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

95.      The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Kogarah DCP 2013 for a period of 14 days. Two (2) submissions were received from neighbouring property owners. The concerns raised are summarised below.

 

·      Does the bulk and scale conform with the current planning controls

96.      Comment: Objector raised concern that the development should comply with the applicable development controls relating to this form of development. As noted above the proposal complies with height and FSR standards but does not comply with the 65% residential restriction applicable under Clause 6.9 of KLEP2012.  On this basis the objection is valid as the application will not achieve the standard under Clause 6.9 and would result in a development form that is not consistent with the intent/objectives for the B6 Zone. In order to achieve the standard an option may be to convert some residential apartments to commercial use at the Podium level, however to be effective this would require an increase in floor to ceiling heights which raises the building overall height and further increases the developments overall bulk.

 

·      Loss of privacy and overlooking of Carlton Public School.

97.      Comment: Concern has been raised by the Principal at Carlton South Public School that the proposed northern aspect facing balconies/windows have the potential to overlook the school. It is noted that the subject land is separated from the school by Ecole Street and thus acceptable separation is achieved, whilst it is also noted that the potential for overlooking is limited to the school carpark and back of the assembly hall only.

 

·      Construction Impacts for Carlton Public School.

98.      Comment: The Principal has raised concerns with on-going noise, vibration, heavy vehicles and dust impacts that may eventuate during demolition and construction phases of the development and their likely impacts on amenity of the school operations and pupils in attendance.  It is recommended that the developer be encouraged to undertake noisy works during school holiday periods and that suitable notifications be provided to the school prior to such works being undertaken, which would be imposed as conditions of consent during construction should the application be supported.  

 

·      Traffic issues, increased congestion and conflicts generated.

99.      Comment: Increased traffic congestion along the Ecole Street are raised as concerns having regard to the narrowing of Ecole Street and existing traffic congestion generated by school users.  The applicants Traffic Assessment Report indicates that the Princes Highway/Ecole Street intersection currently operates at an “A” Service Level and this will not alter if this proposal was constructed and that traffic can be adequately catered for within the network.  It is noted that for trucks to service the site they will need to traverse two (2) traffic lanes to facilitate manoeuvrability into and out of the site within Ecole Street and entering and leaving the Princes Highway. This arrangement, coupled with slowing in a fast moving lane, may result in traffic congestion and potential accident impacts.

 

100.    The issues raised are considered to be relevant amenity matters of relevance for a development of this nature, having regard to the potential higher yielding development capabilities of neighbouring lands adjacent to low density residentially zoned lands. Hence, any design proposals for B6  zoned land should have due regard to the amenity impacts on the low density housing adjacent, with regards to traffic, servicing, building bulk/scale and proposed land use operations of the site.

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

 Development Engineer

101.    The application was referred to Council’s Engineers for comments. Council’s Drainage Engineer has advised the following:

 

“The site is generally affected by mainstream overland flooding in the 1:100 year ARI event.  The proposed development of the site comprises a multi-storey development with a basement parking area. Access to the basement parking is via a driveway from Ecole Street. The proposed development footprint obstructs the existing overland flow path and is likely to increase the risk of flooding to upstream and adjacent properties. It is noted that the proposal as indicated it would block the flood path through the site.  

Council’s policy for flood affected properties prohibits any proposed works that will increase the quantity of flow through an adjoining property, concentrate or redirect flow or otherwise aggravate stormwater overland flow characteristics on adjoining properties. It is not suitable to redirect the flood flow path on to the adjoining roadways.

In this case, the rear of the site is inundated by flooding up to 0.70 m deep in the 1:100 year ARI event and 1.30m deep in the PMF event for the pre-development scenario.  The adopted flood levels for 1:100 year ARI event is RL9.90 m AHD and RL10.35 m AHD in the PMF events.

……………………………

The proposed design in its current form is not supported and it is not considered to be compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and it will significantly adversely affect the flood behaviour in pushing the flood flow onto the adjoining properties and adjoining roadways. It is required for the flood flow to run freely through the site by providing a void between the existing ground level and the proposed finish floor level (FFL) (1:100 year ARI flood level plus 0.5m freeboard). Open fencing can be used around the building perimeter.

…………………prior to any approval of the development:   

·    The proposed design shall be amended to show that the area below the building finish floor and the existing ground levels must remain unobstructed at all times and not enclosed allowing the free flow of floodwaters. It is required to keep the void clear of obstructions to allow the free flow of surface waters to and from this area.

·    The existing natural ground levels of the site shall not be raised or lowered or retaining walls constructed.

·    The engineering submission shall include a section through the proposal showing the void underneath the proposed finish floor, the existing surface levels and the 1:100 year ARI flood level.

·    Provide in the engineering submission a section through the driveway profile including its crest.

·    It is required to estimate and show on plan, the depth of the flow during a frequent flood event 1:10 year ARI event and its impact on the pedestrian movement around the building. 

·    All electrical services (such as power points and switches) must be located above the 1:100 year ARI flood level. In this case, a reference is made to the proposed turntable electrical connections to be addressed.

·    An adequate access for pedestrians shall be provided to an area of refuge above the PMF level either on site or off site.

·    The openings to perimeter walls at subfloor level is to be maximised to minimise the impact of the proposal on the loss of flood storage and alterations to the flood behaviour.

·    All boundary fencing within the floodway is to be pool type fencing.

·    Any planting to be low density.

·    The report shall proposed adequate flood warning systems, signage and exits shall be available to allow safe and orderly evacuation without increased reliance upon the SES services.

·    No filling is permitted within the floodway.” 

 

102.    The current proposal is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer and any future design submission for the site should provide all the above detail, as requested by Council’s Development Engineer. It is also noted that some inconsistencies/errors appear to be evident in the Applicants flood management documentation, including:

 

·    Calculations provided with the Applicants stormwater system proposal indicates an impervious area of 62.5% of the site when in reality the impervious area exceeds 90% (only 160sqm is deep soil landscaping);

·    At the Pre-DA meeting of 2017 Applicant was advised that Council Policy does not support any increase of stormwater overland flow onto neighbouring or public road systems, yet the modelling indicates increases in flow heights in some instances;

·    Substation appears to be at direct road level off the access driveway which would place the facility in jeopardy of being inundated;

·    Location of Tenancy Bins appear to be in front of the proposed flood culverts and would impede the flows directed to the proposed culvert;

·    Design of the Flood culverts appears to provide for free fall exit from under the building slab onto the footpath off Princes Highway. No approval letter from RMS has been submitted in support of the action, as normal practice is that such systems should be connected to the existing road system.

 

103.    The proposal in its current form and based on the current information provided is not supported by Council’s Stormwater Engineer. At this time no conditions of consent have been provided to support a decision to approve the proposal.

 

Traffic Engineer

104.    The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment. Comments received 2 November 2018. A series of issues were raised by the Traffic Engineer including;

§ Provision for 7 residential visitor spaces have been provided, however 8 is required. (36 units at 1 visitor space per 5 units = 7.2, this needs to be rounded up and not down).

§ Sight triangles for pedestrian safety have not been provided for the loading dock. To be provided in accordance with Fig 3.3 of AS2890.1.

§ Shared spaces to be indicated and bollards installed in accordance with Fig 2.2 of AS2890.6.

§ Should the accessible spaces be standalone spaces without a shared zone they must have 3.8m x 5.4m dimensions.

§ Residential / Visitor spaces to be line marked / delineated.

§ How is it proposed to separate the commercial and residential parking, i.e. what stops retail customers finding residential visitor parking and parking in those spots, and vice versa.

§ A B99 vehicle swept path is to be provided showing that simultaneous bi-directional travel is possible with the dimensions of the access ramps.

§ It should also be conditioned that no loading/unloading should take place during school pick up and drop off periods as the submitted swept path shows high potential conflict at the intersection of Ecole Street and Princes Highway.

 

105.    Amended drawings have been provided which now provide:

·    8 visitor spaces, including one combined car wash bay in Basement 2.

·    Residential and visitor spaces have been delineated; and

·    Truck swept paths have been provided for access to the site and to/from Princes Highway. These paths illustrate the need to traverse two traffic lanes to adequately manoeuvre into and out of Ecole Street and the site.

 

106.    The remainder of the issues raised, some of which could be addressed conditionally if the application was to be support, remain unresolved. 

 

107.    Certification was provided by the Applicant’s consultant Terraffic Engineers confirming that the car parking area and driveway is generally compliant with AS2890 and Council’s DCP. It also undertook a traffic assessment for the site which found that the intersection of Princes Highway and Ecole Street operates at an “A” Level of Service and would continue to do so after a development is constructed and operating.

 

108.    General operational issues identified with the proposed car park layout/loading bay arrangement also include:

·    Access drive/ramp is only approximately 5400mm in width for two way flow with side wall boundary restrictions.

·    Accessible car parking bays rely on a shared space arrangement and this is impeded by the location of a supporting structural column.  An alternative space is recommended which does not have structural impediments.

·    Site vehicular access should be restricted to being via the Princes Highway only to ensure trucks do not enter/exit the location from the north of Ecole Street.

·    The proposed loading bay facility relies on Tenancy restricting service vehicles to trucks of 8.8m length and no details have been provided how this would be enforced/policed.

 

Environmental Health Officer

109.    Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection and if approval is granted this should be subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

Building Surveyor

110.    Council’s Building Surveyor Officer has raised no objection and if approval is granted this should be subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

Waste Services

111.    The application was referred to Council’s Waste Officer for comment. No objection was raised in respect to the proposed waste arrangements subject to the imposition of standard conditions if approval was to be granted and that the commercial tenancy bins should be in the basement rather than located at ground level along the western elevation.

 

External Referrals

Sydney Airports

112.    This application was not referred as the proposed development will not penetrate prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport and does not constitute the need for a ‘controlled activity’ within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996.   

 

Ausgrid

113.    The application was referred to Ausgrid for comment on 17 September 2018 in accordance with Clause 45 of the Infrastructure SEPP. To date no response has been provided and given the timeframe concurrence can be assumed.

 

Roads and Maritime Services

114.    The application was referred to RMS in accordance with Clause 101 and 102 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. A formal response was provided and concurrence was obtained subject to the imposition of conditions if the application was to be supported.  The RMS response noted that any stormwater design/hydraulic modifications to the existing system, in this instance the proposal includes diverted flows discharged to the street, would need to be submitted to and approved by the RMS.

