Agenda of Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)

Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 20 April 2017

Page 4

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 20 April 2017

IHAP Report No	3.1	Application No	PP2016/0004
Site Address & Ward Locality	Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club Peakhurst Ward
Proposal	Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 to rezone and reclassify Lots 14-20, Sec 3, DP7124; Lots 3-7, Sec 4, DP 4124 and Lot 1, DP 1159269 (known as the former Oatley Bowling Club) to enable future development for seniors housing and public open space.
Report Author/s	Independent Assessment, Consultant Planner and Manager Strategic Planning, Catherine McMahon
Owners	Georges River Council
Applicant	Georges River Council
Zoning	RE1 – Public Recreation
Date Of Lodgement	2/11/2016
Submissions	N/A
Cost of Works	N/A
Reason for Referral to IHAP	To seek endorsement to present the Planning Preoposal report to Council

Recommendation

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

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

3. That Council takes into consideration the results from the preliminary community consultation that was undertaken as part of seeking feedback on the future use and development of the site, and that the Southern District Planning Panel be requested to condition the Gateway Determination with any relevant amendments arising from that consultation as endorsed by Council for the Planning Proposal.

4. Before public exhibition of the Planning Proposal:

a. The Planning Proposal be amended as necessary to reflect the Council decision of 7 November 2016 and to address the draft South District Plan;

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

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

d. Relevant reports be updated as necessary.

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

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

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

Site Plan

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report in Full

Site Location and Context

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

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

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

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

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

Existing Planning Controls

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

Figure 2 – Land Use Zoning Map

Background to the Planning Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary Assessment of the Planning Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary Public Exhibition of the Planning Proposal

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

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

24. A separate report will be presented to Council on 1 May 2017 on the preliminary public exhibition phase. It is suggested that any recommendations/actions endorsed by Council as a result of this report be submitted to the Southern District Planning Panel with a request that the Gateway Determination be conditioned with the relevant amendments (as endorsed by Council) to the Planning Proposal.

Intended Outcomes and Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 3 – Indicative Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency with Strategic Studies or Reports^{^[1]}

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

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

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

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

The plan envisages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Local Strategy

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

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

Changing Circumstances, Investment and/or Demographic Trends

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

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

Site Specific Assessment

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

§ The natural environment;

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

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

Environmental Considerations

Ecology

38. The Planning Proposal is informed by an Ecological Constraints Assessment prepared by Molino Stewart.

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

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

Bushfire

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

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

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

Contamination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Existing and Likely Future Use of Land in the Vicinity

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

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

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

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

Services and infrastructure

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

Transport and Access

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

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

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

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

59. One aspect that the Transport and Access Assessment has not considered is whether redevelopment of the site for the purpose aged care accommodation will require improved emergency access. We recommend that the Assessment be revised to address this issue before public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

Conclusion

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

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

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

§ Reference to the draft South District Plan;

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Response to Prelimary Assessment by Independent Planner

Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 20 April 2017

Page 204

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 20 April 2017

IHAP Report No	3.2	Application No	DA2016/0177
Site Address & Ward Locality	96 Queens Road, Connells Point Blakehurst Ward
Proposal	Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool
Report Author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Bernard Moroz
Owners	I J & D Dotur
Applicant	AF Design
Zoning	E4 – Environmental Living
Date Of Lodgement	26/08/2016
Submissions	Two (2)
Cost of Works	$532,400.00
Reason for Referral to IHAP	Unresolved objections

Recommendation

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

Site Plan

Executive Summary

Proposal

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

Site and Locality

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

Zoning and KLEP 2012 Compliance

(3) The site is zoned E4-Environmental Living Zone under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses contained within KLEP 2012.

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

(4) The proposed development satisfies the provisions of Section 1.1 – Streetscape Character of KDCP 2013 and complements the existing streetscape character. However, the proposal does not comply with Councils controls for height, front setback, second storey depth and maximum balcony width.

Submissions

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

Conclusion

(6) Having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment of the proposal Development Application No. 177/2016 should be approved subject to conditions.

Report in Full

Proposal

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

The Site and Locality

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

Figure 1- Aerial

Background

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

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

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

Section 79C Assessment

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

(1) Matters for consideration – general

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

(a) the provision of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument,

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

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

Figure 2- Zoning Map

Part 5 – Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

(14) The proposed development was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer for comment who raised no objection to the removal of the large Eucalyptus piluaris (T1) located on the subject site subject to replacement planting. It was also recommended that the Jacaranda mimosifolia (T2) be preserved and protected in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Arborist report. Figure 3 below details the location of the subject trees. In addition, consideration has been given to the provisions of Section B2 – Tree Management and Greenweb of KDCP 2013 and the proposed development satisfies the relevant controls tree and greenweb management.