 

Department of Education

115.    The NSW Department of Education has provided comments on the proposal due to the site proximity to Carlton South Public School on the eastern side of Ecole Street.  Concerns raised are similar in nature to the issues raised by the Principal of the school as detailed earlier in this report. These issues relate to the construction noise/vibrations and potential for overlooking. It is noted that the subject land is separated from the school by Ecole Street and thus acceptable separation is achieved, whilst it is also noted that the potential for overlooking is limited to the school car park and back of the assembly hall only. The Department’s concerns relating to overlooking are acknowledged, however, in reality the potential for valid amenity concerns are minor in this instance.

 

CONCLUSION

116.    The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans having due regard to the proposal, the following concerns with the application involve:

 

·    non-compliance with the minimum commercial area requirements for the B6 zone results in the proposal being a prohibited form of development.

·    flooding and overland flow management issues,

·    pedestrian and vehicular concerns with the loading bay location,

·    building form and access design issues,

·    construction traffic, noise, dust, vibration concerns for Carlton South Public School; and

·    adverse impact upon trees on the subject site.

 

117.    As a result of the above the proposed development is considered to be an unacceptable planning outcome for this site.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

118.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·    The proposal exceeds the maximum shop top housing component of 65% of the total site floor area. The residential component of the proposed development is 2723sqm being 67.9% of the overall gross floor area being a variation of 4.5% of the permitted floor area as referenced by clause 6.9(3) of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. Hence, the proposal is inconsistent with a development standard, unsupported by a Clause 4.6 variation submission, and thus a prohibited form of development.

·    The proposal is deficient in the amount of commercial floor space required under the provisions of Clause 6.9 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. This would create an undesirable precedent in the area and approval of the development in its current form is not in the public interest.

·    The B6 Enterprise Corridor along Princes Highway at Carlton is undergoing transition to shop top housing with new controls allowing for a greater density and scale. However, the proposal fails to respond to the desired future character for development by not providing the minimum required commercial floor space which is the primary objective of the B6 – Enterprise Corridor zoning.

·    The subject land is identified as being flood prone and located within the 1 in 100 year ARI flow path from Carlton Station to Beverley Park. The flood mitigation and overland flow path management proposed are considered to be inadequate and are likely to result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and the public road services;

·    The proposed stormwater drainage concept is designed to drain by culverts from the rear of the site to the Princes Highway via basement culverts and appears to discharge onto the footpath. Any modification to the drainage associated with the Princes Highway requires concurrence of the Roads and Maritime Services and the application is not supported by documentation of concurrence;

·    The proposed building design and siting, in particular the extent of excavation associated with the basement carpark, will adversely affect the TPZ of the Yellow Gum White Ironbark Tree (T7) on the subject site and its longevity, hydrology and integrity will be severely impacted. The design and positioning of the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable due to its likely impact on T7;

·    The proposal does not comply with the standards and intent of the Apartment Design Guidelines provisions particularly with regard to, Clause 3F – Visual Privacy (requiring 6m boundary setbacks for habitable rooms), Clause 4C – Ceiling Heights (recommends first 2 levels at 3.3m for flexibility of use), Clause 4V – Water Management (relating to provision of suitable stormwater services);

·    The building design, particularly with regard to the Ecole Street frontage, has a poor design presentation which is dominated by multiple pedestrian and vehicular openings likely to result in general confusion for the public and potentially lead to confrontations or accidents;

 

119.    In consideration of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

 

Determination

120.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse development consent to Development Application DA2018/0059 for demolition of the existing structures on site, lot consolidation, tree removal and the construction of a five (5) storey shop top housing development comprising of thirty six (36) residential units, one level of commercial floor space and two (2) levels of basement car parking for ninety seven (97) vehicles and associated site works at Lot 33, 34, 35 and 36 of DP13023 and known as 261-265 Princes Highway, Carlton, for the following reasons:

 

1.         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 provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows:

i.   the aims and objectives for the B6 Enterprise Corridor under  Land Use Table and Zone Objectives;

ii.  the objectives of Clause 6.3 Flood Planning as the documentation on flood and overland flow management is inadequate and many modifications may require building design modifications;

iii. the provisions of Clause 6.9 Development in Zone B6 relating to the maximum shop top housing floor space on a site.  The proposed development does not limit residential component to 65% of floor space and this non-compliance is not supported by a Clause 4.6 submission, the proposal is a prohibited form of development;

 

(b)  the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 as the proposal has not adequately addressed the retention of trees on the land;

 

(c)   the design quality principles under Clause 28 relating to the  Apartment Design Guide and Schedule 1 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, particularly having regard to habitable room separation setbacks, the flooding constraints affecting the land, commercial density, land use flexibility and the façade design fronting Ecole Street.

 

2.         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 of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013:

 

(a)  Part B2 Tree Management and Greenweb as the proposal does not adequately justify removal of T7 tree which could be retained in an appropriate design;

(b)  Part B4 Parking and Traffic relating to the suitable design for service vehicle access to the site, safe manoeuvring and façade design;

(c)   Part B5 Waste Management and Minimisation as it relates to the appropriate location of commercial bins;

(d)  Part B6 Water Management with regard to the adequacy of documentation relied upon for the design dealing with flooding and overland flow management.

 

3.         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)  Create amenity impacts for neighbouring lands and public roads through likely redirection of volume and velocity of overland flows during flood times and storm events;

(b)  The submitted flood design plan provides for channelising the storm/flood events into two culverts and discharging to the Princes Highway which requires Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) concurrence and is generally contrary to standard RMS design procedures;

(c)   Inadequate details have been provided on how water would be redirected to the proposed culverts proposed under the flood report, including any reshaping of the land to create swales or the like;

(d)  Unreasonably reduce the existing trees on site where inadequate justification is provided and a more appropriate design may safely retain the tree;

(e)  Building design provides for multiple entry in condensed location which may result in public confusion and result in likely confrontations;

(f)   Service vehicle access to Ecole Street and the development site generally will result in potential vehicle conflict due to turning path requirements for large rigid trucks requiring the use of two traffic lanes;

(g)  The proposal is likely, if approved, to result in a precedent for developments that inappropriately design buildings within flood paths and do not adequately address the commercial expectations for the B6 zone;

(h)  Overlooking issues for a public school have been raised and require due consideration.

 

4.         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 submitted development design is considered to be inappropriate for the subject land considering the flood management submissions are inadequate and requiring modification and hence the building design is likely to be modified accordingly;

(b)  Ecole Street is a limited vehicle catchment local road and the management of public and service vehicles entering/exiting this location would require suitable management controls to be implemented to ensure vehicles do not approach the development from the northern approaches of Ecole Street which are constricted in nature.

 

5.         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.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

Attachment 2

Aerial Photograph - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

Attachment 3

Elevations - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Tuesday, 17 December 2019

LPP062-19              261 Princes Highway Carlton

[Appendix 1]          Site Plan - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

 

 

Page 94

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Tuesday, 17 December 2019

LPP062-19              261 Princes Highway Carlton

[Appendix 2]          Aerial Photograph - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

 

 

Page 95

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Tuesday, 17 December 2019

LPP062-19              261 Princes Highway Carlton

[Appendix 3]          Elevations - 261 Princes Highway Carlton

 

 

Page 99

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 17 December  2019

Page 186

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Tuesday, 17 December 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP063-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0358

Site Address & Ward Locality

1-3 English Street Kogarah

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition, tree removal, lot consolidation and construction of a seven storey residential flat building comprising 23 units over basement parking under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Owners

21st Century Insulation

Applicant

Barrelle Guirguis Architects

Planner/Architect

Planner – Planning Ingenuity. Architect – Barelle Guirguis Architects

Date Of Lodgement

31/08/2018

Submissions

Three (3) individual submissions

Cost of Works

$7,843,561.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The application relates to development to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Applies and the proposal exceeds the height control development standard by more than 10%.

List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Georges River Catchment,

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy – Remediation of Land, Kogarah Local Enivornmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

Draft Amendment to Part C2 – Medium Density Development of Kogarah DCP 2013

List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration

Architectural Plans

Statement of Environmental Effects – Planning Ingenuity

Acoustic Report – Day Design Pty Ltd

Traffic & Parking Report – Hemanote Consultants Pty Ltd

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Officer

P

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated in the report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?

 

Yes  - Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

Special Infrastructure Contributions

Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No as the application is being recommended for refusal and the refusal reasons can be viewed when the report is published

 

Site Plan

Site identified in blue

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         This development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures across two (2) sites, lot consolidation and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building (RFB) comprising of a total of twenty three (23) apartments including two (2) levels of basement car parking catering for a total of 31 car parking spaces.

 

2.         The proposed development has been proposed under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; the proposal includes five (5) units (21.7%) of the development to be dedicated as affordable rental housing for a 10 year period. If a development application is for a development that is for affordable housing with a CIV of $5 million, the consent authority is the Sydney South Planning Panel (SSPP). As the proposed percentage of affordable housing is only 21.7%, the consent authority is the Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP).

 

3.         The proposal has two (2) basement car parking levels with thirty one (31) residential car parking spaces and five (5) residential visitor spaces. Vehicle access is provided via a two-way driveway from English Street along the eastern boundary.

 

4.         A Pre Development Application Discussion (PDA) meeting was held on 30 November 2017, the following issues were raised:

 

·    The subject site is an undersized lot and fails to comply with the minimum lot size contained within Clause 4.1A of Kogarah LEP 2012. The applicant advised that the application would be submitted under the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP to overcome the deficient site area.

·    Non-compliance with height control.

·    Evidence must be provided to demonstrate compliance with the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

·    Site amalgamation - Map 8 – Carlton requires that amalgamation of 1-3 English Street and 268 Railway Parade is required for redevelopment.

·    Design considerations – street access should be provided to ground floor apartments. The proposed setback distances of 3m to 4.5m to the southern boundary are considered to be insufficient.

·    The excavation for the basement is in close proximity to the boundary and could adversely affect the trees on adjoining sites. An arborist report should be provided.

·    Limited planting opportunities due to the footprint of the basement.

·    A stronger architectural corner element at English Street and Railway Parade should be provided.

·    General amenity of unit layouts an configuration.

 

Although some of these matters were addressed in the plans lodged as part of the development application, a number of the above issues remain unresolved.

 

5.         The proposed development exceeds the height control. The non-compliance includes habitable space, the lift overrun, fire stairs and the roof top terrace. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted for the variation to the height development standard which has been assessed in detail later in this report and is not supported.

 

6.         Communal open space is provided both at ground level to the southern side and on the rooftop (Level 6) located adjacent to unit 23.

 

Figure 1: Eastern Street elevation of the proposal (Source Courtesy Barelle Guirguis architects, 2018)

 

Figure 2: Southern elevation of the proposal (Source Courtesy Barelle Guirguis architects, 2018)

 

Site and Locality

7.         The development site is located on the western side of English Street. The site is legally identified as Lot A DP 374363 (1 English Street) and Lot 67 DP 1753 (3 English Street) and has a street address of 1 and 3 English Street, Kogarah.

 

8.         The development site is an irregular shaped allotment located off English Street with a frontage of 22m to English Street, and a secondary frontage of 28.575m to Railway Parade. The total combined site area is 991.1sqm. The land falls from west to east towards English Street and from Railway Parade to the south.

 

9.         Presently situated on the development site at 1 English Street is a residential building containing three (3) units and associated outbuildings with vehicular access from Railway Parade, whilst at 3 English Street is a single storey residential building which appears to be used as 3 separate occupancies with ancillary structures.

 

10.      This block located between English Street and Buchanan Street is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the block to the west is zoned B2 Local Centre and B4 Mixed Use to the east on the other side of the substation which is zoned SP2. The site is within an area that has been up-zoned in the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 2:1 and a maximum height to 21m.

 

11.      On the opposite side of Railway Parade to the north is Carlton Railway Station. Kogarah Shopping centre, which is zoned B4, is located to the east of the site. Opposite the subject site in English Street on the opposite corner of Railway Parade and English Street is an electrical substation.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

12.      The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012). The proposal involves the construction of a residential flat building which is a permissible use in the zone with development consent.

 

Submissions

13.      The DA was publicly notified to neighbours for a period of fourteen (14) days in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013). A total of three (3) submissions were received raising concerns with parking and traffic congestion, overshadowing, concerns regarding the height, scale and bulk of the scheme, streetscape character, waste management and overlooking issues. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report.

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

14.      This application is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for determination as the proposal relates to a Residential Flat Building and the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development apply and the proposal exceeds the height control by more than 10%.

 

Planning and Design Issues

15.      The proposal exceeds the 21m height control permitted by the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP). This variation includes habitable floor space (Unit 23), along with the lift overrun, fire stairs and ancillary structures associated with the roof top communal open space located adjacent to Unit 23. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement for this variation to the height control. Council has expressed concern and has not recommended support of any variation to the height control which includes habitable floor space. The Panel has been supportive of this approach. Ancillary structures supporting the communal open space would be considered.

 

16.      The issues raised by the DRP have not been resolved and include the following:

·    Inadequate setbacks to all common boundaries resulting in separation distances between properties substantially below the ADG recommendations.

·    Street setbacks inconsistent with adjacent properties.

·    Bulk and scale inappropriate for its context.

·    Proximity of vehicular and pedestrian access inappropriate.

·    Poor configuration of basement carpark with southern and western boundaries directly adjacent to adjoining properties.

·    Adverse impact upon trees on adjacent properties.

·    Rooftop unit should be deleted.

·    Landscaping has not been adequately considered in the design.

 

17.      Council’s Consultant Arborist has advised that the extent of excavation for the basement will have an adverse impact upon the health of the trees located on the adjoining properties. In particular the tree located on the western property (268 Railway Parade), given the extent of excavation along the western boundary.

 

18.      The subject site is part of an amalgamation pattern identified in KDCP 2013 requiring the amalgamation of 1and 3 English Street and 268 Railway Parade. The proposed inability to amalgamate all sites will result in an irregular shaped allotment and will isolate 268 Railway Parade. Should the site be acquired this would then enable the development to reach its full development potential whilst also providing a more appropriate building design with appropriate setbacks that will respond to the context within the immediate locality.

 

19.      The proposal fails to satisfy the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) building separation “design criteria” with non-compliances on all levels with the exception of level 6 (Unit 23). The lack of separation along both side boundaries will create adverse amenity impacts, to adjoining properties and the lack of compliant separation distances in this case will not satisfy the objectives of the ADG which aims to achieve to an “equitable” distribution of separation between properties. Some encroachment is permissible subject to no overlooking being generated and if encroachments occur other sensitive design elements need to be employed including variations to the facades through improved articulation, clever placement of window openings, smart materials and finishes and the use of landscaping to soften and green spaces. The proposed design falls short of achieving the intentions and purpose of the ADG, as the proposed setbacks are considered to be insufficient and the building will be an extremely large, imposing mass and form. These are detailed within the ADG Compliance Table within this report

 

Conclusion

20.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The proposed height, setbacks, siting, design scale, form and bulk of the building is considered to be an unsuitable planning and urban design response for the site. As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

Description of the Proposal

21.      The DA seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures across two (2) sites, lot consolidation and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building (RFB) comprising of a total of twenty three (23) apartments including two (2) levels of basement car parking catering for a total of 31 car parking spaces (refer to figure 3).

 

Figure 3: Artist’s 3D rendition of the proposal (Source Barelle Guirguis Architects, 2018)

                                                        

22.      Further details of the proposal are as follows;

 

Lower Basement Plan

-     Sixteen (16) residential car parking spaces (including one accessible space with shared zone).

-     Lift and fire stairs.

-     Six (6) secure storage areas.

-     Services room.

 

Basement Plan

-     Fifteen (15) car parking spaces comprising of the following:

·    Five (5) visitors car parking spaces.

·    Ten (10) residential car parking spaces (car spaces 12 and 13 and spaces 14 and 15 are in the form of stacked spaces).

-     Two (2) secure storage lockers.

-     Eight (8) residential bicycle parking spaces.

-     Lift and fire stairs.

-     Services.

-     Garbage Room.

 

Ground Floor Plan

-     Four (4) residential apartments on the ground floor as follows: 

·    2 x 1 bedroom apartments (one is an affordable/adaptable unit and the other is an affordable/liveable unit). 

·    2 x 3 bedroom apartments (both are affordable units)  

-     Dual lane vehicular access from English Street located to the eastern side of the site.

-     Access ramp with platform lift to front entry.

-     One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

-     Landscaped front setback with communal residential access gate.

-     Three (3) visitors bicycle parking spaces.

 

First Floor Plan

-     Four (4) residential  apartments on first floor as follows:

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartments (which is an affordable unit)  

·    1 x 2 bedroom apartments.

·    2 x 3 bedroom apartment (one is an affordable unit and the other is a liveable unit).

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

 

Second Floor Plan 

-     Four (4) residential  apartments on second floor as follows:

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartments (which is an adaptable unit)  

·    1 x 2 bedroom apartments.

·    2 x 3 bedroom apartment (one of which is a liveable unit).

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

 

Third Floor Plan 

-     Four (4) residential  apartments on third floor as follows:

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartments (which is a liveable unit)  

·    1 x 2 bedroom apartments.

·    2 x 3 bedroom apartment (one of which is a liveable unit).

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

 

Fourth Floor Plan  

-     Four (4) residential  apartments on fourth floor as follows:

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartments.  

·    1 x 2 bedroom apartments.

·    1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

 

Fifth Floor Plan   

-     Four (4) residential  apartments on fifth floor as follows:

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartments.  

·    1 x 2 bedroom apartments.

·    1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

 

Sixth Floor Plan    

·    1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

·    One (1) lift lobby and fire stairs.

-     Communal roof top open space area comprising of the following:

·    Approximately 178sqm of communal open space area.

·    Multiple seating and outdoor eating areas both covered and uncovered.

·    BBQ facilities.

·    Planter boxes provided to the southern and western side of the roof top terrace infilled with a 1.5m high privacy screen.

·    The apartment is setback between 11m and 15m from the southern boundary.

·    1.5m high privacy screens and planter boxes surrounding perimeter of roof top communal open space at the roofs edge.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

23.      The development site is located on the western side of English Street. The site is legally identified as Lot A DP 374363 (1 English Street) and Lot 67 DP 1753 (3 English Street) and has a street address of 1 and 3 English Street, Kogarah.

 

24.      The development site is an irregular shaped allotment located off English Street with a frontage of 22m to English Street, and a secondary frontage of 28.575m to Railway Parade. The total site area is 991.1sqm. The land falls from west to east towards English Street and from Railway Parade to the south.

 

25.      Presently situated on the development site at 1 English Street is a residential building containing three (3) units and associated outbuildings with vehicular access from Railway Parade, whilst at 3 English Street is a single storey residential building which appears to be used as 3 separate occupancies with ancillary structures.

 

Figure 4: 1 English Street, Kogarah (as viewed from Railway Parade)

 

Figure 5: 3 English Street, Kogarah (as viewed from Railway Parade)

 

Figure 6: 1 and 3 English Street as viewed from English Street

 

26.      Immediately adjoining the site to the south is 5–7 English Street, Kogarah is a 4 storey residential flat building (RFB) with similar scale RFB’s located further to the west to Neilsen Avenue, Kogarah where at this point the zoning changes to R2 Low Density Residential containing residential dwelling houses largely low scale in form and character.

 

Figure 7: 5-7 English Street, Kogarah

 

Figure 8: 9-11 English Street, Kogarah

 

27.      This block located between English Street and Buchanan Street is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the block to the west is zoned B2 Local Centre and B4 Mixed Use to the east on the other side of the substation which is zoned SP2. The site is within an area that has been up-zoned in the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 2:1 and a maximum height to 21m.

 

28.      On the opposite side of Railway Parade to the north is Carlton Railway Station. Kogarah Shopping centre, which is zoned B4 is located to the east of the site. Opposite the subject site in English Street on the opposite corner of Railway Parade and English Street is an electrical substation.

Figure 9: Substation located on Railway Parade and English Street

 

29.      Properties immediately to the west of the site are generally undeveloped and contain single and two storey detached dwelling houses.

 

Figure 10: 268 Railway Parade, Kogarah

 

Figure 11: Photos of the adjoining properties to the west of the subject site

 

30.      The immediate precinct is undergoing a process of transition and transformation to larger scale medium density residential developments and larger scale mixed use developments along Railway Parade.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

31.      Compliance with the relevant SEPPs is summarised in the following table and discussed in further detail below it.