Figure 3- Tree removal/retention plan

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

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

Part 6 – Additional Local Provisions

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

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

Clause 6.2 – Earthworks

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

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

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

Clause 6.4 – Limited Development on Foreshore Area

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

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

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

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) any development control plan,

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

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

Streetscape Character

Building Scale/Height

Objectives

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

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

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

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

Number of residential levels/stories

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

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

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

Floor Space

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

Height

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depth of second storey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 5- 60% depth non-compliance

Rhythm of Built Elements in the Streetscape

Building Setbacks

Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fenestration and External Materials

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

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

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

Street Edge

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

Open Space

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

Vehicular access, Parking and Circulation

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

Privacy

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

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

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

Solar Access

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

Views and View Sharing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 Compliance Table

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

Performance Criteria	Design Solution	Proposed	Complies
Building Scale
Height · Parapet	7.8m	9m	N
No of Levels	3	3	Y
Floorspace Ratio	0.55:1 or 315m²	0.53:1 or 305m²	Y
Rhythm of Buildings
Setbacks · Front · Rear · Side (north-eastern) · Side (south-western)	See report 6m 1.2m 1.2m	6.38m 9.2m 1.2m-3m 1.2m-4.27m	N Y Y Y
Fenestration & External Materials
Amount of glazing (street frontage)	35%	<35%	Y
Other
Deep Soil Landscaping	15% or 86m²	35% or 201m²	Y
Balconies · Width · Setback · Total Area	2.5m 3.0m 40m²	3.6m 3.07m-4.27m 28m²	N Y Y

Section 94 Contributions

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

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

(57) Not applicable.

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

(58) The proposed development is of a scale and character that is in keeping with other dwellings being constructed in the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to have a significant impact on the natural and built environment of the locality.

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

(59) It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography, vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

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

(60) In accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of KDCP 2013 application was placed on neighbour notification for a period of fourteen (14) days adjoining property owners were notified in writing of the proposal and invited to comment. Two submissions were received raising the following concerns:

Front setback

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

Comment

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

Number of residential levels/height

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

Comment

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

Use of narrow access Road

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

Comment

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

Privacy

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

Comment

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

Overshadowing

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

Comment

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

View loss

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

Comment

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

Mediation/Public Meeting

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

(e) the public interest.

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

Conclusion

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

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

DETERMINATION

That Council as the Consent Authority pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, grant consent to Development Application No 177/2016 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool at No 96 Queens Road Connells Point subject to conditions:

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

SECTION A - General Conditions

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

(1) Approved Plans of Consent

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

(i) Architectural plans- AF design Drawing number 160621 Sheets 1 of 9 through to and including 9 of 9 Issue C dated 28/02/2017

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

SECTION B –Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate or Demolition Conditions

The conditions that follow in this Section B of the Notice of Determination relate to the payment of fees, amendments being made to the proposal, further investigation being undertaken or the preparation of documentation that must be complied with prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or Demolition.

Note: A copy of the Construction Certificate shall be forwarded to Council prior to commencement of construction where Council is not the certifier who issued the Construction Certificate.

(2) Asset & Building Fees

Payment of the following amounts as detailed below:

· Damage Deposit of $1,900.00

· *Builders Long Service Levy of $1,863.00

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

· Asset Inspection Fee of $ 110.00

· Section 94A Contributions of $5,324.00

*Note: The Builders Long Service Levy quoted is based on the market value of the proposed building works and the Levy Rate applicable at the time of assessing the Development Application and may be subject to change prior to payment.

(3) Section 94A Contributions

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

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

(4) Dilapidation Report

Prior to issue of any construction certificate or commencement of any demolition or earth works on site, the applicant shall submit, for acceptance by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), with a copy forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA, a full dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of the following properties;

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

The report must be completed by a suitably qualified consulting structural/ geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal, the subsoil conditions and any recommendations of a geotechnical report for the site. The report shall have regard to protecting the applicant from spurious claims for structural damage and shall be verified by all stakeholders as far as practicable.”