 

Table 1: Compliance with State Planning Policies

SEPP Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

No - partial non-compliance

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

No - partial non -compliance

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

32.      The primary relevant aims and objectives of this plan are:

 

·      to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries and ensure that development is managed in a manner that is in keeping with the national, State, regional and local significance of the Catchment,

·      to protect and enhance the environmental quality of the Catchment for the benefit of all users through the management and use of the resources in the Catchment in an ecologically sustainable manner,

·      to ensure consistency with local environmental plans and also in the delivery of the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the assessment of development within the Catchment where there is potential to impact adversely on groundwater and on the water quality and river flows within the Georges River or its tributaries,

·      to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment for land along the Georges River and its tributaries and to promote integrated catchment management policies and programs in the planning and management of the Catchment

 

33.      The DA includes a concept stormwater design prepared by Pavel Kozarovski of Kozarovski and Partners. The application was referred to Council’s Engineering Services for comment. There were concerns raised in respect to the stormwater and drainage arrangement. The following comments were made;

 

“Insufficient information is provided in the Stormwater Drainage Plans. Also, the plans are not clear. The Stormwater Drainage Plans shall be amended addressing the following items and submitted to Council for assessment.

 

a)  OSD volume was determined using an impervious area of 52.5%. However, the Landscape Plan (Ground Floor) shows a high percentage of impervious areas. The stormwater consultant is to revisit the Stormwater Management Report calculations and revise the OSD tank details accordingly.

 

b)  The council does not support the site drainage connection to the street kerb and gutter. Considering a large site area of 991 square metres, all stormwater shall drain by gravity to the existing kerb inlet pit located at the corner of English Street and Railway Avenue. OSD tank shall be designed with a sump at the outlet pipe location. OSD tank section should show all inlet pipes including the levels and access grate dimensions.

 

c)    Pump well pit volume and pump rate calculation details shall be shown on the plan.”

 

34.      These concerns remain unresolved. The location of the OSD tank within the area of communal open space is considered to be a poor planning and urban design outcome. The location of the OSD will reduce the floor to ceiling height of the garbage area. There are no sections or details clarifying the impact of the OSD.

 

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

35.      BASIX Certificate No. 925890M dated 12 June 2018 has been issued for the proposal and demonstrates that it meets the provisions and minimum requirements of BASIX in terms of water, thermal comfort and Energy efficiency. The architectural plans include the commitments that are required to be shown at DA stage. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the BASIX SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

36.      SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land in order to reduce the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.

 

37.      Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a DA. The consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether or not the land is contaminated. 

 

38.      A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes since at least 1943. Residential usage is not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of land.

 

39.      A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) Report No E18015KOG-R01F dated 17 August 2018 prepared by geo-environmental engineering was submitted with the application, which concludes:

 

“The review of the sites history revealed no evidence of significant contaminating activities associated with the site and there was no other evidence of contamination identified by the site inspection. With this in mind, and taking into account the extent of the proposed development, which includes excavation for a basement which will occupy the majority of the site, further investigation, in the form of a Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation, is not considered to be warranted.”

 

40.      Based on the information provided, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) Report was not required.

 

41.      The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposal and the continued residential use of the land. This conclusion is supported by Council’s Environmental Health Section who recommended should the development be approved appropriate conditions of consent relating to any contamination findings during demolition, excavation or construction, and that a Clearance Certificate be obtained prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

42.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The Infrastructure SEPP also examines and ensures that the acoustic performance of buildings adjoining the rail corridor or busy arterial roads is acceptable and internal amenity within apartments is reasonable given the impacts of adjoining infrastructure.

 

43.      Clause 87 of the SEPP “Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development”, is relevant to this DA on the basis that the proposal involves the construction of residential accommodation on land that is generally adjacent to the rail corridor and is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration. As a result, the following provisions of Clause 87 of the SEPP are relevant:

 

(3) If the development is for the purposes of residential accommodation, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a)  in any bedroom in the residential accommodation — 35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am,

(b)  anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) — 40 dB(A) at any time.

 

44.      An Acoustic Report (Rail Noise and Vibration Assessment) Noise Assessment) was submitted with the DA, dated 20 August 2018 and prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd. The report addresses the provisions of the Policy with respect to achieving acoustic compliance. The report suggests a series of construction methods and materials (eg 5mm – 6.5mm glass in all living areas and bedrooms, with full perimeter acoustic seals).

 

45.      The DA was also referred to Ausgrid on 25 October 2019 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing this report no response had been received. (6 December 2019).

 

46.      The DA was referred to Sydney Trains in accordance with the provisions of Clause 85 and Clause 86 of the Infrastructure SEPP. To date no response has been received. Should the proposal be recommended for approval, concurrence from Sydney Trains will be required.

 

47.      The provisions and requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP have been addressed subject to concurrence from Sydney Trains this is satisfied.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

48.      The Department of Planning and Environment has announced a Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, which will repeal and replace the current State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land.

 

49.      The main changes proposed include the expansion of categories of remediation work which requires development consent, a greater involvement of principal certifying authorities particularly in relation to remediation works that can be carried out without development consent, more comprehensive guidelines for Councils and certifiers and the clarification of the contamination information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates.

 

50.      Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings in relation to contamination at the site.

 

51.      A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) Report No E18015KOG-R01F dated 17 August 2018 prepared by geo-environmental engineering was submitted with the application, which concludes:

 

“The review of the sites history revealed no evidence of significant contaminating activities associated with the site and there was no other evidence of contamination identified by the site inspection. With this in mind, and taking into account the extent of the proposed development, which includes excavation for a basement which will occupy the majority of the site, further investigation, in the form of a Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation, is not considered to be warranted.”

 

52.      Based on the information provided, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) Report was not required.

 

53.      The report concludes that there is no evidence of significant contaminating activities associated with the site and a Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation is not considered warranted. This conclusion is supported by Council’s Environmental Health Section who has undertaken an assessment of the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) Report and raises no objection to the proposal.

 

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

54.      The Vegetation SEPP aims to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

 

55.      The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

 

(a) Native vegetation above the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) threshold where a proponent will require an approval from the Native Vegetation Panel established under the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016; and 

(b) Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s development control plan (DCP). 

 

56.      The Vegetation SEPP repeals clauses 5.9 and 5.9AA of the Standard Instrument - Principal Local Environmental Plan with regulation of the clearing of vegetation (including native vegetation) below the BOS threshold through any applicable DCP.

 

57.      Councils Consultant Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal and raised concern with the location and proximity of the basement to the southern and western boundaries. The trees on the adjoining sites are located adjacent to the southern and western boundaries. The tree on the western side has a TPZ of 10.8m with the trees on the southern side having TPZs of 4.8m and 5.4m. To ensure the retention of the trees on the adjoining sites, the basement needs to be setback minimum of 5 – 6m from the boundary.

 

58.         There is an inadequate amount of deep soil landscaped area to the periphery of the site as the basement parking levels extend to the site boundaries. The Landscape Plan shows large trees along the front (Railway Parade frontage) where the setback is only 1.5m which is too narrow to accommodate for the planting of larger trees. There is also a large tree shown along the northern side above the basement which cannot be achieved. There is no potential for greenery and larger screen planting along the boundaries of the site due to the extent of the basement area.

 

Figure 12: Landscape plan showing the proposed landscaping. The dotted circles show the trees proposed to be removed

 

59.      On this basis, the proposal is inconsistent with relevant provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

 

Draft Environment SEPP

60.      The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property.

 

61.      Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·      Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·      Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property

 

62.      The proposal is consistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP)

63.      The aim of this Policy is;

 

·      “to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

·      to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

·      to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

·      to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,”

 

64.      The proposed development incorporates an affordable housing component and dedicates a total of five (5) apartments as “affordable”, therefore this Policy applies to the development.

 

65.      Part 2 Division 1 of the ARHSEPP relates to “infill affordable housing” and states as follows;

 

“(1)      This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi-unit housing or residential flat buildings if:

(a)       The development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument, and

(b)       the development is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument, or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

(2)       Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within an accessible area”

 

66.      The proposed residential flat building is a permissible land use within the R3 Medium Density zone pursuant to Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP).

 

Clause 4 – Accessibility

67.      Clause 4 of the SEPP requires the site to be “accessible” which means the property needs to satisfy the following provisions;

 

(a)   800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or

(b)  400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or

(c)   400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

 

68.      The proposal satisfies subsection (a) above as the site is located within 800m walking distance to the Carlton Railway Station. The site is some 250m from the station (refer to Figure 13 below) which satisfies the SEPP “accessibility” requirements.

 

Figure 13: Distance from the subject site to Carlton Railway Station (courtesy Nearmaps)

 

69.      The provisions of Division 1 (In-fill affordable housing) are relevant to this development. The development is not technically relying on a floor space bonus as the proposal (inclusive of the affordable housing units) complies with the FSR of 2:1 as stipulated in Clause 4.4 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP), however the provisions of Clause 13 (floor space ratio) is applicable as 20% of the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the development is taken up by affordable housing.

 

Clause 13 – Floor Space ratios

70.      Clause 13 of the ARHSEPP is applicable if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent.”

 

In this case five (5) units within the development have been designated as affordable (Units No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 8). The GFA for each unit is provided below;

 

GFA Unit No.1 (3 bedroom) = 102sqm

GFA Unit No.2 (1 bedroom) = 52sqm

GFA Unit No.3 (1 bedroom) = 55sqm

GFA Unit No.4 (3 bedroom) = 90sqm

GFA Unit No.8 (3 bedroom) = 95sqm

Total GFA = 394sqm

 

71.      The Applicant has provided Gross Floor Area (GFA) diagrams with the application however these calculations have excluded some  areas which need to be included being the circulation spaces (corridors and the garbage bin storage area which is located partially above ground). Recalculations to include these areas, the total GFA of the development is 1976sqm which amounts to a total FSR of 1.99:1.

 

72.      The affordable floor space component comprising of 394sqm makes up 20% of the total GFA of the development. This translates to a bonus FSR of 0.2:1 in accordance with the ARHSEPP provisions and the maximum FSR permissible for the site is 2.2:1. The proposal complies with this control as the proposed FSR is 1.99:1.

 

Clause 14 – Standards that cannot refuse consent

73.      Clause 14 of the ARHSEPP outlines development standards that cannot be used to refuse consent. Assessment against these provisions is considered in the table below.

 

Table 2: Compliance Table (Clause 14, ARH SEPP)

Control

Numerical Requirement

Proposed Development

Complies

Site Area

450sqm

991.1sqm

Yes

Landscaped Area

30% of the site area

436sqm (Ground Floor)

44% of the site

Yes

Deep Soil Zones

15% of the site area

 

Min dimension of 3m

 

 

Two-thirds of the area located at the rear

149sqm (15%)

 

The area calculated has a min dimension of 3m.

 

40% (60sqm) of the deep soil area is located at the rear

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Solar Access

70% of dwellings receive 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm

This control is more onerous than the ADG solar access requirement which requires a minimum of 70% of apartments receiving a minimum of 2 hours of solar access during midwinter.

A total of nineteen (19) apartments receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct solar access in mid- winter. This amounts to 82% which is compliant.

Yes

Parking

The following provisions apply;

at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom,

at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and

at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms

1 bedroom units

7 x 0.5 spaces = 3.5 spaces

2 bedroom units

5 x 1 spaces = 5 spaces

3 bedroom units

11 x 1.5 spaces = 16.5 spaces

Total required = 25 spaces

31 spaces proposed

The proposal complies with the numerical parking requirements of the ARH SEPP.

 

Required – 25

 

Proposed - 31

Yes

Dwelling Size

Minimum GFA requirements for each apartment

 

1 bedroom apartments = 50sqm

 

2 bedroom apartments = 70sqm

 

3 bedroom apartments = 95sqm

The development provides for the following;

 

 

52sqm – 55sqm

 

 

80sqm

 

 

90sqm – 102sqm

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

No – see comments below

Non-compliance with dwelling size

Unit 4 which is a three bedroom apartment is located in the four storey along the south western side of the building has an internal area of 90sqm (as depicted on the area ground floor plan DA119 Rev A) which is short of the minimum 95sqm as stipulated by the ARHSEPP. The area of the apartment in general is not compromised by its size and the deficiency of 5sqm will not impact the functionality of the internal spaces. The internal layout of the unit and the other three bedroom units within this section of the building are not well planned with a bedroom punctuating the balcony area adjoining the living space. This is a poor layout as the living space only has a small opening to access the balcony. The issue of internal amenity and layout is detailed in the SEPP 65 assessment of the proposal. In terms of the overall size of the apartment it is not considered to be unreasonable and the deficiency in overall area is considered to be minor.

 

74.      In accordance with Clause 14 of the ARHSEPP, the development cannot be refused if the development satisfies the provisions within Clause 14. In this case the development satisfies these provisions.

 

75.      Clause 16 of the ARHSEPP requires the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of SEPP 65 in respect to the design quality of the proposed RFB. A detailed assessment against the provisions of SEPP 65 is provided later in this report.

 

Clause 16A – Character Assessment

76.      Under clause 16A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a consent authority must “take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area”. As there are no specific guidelines developed to inform how to apply this compatibility test a number of court cases have provided some guidance as to how to assess the “character” of a local area and what to consider to ensure an affordable housing development is suitable.

 

77.      In considering compatibility with neighbouring character, in Sterling Projects v The Hills Shire Council [2011] the Commissioner said that “Character is not limited to a consideration of streetscape but includes the wider context of the site, in particular the characteristics of the properties which adjoin the site”.

 

78.      In the recent decision of Louden Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] clause 16A played a prominent role in Commissioner Gray’s judgement. Commissioner Gray stated that all buildings of all typologies must be incorporated into the assessment of the local area character. This assessment concurs with Commissioner Roseth SC who in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] stated that Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.

 

79.      Further to this point of creating a harmonious streetscape, the proposed building is very modern in its appearance and will sit awkwardly in the streetscape given the existing character of development is quite consistent in form, scale and design. The local character comprises of a mix of buildings from different eras and therefore the architectural character is different, however there are many similar features and architectural elements that create a sense of consistency.

 

80.      In order to establish a local character in a mixed, diverse area the plans should reasonably match other structures in the vicinity and should consider such aspects as building forms, setbacks and scale.

 

81.      Firstly, the immediate context of the site could be defined as the sites bounded by English Street, Railway Parade, Buchanan Street and Hampton Court. Properties within this block are residential in nature. Properties within the block are zoned R3 Medium Density so the character is predominantly residential in nature. Buildings are varied in scale and form with single storey detached Federation style cottages set among two storey residential flat buildings and larger scaled three-four storey walk-ups. There is obvious disparity between the scale and form of buildings within the block but there are consistent architectural characteristics which create a generally coherent character. All buildings include traditional low pitched, tiled roof forms. This is a consistent feature of all properties. Most properties are constructed of traditional face brickwork and this is a very obvious and consistent finish.

 

82.      There are a few rendered buildings but these are low in scale (two storey) so they are not visually dominating. The relatively modern electrical substation building to the south (across the road) has picked up on these elements and finishes. It is constructed of face brickwork of different tones which aims to sit more comfortably within the residential streetscape. The modern screening and cladding that is integrated into the design breaks up the form and introduces new, contemporary elements.  Other features and qualities within the streetscape are consistent front setbacks and softly landscaped areas of open space at the front of properties and face brick fences and front retaining walls.

 

83.      Within the broader precinct development typologies are varied and mixed given the change in zoning. Immediately to the east is the electrical substation which is zoned Special uses (SP2) which permits associated Infrastructure uses and then further to the east are mixed uses located within the B4 Mixed use zone which permits a height of up to 39m and FSR of 4:1. This is a very different landscape. Immediately to the west are mixed use developments within the B2 Local Business zone however these are still largely low scale traditional shop top housing developments which aim to service residents and railway station patrons. The block in question within the R3 zone is considered a transitional zone that sits between both commercial zones and encourages medium density residential developments.

 

84.      The proposed development will be located on a prominent corner and will be a very visually dominating development. The scale and form of the development will not sit comfortably within the streetscape and will not establish a coherent or harmonious relationship with existing adjoining developments.

 

85.      The architectural treatment, design and proposed materials and finishes create disharmony and will isolate this building from its immediate surroundings. The large expanses of light, white and grey rendered finishes, blade walls, glazed elements and aluminium louvres are all very contemporary features which are not consistent with existing developments. The proposed colour palette and tones proposed are inconsistent with the existing earthy tones of developments within the adjoining streetscapes.

 

86.      It is for these reasons that the design is not considered to be consistent or in keeping with the existing character of development within the streetscape and as such the proposal does not satisfy the character test of Clause 16A of the ARHSEPP.

 

Clause 17 – Affordable Housing for ten (10) years

87.      If the application is approved then standard conditions will need to be imposed which will ensure that the apartments are managed by a community housing provider and will need to be maintained as “affordable” for a ten (10) year period.

 

Part 3 Retention of existing affordable rental housing

88.      Part 3 (Retention of existing affordable rental housing) needs to be considered given there exist on site three (3) apartments which fall within the definition of “low-cost” accommodation. The Applicant has submitted rental returns for the three (3) properties for the past 24 month which confirms that the apartments fall within the low cost rental housing category. At 3 English Street the property contains three (3) apartments consisting of the following:

 

·    2 x 2 bedroom apartments

·    1 x 1 bedroom apartment

 

89.      The Applicant has argued that the removal of these apartments is compensated by the provision of two (2) additional affordable apartments within the development and there is technically no loss generated by the removal of the existing low-cost rental units. Numerically, the provision of five (5) affordable apartments is a net overall benefit by providing two (2) additional affordable apartments however the removal of the 2 x 2 bedroom apartments is not compensated by the provision of the same type of apartments (like for like). The proposal will provide for two (2) x 1 bedroom apartments which will adequately compensate for the loss of the existing one (1) bedroom apartment.

 

90.      The provision of three (3) x 3 bedroom apartments is a benefit however it is not directly compensating for the loss of the two (2) x 2 bedroom apartments and it is uncertain whether there is similar comparable accommodation in the market to compensate for the loss.

 

91.      Council’s records indicate that 1 English Street, whilst being residential in form contains three apartments (with three letterboxes) however no details of the form and type of accommodation has been furnished. It is however highly likely that these apartments are also “low cost affordable” accommodation and if this is the case, Part 3 of the ARH SEPP has not been satisfied as there could cumulatively be a loss of one (1) apartment in the market.

 

92.      In addition to the potential loss of rental accommodation created by the development Part 3 of the Policy specifically requires an assessment of the loss of existing low cost rental accommodation and if there is a loss whether the market has comparable accommodation to compensate for this loss. It aims at retaining this type of accommodation or ensuring that occupants that will be displaced have the ability to rent a similar type of accommodation within a 5km radius of the site. In this case,  the provision of 3 x 3 bedroom apartments does not directly compensate for the loss of the 2 x 2 bedroom apartments as the displaced occupants may not require or afford this accommodation as it is larger accommodation and most likely more expensive than the existing 2 bedroom apartments. So the assessment to ensure that the market place has similar comparable accommodation to compensate the loss has not occurred.

 

If approval is recommended this issue could be rectified in the following manner;

 

1.         The amount of low cost accommodation in the development is reconfigured to include 2 x 2 bedroom apartments so there is a like for like exchange and no net loss of 2 bedroom apartments occurs on the basis that the GFA of the affordable component remains at 20%. Or;

 

2.         A monetary contribution is applied in accordance with the Policy to compensate for the loss of this form and type of accommodation.

 

93.      This issue could be resolved by the provision of a deferred commencement condition if Option No 1 (above) is adopted or a standard condition imposed (if Option No 2 is preferred) which include the provision of a monetary contribution to the State Government in accordance with the Policy prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate for the development.

 

94.      In addition to the points above if additional information comes to light to  suggest that the accommodation at 1 English Street fits within the affordable category the loss of one (1) apartment can be accommodated by dedicating an “additional”  comparable apartment as an affordable apartment and/or provide a monetary contribution to compensate for this loss. The Applicant has not detailed the loss of affordable rental accommodation accurately and in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of the ARHSEPP.

 

95.      The consideration and implementation of one or both options above would resolve the issue subject to the provision of some additional information in preserving and retaining low cost accommodation and Part 3 of the ARHSEPP will then be satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 — Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

96.      State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) was gazetted on 26 July 2002 and applies to the assessment of DAs for RFBs of three or more storeys in height (excluding car parking levels) and containing at least four dwellings. Amendment 3 to SEPP 65 commenced on 17 July 2015 and implemented various changes including the introduction of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to replace the Residential Flat Design Code. Given the nature of the development proposed, SEPP 65 applies.