Reports relating to properties that refuse access to carry out inspections to complete the dilapidation report, after being given reasonable written notice to request access (at least 14 days) at a reasonable time (8.00am-6.00pm), are not to hold up the release of the Construction Certificate.

(5) Soil and Water Management

A Soil and Water Management Control Plan, incorporating contour levels and prepared in accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy shall be submitted to Council detailing all measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation runoff from the site during excavation and construction activities.

(6) Sydney Water (DA Only)

The approved plans must be processed through Sydney Water to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water asset’s (sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements) and if any further requirements need to be met. An approval receipt will be issued by Sydney Water which is to be submitted to Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for;

· Sydney Water Tap in – see Plumbing, building and developing and then Sydney Water Tap in; and

· Building over/adjacent to a Sydney Water Asset - see Plumbing, building and developing, building then Building Approvals or telephone 13 20 92.

SECTION C – Prior to Commencement of Construction Conditions

The conditions that follow in this Section C of the Notice of Determination are specific to the proposed development and must be complied with prior to the commencement of construction on the site.

(7) Structural Engineer’s Details

Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns & other structural members. The details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to construction of the specified works.

A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA.

(8) Tree Protection

Prior to the commencement of any works on the site the tree protection measures required for the established Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of the trees to be retained shall be installed in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 - Protection of trees on development sites.

Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009 a protective fence consisting of 1.8m high fully supported chainmesh shall be erected around the base of the tree. The distance of the fence from the base of each tree is to be in accordance with the TPZ listed below. A layer of organic mulch 100 millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and no soil or fill should be placed within the protection area.

There shall be no services installed within the drip line TPZ of the tree. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying “Tree Protection Zone” attached to the fence, this must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

(9) Tree Retention – Arborist Report

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

Tree Species	Location of Tree/Tree No	TPZ
Jacaranda mimosifolia	96 Queens Road/ Tree 2	4.2 metres

(10) Protection of Site – Hoarding

A hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place if:

· the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause obstruction or inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place; or

· if it involves the enclosure of a public place.

If necessary an awning is to be erected which is sufficient to prevent any substance from or in connection with the work from falling into a public place.

Any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

If the work site is likely to be hazardous to persons in a public place, it must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise.

(11) Driveway

In respect to vehicular access to the proposed development the gutter crossing and driveway are to be reconstructed between the kerb and street alignment to Council’s specifications.

In this regard a separate driveway application is to be lodged with Council for works outside the property boundary. Furthermore the design boundary level is to be received from Council prior to construction of the internal driveway.

(12) Council Infrastructure Inspection

Prior to the commencement of any works an authorised representative of the applicant is to organise and attend a meeting on site with Council’s Infrastructure Compliance Co-ordinator to discuss protection of Council’s infrastructure. To organise this meeting contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on 9330 6400.

(13) Public Liability Insurance

All nominated contractors / applicants carrying out driveway and/or restoration works on Council property must carry public liability insurance with a minimum cover of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). In this regard, prior to commencement of works, the principal contractor is to lodge an “Application for the Construction of Work by Private Contractor” to Council, which includes submitting evidence of their current insurance. The principal contractor must ensure that sub-contractors are also adequately insured.

(14) Soil Erosion Controls

Prior to commencement of any site works, erosion and sediment controls are to be installed in accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy and any approved Soil & Water Management Plan and shall incorporate:

· Measures to prevent sediment and other debris escaping from the cleared or disturbed areas into drainage systems or waterways;

· Controls to prevent tracking of sand, soil, aggregates, etc, by vehicles onto adjoining roadways.

SECTION D – Construction and Operational Conditions

The conditions that follow in this Section D of the Notice of Determination are imposed to ensure the development is constructed and operates having regard to relevant legislation and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or environment during the construction phase or the operation of the use.

(15) Inspections - New Dwelling

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

(a) at the commencement of building works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ž Erosion Control

Ž Earthworks/Excavation

Ž Building setout

Ž Landscaping

Ž Pool Fencing

(16) Storage of materials on Public Road

All building materials or waste containers must be stored within the confines of the site. The storage of such building materials, waste containers or equipment associated with the project upon the public roadway, including the pedestrian footway or unpaved verge, is prohibited.

(17) Use of Crane on Public Road

Prior approval must be obtained from Council a minimum of 24 hours before the use on any site of a crane, hoist or similar machinery that will be used to transfer materials across Council’s footpath. This includes cranes that are situated on roadways, footpaths and road reserves.