 

97.      The proposal involves the erection of a new 7 storey RFB (excluding basement car parking) containing 23 apartments and is therefore affected by the SEPP.

 

98.      In determining DAs to which SEPP 65 relates, Clause 28(2) of the SEPP requires that the consent authority take into consideration:

 

a)    the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

b)    the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

c)    the Apartment Design Guide.  

 

99.      The proposal was considered by the Georges River Design Review Panel (DRP) on 11 April 2019. The Panel assessed the merits of the development against each of the nine (9) Design Quality Principles and the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The DRP’s comments are included and addressed within the table below, along with further comment from Council’s Planner.

 

100.    The Panels comments are summarised and addressed in table 4 below. “The recommendation from the meeting was that the design cannot be supported in its present form and should be amended to resolve the issues raised above for reconsideration by the Panel.”

 

Table 3: Application of SEPP 65

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3 - Definitions

Complies with definition of “Residential Apartment Development” (RAD)

Complies with definition

 

Section 4 (1) (Application of Policy) of the SEPP 65 states that the policy “applies to development for the purpose of a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation component if:

(a)       the development consists of any of the following:

 

(i)         the erection of a new building,

(ii)        the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building,

(iii)       the conversion of an existing building, and

 

(b) the building concerned is at least 3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level (existing) or levels that are less than 1.2 metres above ground level (existing) that provide for car parking), and

 

the building concerned contains at least 4 or more dwellings.”

Yes

4 - Application of Policy

Development involves the erection of a new RFB, substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of a RFB or conversion of an existing building into a RFB. The definition of an RFB in the SEPP includes mixed use developments.

The erection of an RFB satisfies the SEPP’s definition of this residential land use.

 

Refer to definition and explanation above in relation to the applicability of the Policy.

Yes

50 E P & A Regulation - Development Applications

Design verification statement provided by qualified designer

Registered Architect Name and Registration No.

Design Verification Statement provided by Registered Architect: Rasem Guirguis (Registration No.6129)

Yes

 

           Table 4: Part 2 Design Quality Principles under the SEPP

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 

DRP Comment

Planners comment

Context and Neighbouring 

Character 

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. 

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood. 

 

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change. 

The site is located in a medium density residential area with one (1) and two (2) storey dwelling houses to the west and two (2) and three (3) storey residential flat buildings to the south. To the south there are two (2) x four (4) storey residential flat buildings at 5 and 9 English Street.

 

To the south west of the site there is a two (2) storey dwelling house at 268 Railway Parade, which very desirably should be amalgamated with the subject site to provide a more rectangular development site. This property fronts Railway Parade and its rear yard adjoins the western corner of the subject site.

 

The site is located at the interface between the Mixed Use Zone across English Street to the east and a large area to the south and west which has been rezoned for Medium Density Residential with a FSR control of 2:1 and height of 21m.  This is a prominent corner, located on the curved section of the road and visible from the adjacent rail line and entrance and exit from the town centre.

 

The application proposes 23 units and 20% of these (five (5) units) are to be dedicated as Affordable Rental Housing.  It seeks to utilise the bonus FSR provisions available because of these five (5) units.

The scale, form and design of the building is considered to be out of character with the context of the immediate locality and not in keeping with nature and form of adjoining residential properties. The materiality of the building is not sympathetic with existing developments.

 

Council’s KDCP requires site amalgamation with 268 Railway Parade. Although the Applicant maintains they have attempted to purchase this site, the attempts made to purchase this adjoining property are not considered to be satisfactory and as a result this site will be isolated and the best planning and design outcome in the longer term for this site is unlikely to be achieved.

The desire future character expected from the uplift will not be achieved.

Built Form and Scale 

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

 

Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook. 

The application proposes a seven (7) storey unit block with a four (4) storey wing to the south. It raises a range of serious concerns:

·     Raised ground level, approximately 2.5m above street level.  This creates numerous stairs, ramps, blank walls, visible basement car park and poor streetscape interface.

·     The height exceeds the LEP control by one (1) floor level which cannot be supported.

·     Inadequate setbacks on both street frontages, this includes balconies.  The taller block intrudes substantially on the DCP setback control requirements and is inconsistent with adjacent properties.

·     Inadequate setback on all common boundaries including the south and west.  This results in separation distances between the existing residential adjacent properties substantially below ADG recommendations.

·     The combination of all these factors creates an unnecessarily bulky mass that makes the building inappropriate for its context.

·     English Street to the south has many mature and attractive street trees. This character should be enhanced and reinforced by complementary planting on this prominent corner site, but the design appears not to recognise the importance of this issue or to provide adequate setbacks to allow for such planting.

·     The proximity of the vehicular and pedestrian entry points are inappropriate. 

·     The location of the main entrance leads to an unattractive and circuitous route to the main elevator. 

·     A redesign moving the pedestrian entry north or to Railway Parade frontage would be advantageous, possibly along with the moving of the vehicular access to the south towards the boundary.

·     Provision of only a single lift to a development of this height and scale is highly problematic given that it will inevitably be out of service for substantial periods during its lifetime.

·     Poor configuration of basement car park with southern and western boundaries directly adjacent to adjoining properties. There are large established trees on these adjacent properties that would be impacted and this has not been considered in the design.

 

It is considered that the development needs to be completely re-planned to address these issues.

The height of the building exceeds the 21m height limit with habitable areas exceeding the control. The scale and built form will establish an undesirable precedent in the area.

 

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement to support the height non-compliance, this has been assessed in greater detail later in this report however the height non-compliance will not satisfy the height control and zone objectives and as such the Clause 4.6 Statement is not considered to be well founded.

 

The mass and form of the development is overbearing and will be a visually dominating element in the streetscape given the prime corner location.

 

The building is also artificially elevated above the street and ground floor level which further accentuates its height and visual bulk.

Density 

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context. 

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

Appears to comply.

Generally compliant and satisfactory.

 

Sustainability 

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. 

 

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

No comment at this stage.

A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application however further environmental sustainable measures could be implemented to further improve the performance of the building by integrating solar panels, skylights  and rain water tanks etc.

Landscape 

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. 

 

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks. 

 

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management. 

Landscape has not been adequately considered in the design. The proposal includes a series of awkward communal open spaces on raised ground floor podiums that would pose privacy issues for units.  Furthermore the number of stairs, lifts and corridors reduces space for landscape and planting. The proposed ground floor level, 2.5m above street level, would require retaining walls, stairs, ramps, etc, that would create a very poor landscape interface to the street.

 

The proposed rooftop communal open space is potentially in conflict with the rooftop unit.  The rooftop communal open space should be retained and rooftop unit be deleted.

 

See also comments above regarding character of street.

There is an inadequate amount of deep soil landscaped area especially around the periphery of the site as the basement parking levels extend to the boundaries of the site.

 

The Landscape Plan shows large trees along the frontage (Railway Parade frontage) where the setback is only 1.5m which is too narrow to support the planting of larger trees. There is also a large tree shown along the northern side above the basement which cannot be achieved. There is no potential for greenery and larger screen planting along the boundaries of the site due to the large basement area.

 

Amenity 

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well-being. 

 

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility. 

The amenity would generally be of acceptable standard and compliant with ADG recommendations.

 

The following issues should be addressed:

 

·     Improved amenity to balconies to provide screening from wind, and ensure adequate privacy.

·     Excessive exposure to northern and western sunlight to the corner bedrooms.

 

In view of comments above under ‘Built Form’, the floor plans will need to be totally reconsidered.

Some apartments have poor internal amenity.

Safety 

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose.

Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well-lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

The convoluted entry would be extremely unsafe.

Access to ground floor areas of open space is awkward and paths of travel are poorly defined and articulated. This adversely affects the useability and functionality of spaces.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction 

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. 

 

Well-designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix. 

 

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents. 

Appropriate mix for the evolving context.

The mix of unit types and sizes is considered to be generally satisfactory.

Aesthetics 

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. 

 

The visual appearance of a well-designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape. 

Requires further consideration in relation to the comments above in relation to ‘Built Form’, ‘Amenity’, etc.

As previously mentioned the design of the building is considered to reflect poorly in respect to the surrounding developments and will not be in keeping with the established residential neighbourhood character. The materiality of the development is inconsistent and unsympathetic to the locality.

 

101.    In conclusion the Panel stated that “the design cannot be supported in its present form and should be amended to resolve the issues raised above for reconsideration by the Panel.”

 

102.    No amended plans have been received by Council since the date of that meeting so the assessment is based on the original plans that were submitted with the application.

 

103.    Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the Apartment Design Code. The table below assesses the proposal against these provisions.

 

Table 5: Design considerations of Part 3 and Part 4 of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3D - Communal open space

 

 

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site.

-Where it cannot be provided on ground level it should be provided on a podium or roof

 

-Where developments are unable to achieve the design criteria, such as on small lots, sites within business zones, or in a dense urban area, they should:

• provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room

• provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments

• demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space

 

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct

sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

Roof Terrace = 176sqm

Ground Floor = 75sqm

Total = 25.3%

 

 

Yes

Numerically compliant.

 

The ground floor areas of communal open space could be increased however the design has segregated areas and there is a more appropriate area for the communal open space (ie the deep soil area along the western side which amounts to 60sqm is hard to access so too is the other large space which has an area of 113sqm).

 

The design could be improved to create meaningful and useable areas of communal open space on the ground floor. This could be achieved if access arrangements to these spaces were consolidated and the built form was reconfigured to create clearly defined and well designed external landscaped areas for communal use.

 

Yes all areas of communal open space on the ground floor and on the rooftop will achieve a minimum of 3 hours of solar access throughout the day in midwinter.

3E – Deep Soil zones

 

 

1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum

requirements:

 

Where the site has an area of between 650sqm – 1,500sqm = 3m min dimension

 

Min deep soil area of 7% (69sqm)

Ground Floor 60sqm + 26sqm + 63sqm = 149sqm

 

Provided 15%

There are three (3) distinct areas of deep soil as part of the development. The area at the front of the site is not included in the calculation as the space does not have a minimum dimension of 3m. The amount of deep soil area provided is compliant.

 

Increased deep soil areas along the boundaries of the site would be beneficial to be development to landscaping and green areas would significantly improve the visual appearance of the development and provide additional screening and a green edge together with improved amenity from the adjoining allotments.

3F- Visual Privacy

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved.