Any application for approval must be accompanied by the following information:-

· Site sketch indicating the proposed location of the crane, pedestrian controls and traffic controls;

· A copy of current public liability insurance with minimum cover of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) indemnifying Council in the event of an incident;

· A copy of an RMS accredited traffic control plan;

· Proof that the local area command of the NSW Police have been advised of the proposal.

The use of a crane, hoist or similar machinery on any site without prior approval is prohibited.

(18) Building Height - Surveyors Certificate

The proposed building is not to be erected at a height greater than that indicated on the approved plan. A certificate from a Registered Surveyor verifying the correct Reduced Level of the ground floor slab and boundary clearances shall be submitted prior to inspection of the steel reinforcement.

(19) Excavation of Site

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

All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

If the soil conditions require it, retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil shall be provided and adequate provision shall be made for drainage.

(20) Stormwater to Kerb

Any stormwater connections to the kerb and gutter are to be in accordance with Council's 'Specification for Construction by Private Contractors'.

(21) Redundant Driveway

All existing vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject premises that have become redundant shall be removed and the footway and kerb and gutter reinstated at the developer/applicants expense.

(22) Work within Road Reserve

A Development Consent or any related Construction Certificate does not allow for the erection of a structure or to carry out work in, on or over a public road. Should a structure or work be required a separate approval under S138 of the Road Act 1993 must be granted by Council prior to the commencement of any works within the road reserve. Applications may be made at Council’s Customer Service Centre.

(23) Damage within Road Reserve & Council Assets

The owner shall bear the cost of restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site. This may include works by Public Utility Authorities in the course of providing services to the site.

(24) Public Utility & Telecommunication Assets

The owner shall bear the cost of any relocation or modification required to any Public Utility Authority assets including telecommunication lines & cables and restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site.

(25) Stormwater Drainage

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas being disposed of to the street gutter by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3.2. The line must pass through a silt arrestor pit, a standard design is available within Council’s Water Management Policy.

(26) Hours of Construction

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

(27) Provision of Amenities

Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site or as specified by Workcover requirements .

· each toilet provided must be a standard flushing toilet and must be connected:

· to a public sewer; or

· if connection to a public sewer is not practicable, to an accredited sewage management facility approved by the Council; or

· if connection to a public sewer or an accredited sewage management facility is not practicable, to some other sewage management facility approved by the Council.

The provision of toilet facilities must be completed before any other work is commenced.

(28) Basix Certificate Details – DA Only

Construction of building works given Development Consent must be carried out in accordance with a valid and current BASIX certificate and all required commitments must be satisfied.

(29) Air Conditioning / Offensive Noise

Air conditioning plant and equipment shall be installed and operated so as to not create an offensive noise as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2008.

(30) Swimming Pool/Spa shall be Fenced

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

(31) Pool Filter/Pump no Offensive Noise

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

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

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

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

(32) Building Finishes

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

(33) Tree Protection - Excavation

Excavations around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root system will not adversely be affected.

Where the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees on site or adjoining sites become compromised by any excavation works, the Project Arborist shall be consulted to establish the position of any major roots and determine the necessary measures to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist shall be submitted to Council prior to any further demolition or construction works taking place.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes or services installed in this area. Any structures proposed to be built in this area of the trees are to utilise pier and beam or cantilevered slab construction.

(34) Tree Removal

The trees identified in the table below may be removed:

Tree Species	Location on Site/Tree No	Work Required
Eucalyptus pilularis	96 Queens Road/ Tree 1	Removal

All tree removals are to be carried out by a certified Tree Surgeon/Arborist to ensure that removal is undertaken in a safe manner and complies with the AS 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees) and Tree Works Industry Code of Practice (Work Cover NSW 1.8.98).

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

(35) Tree Replacement

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

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

(36) Vehicle Safety Barrier

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

(37) Dilapidation report

Prior to the issue of any construction certificate or commencement of and demolition or earth works on site, the applicant shall submit, for acceptance by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), with a copy forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA, a full dilapidation report on the carriageway servicing the property.

(38) Road closure application form

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

(39) Management Plan

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

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

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

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

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

· Location of loading and unloading areas for trucks.

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

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

SECTION E – Prior to Occupation or Subdivision Certificate Conditions

The conditions that follow in this Section E of the Notice of Determination relate to conditions that ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the requirements of the Development Consent prior to the issue of either an Occupation Certificate or a Subdivision Certificate.