 

 

Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

Habitable - 6m

Non-habitable – 3m

 

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

Habitable – 9m

Non-habitable – 4.5m

South

3m – 4.5m

Central section setback 9.9m

 

East

3m-5m

 

West

3m-4.5 (north western side)

 

6m (south eastern side)

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

Yes

 

See discussion below regarding non-compliance with separation distances

Separation Distances (3F Visual Privacy)

The building fails to comply with the minimum separation distances in accordance with the provisions of Part 3F of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) for most part of the Building. Part 3F of the ADG relates to “visual privacy” and establishes minimum or reasonable side setbacks for developments which allows for adequate separation distances between buildings and therefore maintain privacy between properties.

 

The objective of the control is to provide “Adequate building separation distances which are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy”. Along the southern side of the site the main building is setback 5.5m on the ground floor then staggered at the upper levels with varying setbacks of 4.5m (to Bedroom 2), 6m (to bathrooms) and over 9m to the central lobby/corridor space.

 

The lower scaled four storey wing is setback 3m and should be setback 6m. The building wall has been designed in a way to limit the potential for any overlooking by including privacy screens to balconies and highlight windows provided to secondary spaces (laundry and bathroom). The proposed 3m side setback is considered to be insufficient as the bulk of the building will be visually dominating when viewed from the adjoining property. In addition, there is no potential for any substantial screen planting along this boundary or landscaping that could soften the visual appearance of the built form. The proposed main building being setback 4.5m-6m at every level falls short of the 6m minimum requirement to Level 4 and Level 5 and 6 requires a 9m setback. The development fails to comply along this side with the minimum separation distances and although there will be no overlooking generated the design creates a visually bulky structure that lacks articulation and variation that would break up and modulate the mass and form if minimum setbacks cannot be achieved. The visual bulk, scale and dominance of the building along this side is unacceptable and will adversely affect the visual amenity and outlook to the north of the adjoining neighbour at 5 English Street. The pre-lodgement assessment raised this issue and in the advice provided stated that “concern is raised with the 3m (ground floor to Level 3) and 4.5m (Level 4 and 5) building separation proposed to the southern boundary. These setback distances are considered to be insufficient, causing unreasonable amenity impacts for the adjoining residential flat building”.

 

Along the eastern side, facing English Street the building wall is setback 5m with the balconies and blade walls setback 3m. This façade is important as it addresses the street however the balcony elements protrude beyond the established front building alignment and sit forward of the front balconies to 5 English Street. This is an undesirable outcome given the building alignment along this side of the street is relatively consistent and this development should respect this and the balconies should be setback 5m to maintain this consistent form. Although the encroachment on the 6m separation distances again does not create any adverse amenity impacts given that the electrical substation is located across the road, the lack of a larger setback along this side adversely affects the continuity of built forms and pattern of existing RFB’s.

 

Along the western side of the site again the deficiency of any substantial deep soil areas along the boundary severely limits the development in creating landscaped areas along the edges of the site and assisting in softening and screening the lower levels of the building. The 3m-4.5m side setback along the north western side is deficient and at Levels 5 and 6, a 9m setback is required. The reduced setbacks are a result of the limited site area to cater for the density and compliant setbacks could be achieved if the adjoining site 268 Railway Parade was amalgamated in accordance with the provisions of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

The lack of separation along both side boundaries will create adverse amenity impacts, to adjoining properties and the lack of compliant separation distances in this case will not satisfy the objectives of the ADG which aim to achieve to an “equitable” distribution of separation between properties. The ADG seeks to create minimum separation distances of some 12m between properties (best case). Some encroachment are permissible subject to no overlooking being generated and if encroachments occur other sensitive design elements need to be employed including variations to the facades through improved articulation, clever placement of window openings, smart materials and finishes and the use of landscaping to soften and green spaces. The proposed design falls short of achieving the intentions and purpose of the ADG as the proposed setbacks are considered to be insufficient and the building will be a large, imposing mass and form.

3G – Pedestrian Access and entries

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and

addresses the public domain

 

Multiple entries (including communal building entries

and individual ground floor entries) should be provided to activate the street edge

The main entry is off English Street and includes a ramp for disabled access.

Yes – Entry off English Street.

 

Despite general compliance the DRP and Council’s Urban Designer raised concern with the design of the lobby which is long, convoluted and not an easily defined or recognisable area.

 

The lobby should be visually prominent to assist in wayfinding and to distinguish between public and private domain. Long footpaths and tight corners must be avoided.

 

The proposed entry and lobby is convoluted and is hidden behind the blade wall and is not considered to be an appropriate design solution for a main entry.

3H-Vehicle Access

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes

The vehicular access point is located centrally off English Street and has a width of 6.1m with a splay along the northern side to improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the site.

The vehicle access point is generally compliant however its location compromises the layout of the ground floor courtyard area adjoining Unit 1.

 

The driveway should be located further to the south in a similar location to where the existing driveway to 3 English Street is located. This will create a larger amount of deep soil area along the north east of the site.

 

The driveway prominence should be reduced. Its central location accentuates its visibility which is undesirable for this element. A central, formal and attractive pedestrian access point would be a better design solution along English Street.

3J-Bicycle and car parking

For development in the following locations:

 

-    On sites that are within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

 

-    On land zoned and sites within 400m of land zoned B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

 

The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments (RMS), or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

 

In accordance with Section 5.4.3 (High Density Residential Flat Buildings) of the RMS Traffic Generating Guidelines. The site is located within the “Metropolitan Sub-Regional Centres” and the following provisions apply;

 

0.6 spaces per 1 bedroom unit

0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

1.4 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

1 space per 5 units (visitor parking)

 

The provision of at least one loading dock for residential use is desirable, although a dock intended for commercial uses may be sufficient.

The site is located within 800m of Carlton Railway station as such the RMS provisions are applicable to this assessment. The site also adjoins the B4 zone and is within 400m walking distance.

 

Proposal relies on the following car parking provisions;

7 x 1 bedroom units = 0.6 x 7 = 4.2 spaces

5 x 2 bedroom units = 0.9 x 5 = 4.5 spaces

11 x 3 bedroom = 1.4 x 11 = 15.4 spaces

Residential spaces required = 24 spaces

 

Visitor = 23/5 = 5 spaces

 

Total = 29 spaces

 

The proposal requires a total of 29 off street car parking spaces for residents and visitors

 

Total of 31 car parking spaces are provided which are broken down into five (5) visitor spaces and twenty six (26) resident spaces which include two (2) accessible spaces.

 

No designated Car Wash Bay nominated.

 

The off street car parking provision exceeds the requirements of RMS/ADG provisions.

 

 

The car parking arrangement and number of car spaces provided complies with the ADG/RMS requirements.

 

The proposal complies with the numerical requirements of the ADG given the accessible location of the site; however Council’s Traffic Engineer has raised concerns regarding the width of the internal driveway access ramp. The design has catered for the provision of internal traffic signals which aim to avoid vehicular conflicts. The internal ramp has a width of 6.2m which is non-compliant with AS2890. A condition could be included to ensure compliance is achieved.

 

There are some layout issues with car parking spaces. Car space 29 is awkwardly located and could pose issues for vehicles accessing the ramp as this space could impede on the turning circle and swept paths. Also there is a structural column along the north eastern side of the lower basement which will obstruct access to the ramp. The accessible space No.11 is also awkwardly positioned and it would be complex to exit the vehicle and access the lift.

 

It is unlikely that Tandem spaces No.14 and 15 are workable as the structural column next to these spaces will severely restrict and obstruct the ability to access these spaces.

 

The bicycle parking spaces adjoining the lift on the basement level will be hard to access if the accessible space is occupied.

 

Although there is no designated car wash bay if approval is recommended a visitor car space can double up as a car wash bay and this could be conditioned to comply.

 

The car parking layout requires redesign and there are spaces where access is difficult and compromised simply by the location and layout.

4A- Solar and daylight access

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area

 

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter

All units 100% receive a minimum of 2 hours of solar access during mid-winter due to the orientation of the apartments.

Complies

4B- Natural Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

 

 

Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass  line to glass line

 

The building should include dual aspect apartments, cross through apartments and corner apartments and limit apartment depths

A total of eighteen (18) apartments have been designed to comply with minimum cross ventilation requirements which amounts to 78% of the development.

 

No apartment exceeds 18m in depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every apartment has a dual aspect.

Yes – complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4C-Ceiling Heights

Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

Habitable rooms  = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m

 

3.3m for ground floor and first floor in mixed use areas to promote flexibility of use.

Floor to floor heights vary from 3m-3.1m (basements) to 3.2m and 3.3m at all other levels. This leaves 600mm for a slab which is acceptable and the floor to ceiling height of 2.7m will be achieved.

 

The Sections show the slabs and suspended ceilings which show that when these elements are taken into account the floor to ceiling heights still achieve 2.7m.

Yes

4D- Apartment size and layout

Apartments are required to have the following

minimum internal areas:

1 bedroom = 50sqm

2 bedroom = 70sqm

3 bedroom = 90sqm

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5sqm each

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

One bedroom units have minimum areas of 52sqm-55sqm.

 

Two bedroom units have minimum area of 80sqm.

 

Three bedroom units have minimum internal areas of 90sqm-102sqm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every habitable room has window openings larger than 10% of the room area.

Complies

4D-2 Apartment size and layout

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5m x the ceiling height

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Satisfactory

 

With the minimum floor to ceiling heights complying with the 2.7m minimum, all habitable room depths satisfy the minimum requirements.

 

The apartments have open plan living/dining room layouts.

Complies

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm and other bedrooms 9sqm (excluding wardrobe space).

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

-3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom

- 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts

All master bedrooms have a minimum internal size of 10sqm.

 

 

 

 

All bedrooms have minimum dimensions of 3m.

 

 

All living rooms have minimum widths of 4m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are no cross-over or cross-through apartments proposed.

Complies

4E- Private Open space and balconies

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

 

-1 bedroom = 8sqm/2m depth

 

-2 bedroom = 10sqm/2m depth

 

-3+ bedroom = 12sqm/2.4m

 

 

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m

 

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15sqm and a minimum depth of 3m

The proposed balconies and terraces which are proposed for all apartments exceed the minimum sizes.

 

1 bedroom units

9sqm – 27sqm (width minimum 2m)

2 bedroom units

18sqm (width minimum 2m)

3 bedroom units

13sqm – 20sqm (width minimum 2.4m)

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

Unit 4 has access to a ground floor courtyard with an area exceeding 20sqm.