(40) BASIX Completion Receipt

In accordance with clause 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, prior to issuing a final occupation certificate the certifying authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX completion receipt.

SECTION F – Prescribed Conditions

The following are prescribed conditions of development consent pursuant to s.80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cl.98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(41) Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

(42) Insurance Requirements under Home Building Act 1989

The builder or person who does the residential building work must comply with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act, 1989. This means that a contract of insurance must be in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

It is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy Council that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act, 1989.

If Council is the Principal Certifying Authority it will not carry out any inspections until a copy of the insurance certificate is received.

(43) Erection of Signs

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

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

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

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

(44) Notification of Home Building Act 1989 Requirements

Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

(a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

(b) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i) the name of the owner-builder, and

(ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

(45) Shoring and Adequacy of Adjoining Property

If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

(a) protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

(b) where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

The above condition does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

(46) Council Notification of Construction

The erection of a building which is the subject of a Development Consent must not be commenced until:

a) Detailed plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a construction certificate by Council or an accredited certifier.

b) the person having the benefit of the development consent has:

· appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA),and

· notified Council (if Council is not the PCA) in writing of the appointment, and

· given at least 2 days notice to Council of their intention to commence the erection of the building. The notice may be in writing or by phone.

SECTION G – Demolition Conditions

The following conditions are imposed to ensure the demolition associated with the proposed development is carried out having regard to relevant legislation and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or environment.

(47) Standard Demo Conditions - No Asbestos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END CONDITIONS

Advisory Notes

(i) Worksite Safety

It is usually the owner/applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the development site is a safe working environment. This may be by the engagement of an appropriately competent principal contractor. There are various legislative and WorkCover requirements with respect to maintaining a safe work-site. Details of these requirements and legislation, as well as, guidance and advisory material, can be found on the WorkCover Website www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

(ii) Worksite Safety Scaffolding

Council is committed to worksite safety and requiring that all scaffolding is installed by competent and qualified professionals with the relative appropriate standards. The applicable Australian Standards for the scaffolding is AS/NZS1576 in respect of the design of the scaffolding and AS/NZS4576 with respect to the erection of the scaffolding. Also, you should ensure that those erecting scaffolding are appropriately qualified and have the appropriate qualifications to erect scaffolding. For further information regarding this please see www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

(iii) Kid Safe NSW

Kidsafe NSW has produced Safer Homes for Children Design and Construction Guidelines for builders, renovators and home owners. The guidelines identify common hazards for children and recommended practical design applications to improve child safety for all areas of the home. Free copies of the Guidelines are available from Council’s Customer Service Centre, or contact Kidsafe on (02) 9845 0890 or their website http://www.kidsafensw.org/homesafety/index.htm for more information.

(iv) Dial Before You Dig

Underground pipes and cables may exist in the area. In your own interest and for safety, telephone 1100 before excavation or erection of structures. Information on the location of underground pipes and cables can also be obtained by fax on 1300 652 077 or through the following website www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au.

(v) Demolition Waste

Sorting your construction and demolition waste will save you money. For pricing and disposal options for sorted loads of tiles, bricks, timber concrete or asphalt call Waste Service NSW on 1300 651 116.

(vi) Property Address

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

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

A4 Plans

[1] It is noted that in metropolitan Sydney, the basis for the strategic merit test is the relevant district plan (including draft versions released for public comment) rather than APfGS.

Meeting:	Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)
Date:	Thursday, 20 April 2017
Time:	4.00pm
Venue:	Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Kogarah
Participants:	Adam Seton (Chairperson) Paul Vergtis (Panel Member) Juliet Grant (Panel Member) Chris Young (Community Member)
Additional Invitees:	Meryl Bishop (Director – Environment and Planning) Tina Christy (Manager – Development and Building) Catherine McMahon (Manager – Strategic Planning) Cathy Mercer (Admin Assistant) Monica Wernej (Admin Assistant)

Item:	DA No:	Address:	Description:
3.1	P2016/0004	Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club	Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 to rezone and reclassify Lots 14-20, Sec 3, DP7124; Lots 3-7, Sec 4, DP 4124 and Lot 1, DP 1159269 (known as the former Oatley Bowling Club) to enable future development for seniors housing and public open space
3.2	DA2016/0177	96 Queens Road, Connells Point	Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a first floor addition and inground swimming pool