Unit 3 has a courtyard at the front to Railway Parade with a total area of 27sqm.

Unit 2 adjoins Unit 3 and has a courtyard with an area of 21sqm. Unit 1 has a balcony at the front with a minimum area of 17sqm.

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4F- Common circulation areas

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight

Maximum of 4 units have access to the lobby at every level of the building up to Level 4 and Levels 4 and 5 has 3 units off the main lobby area.

Level 6 only has 1 unit.

Complies

4G- Storage

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and

bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

1 bedroom = 6m³

2 bedroom – 8m³

3 bedroom – 10m³

 

At least 50% of storage is to be located within the apartment.

Each apartment has dedicated internal storage spaces within each unit. Storage spaces vary from 3.8 m³ to 7.8 m³.

 

There are cages designated in the basement levels however there are only six (6) spaces. From this several units will fall short of complying with the minimum requirements.

No – some units do not have the minimum required storage space

4H- Acoustic Privacy

Adequate building separation is provided within the development and from neighbouring buildings/adjacent uses.

Window and door openings are generally orientated away from noise sources

 

Noisy areas within buildings including building entries and corridors should be located next to or above each other and quieter areas next to or above quieter areas

Storage, circulation areas and non-habitable rooms should be located to buffer noise from external sources

The application is accompanied by a Rail Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Day Design and dated 20 August 2018.

This acoustic assessment has considered the impacts of rail noise from the T4 Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line which adjoins the site to the north.

The report measured Train Vibration levels in accordance with Section 3.6.3 of the “Development Near Rail Corridor and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines”. A Logger was placed at the front (corner) of No.1 English Street which monitored noise levels throughout the day.

Given the proximity of the rail line and the noise generated from the trains, a number of acoustic measures and construction techniques are recommended to be adopted to reduce noise impacts. The report assumes that bedrooms are carpeted and the report suggested a number of other construction measures to be implemented to improve the acoustic performance of the building including certain construction materials for external walls, ceiling and the roof systems, glazing and also ensuring openings are well sealed etc. If these construction measures are implemented then the development should be compliant with the minimum acoustic requirements.

Complies

4J – Noise and Pollution

To minimise impacts the following design solutions may be used:

 • physical separation between buildings and the noise or pollution source

 • residential uses are located perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses

• buildings should respond to both solar access and noise. Where solar access is away from the noise source, non-habitable rooms can provide a buffer

 • landscape design reduces the perception of noise and acts as a filter for air pollution generated by traffic and industry

The development can comply with the provisions of 4J of the ADG should the application be approval.

If the development was setback further from the side boundaries the acoustic outcome would be improved.

Yes

4K – Apartment Mix

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future

The apartment mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building

The development offers a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.

7 x 1 bedroom apartments

(30%)

5 x 2 bedroom apartments

(22%)

11 x 3 bedroom apartments

(48%)

The mix is considered to be appropriate.

Complies

4L – Ground Floor Apartments

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.

 

Design of ground floor apartments delivers amenity and safety for residents.

The ground floor apartments and their balconies/courtyards are raised above the ground level but they are able to be accessed from the street. It would be a more appropriate outcome if the ground floor apartments can be accessed directly from the street level at grade.

Complies

4M - Facades

Facades should be well resolved with an appropriate scale and proportion to the streetscape and human scale.

The façade treatments and overall aesthetic that is proposed is inconsistent with the character of development in the street. The use of partially solid balustrades to balconies, solid blade walls, aluminium louvres, rendered elements and the white/grey colour palette is not sympathetic with existing developments in the R3 zone. 

No – the contemporary design does not incorporate any materiality of the R3 zone and is considered unsympathetic

4N – roof design

Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Incorporates sustainability features.

Although the flat roof form is not reflective of the character of rooves of existing adjoining buildings, the flat roof is a modern element that is generally consistent with new developments. It does offer the ability to include a communal area on the roof which is a benefit for future occupants.

Complies

4O – Landscape Design

Landscape design is viable and sustainable, contributes to the streetscape and amenity

The proposed landscape design is considered to be insufficient and limits the full potential of providing substantial areas of deep soil and meaningful and attractive areas of landscaping around the periphery of the site. The lack of deep soil areas around the edges of the site does not allow for any large trees or plants to be integrated to assist in softening the lower levels of the development or assist in screening and creating a green buffer around the boundaries of the site.

The landscape plan shows 3 x Christmas Bush trees to be planted along the front of the site adjacent to Railway Parade however these are to be located within the deep soil area which has a min width of 1.5m and it is unlikely they can reach their mature height of 8m. It is also impossible for the proposed large Tuckeroo located along the north western side to exist in this location as it will be planted above the basement.  There are also a number of existing mature trees on immediately adjoining sites which will be affected by the proposal especially since the basement is located immediately to the western boundary. The location of entries, ramps, driveway access and other such elements limits the full potential of the English Street frontage to be landscaped and planted with mature trees and plants. The lack of an arborist report is also of concern as there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed excavation in association with the basement will not adversely affect the integrity of the existing trees on adjoining properties despite the intention for their retention.

No insufficient landscaping and planting

4P- Planting on Structures

Planting on structures – appropriate soil profiles are provided, plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance, contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces

There are planter boxes proposed around the periphery of the site at the ground floor level where the excavation extends to the common boundary. There are also some planter boxes at the front and on the roof terrace.

The use and integration of planter boxes is considered to be satisfactory however additional planter boxes and the arrangement of spaces could be better planned if the site included more deep soil areas. Planter boxes should be secondary, complimentary elements to the overall design of the development however the landscape design relies on these elements.

4Q – Universal Design

Universal design – design of apartments allow for flexible housing, adaptable designs, accommodate a range of lifestyle needs

Satisfactory

Complies

4R – Adaptive reuse

Adaptive reuse as apartment of existing buildings- new additions are contemporary and complementary, provide residential amenity while not precluding future adaptive reuse.

This is a new development.

N/A

4U – Energy Efficiency.

Development incorporates passive environmental design, passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer, natural ventilation minimises need for mechanical ventilation

A compliant BASIX Certificate accompanies the application.

Yes – could be improved with the provision of solar panels on the roof and also designated ground floor rainwater tanks which look to be included as part of the BASIX certificate but not referenced on the plan.

 

 

4V – Water management and conservation

Water management and conservation – potable water use is minimised, stormwater is treated on site before being discharged, flood management systems are integrated into the site design

The proposed stormwater/drainage design has been referred to Council’s Engineering Services section, raising concerns with proposed stormwater/drainage design and have required that all stormwater shall drain by gravity to the existing kerb inlet pit located at the corner of English Street and Railway Parade.

No – unsatisfactory and unresolved

4W – Waste Management

Waste management – storage facilities are appropriately designed, domestic waste is minimised by convenient source separation and recycling

The waste management arrangement involves the provision of a garbage room in the basement which caters for fifty (50) bins including recycling and green bins.

 

Bins will need to be taken to the street level via the driveway.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Officer. The waste storage area adequately caters for the waste requirements of Council.

Yes - satisfactory

4X – Building Maintenance

Building design provides protection form weathering

Enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost

As previously mentioned, the proposed external materials, colours and finishes are considered to be unsympathetic

 

Yes - in general the proposed materials and finishes will be low maintenance however the proposed raw concrete finish is a contemporary aesthetic which is not representative of current and new developments making this development more visually dominate. This is a design consideration rather than a longer term maintenance.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)

Zoning

104.    The subject site is zoned Zone R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). Refer to zoning map below. The proposed development is defined as a Residential Flat Building which is a permissible land use in the zone.

 

Figure 14: Zoning map extract from the KLEP 2012

                                      

105.    The objectives of the zone are as follows:

·      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.4

 

106.    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 Zone as it will provide for a variety of residential apartments in a medium density residential environment.

 

107.    The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012) is outlined in Table 6 below.

 

Table 6: KLEP2012 Compliance Table

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

R3 Medium Density Residential

The proposal is defined as a Residential Flat Building (RFB) which is a permissible use within the zone.

Yes

2.3

Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

Consistent with zone objectives.

Yes

4.1A Minimum lot sizes for Residential Flat Buildings

Clause 4.1A requires a minimum site area of 1,000sqm for the purpose of RFB’s in the R3 zone.

The total Site area is 991.1sqm.

No

4.3 – Height of Buildings

21m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The building exceeds the 21m height limit. The non- compliance includes habitable space, the lift overrun, fire stairs and communal roof space exceeding the height control.

A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted and is addressed in detail later in this report.

No

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

2:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

1.99:1

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The gross floor area (GFA) calculation nominated by the applicant was considered to be inaccurate as it did not include the common foyers.

The inclusion of the common areas not previously calculated; still result in a compliant FSR.

Yes

4.6 –

Exceptions to Development Standards

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.

 

The proposal exceeds the height control pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the KLEP and therefore a Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted to justify the non-compliance with the control.

The variation to the height standard includes habitable space in the form of a unit along with ancillary services (lifts and stairs) associated with the communal roof top terrace. The Clause 4.6 Statement has been provided to justify the variation and the non-compliance is not considered to be reasonable and is not supported.

 

A detailed discussion in regards to this issue is provided in the “Exception to Development Standards” section.

The Clause 4.6 Statement for the variation to the height control is not supported in this circumstance.

5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of

this clause are;

(i) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

(ii) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.

The proposal does not adjoin any heritage items nominated under KLEP 2012 and is not within a Conservation Area.

 

Yes

6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage

The site is not affected by Acid sulfate Soils under KLEP 2012.

 

 

 

N/A

6.2 Earthworks

To ensure that earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land

The proposed development includes excavation and associated earthworks to accommodate two (2) levels of basement car parking.

Yes subject to conditions.

6.5 Airspace Operations

The consent authority must not grant development consent to development that is a controlled activity within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 of the Commonwealth unless the applicant has obtained approval for the controlled activity under regulations made for the purposes of that Division.

The height of the proposed development is below the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS).

N/A

 

Exception to Development Standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

108.    Clause 4.3 (2) of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) relates to maximum permitted building height for a site and refers to the Height of Buildings Map. The relevant map identifies the subject site as having a maximum height of 21m. Building Height is defined as:

 

“Building height (or height of building) means:

(a) In relation to the height of a building in metres – the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building, or

(b) In relation to the RL of a building the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building

 

Including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.”