Agenda of Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)

Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 26 October 2017

Page 4

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 26 October 2017

IHAP Report No	3.1	Application No	PP2017/0002
Site Address & Ward Locality	12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights Peakhurst Ward
Proposal	Planning Proposal - Rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre witth maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and building height of 9m
Report Author/s	Strategic Planner and Coordinator Strategic Planning
Owners	Learning Links
Applicant	Capital Syndications Pty Ltd
Zoning	SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose)
Date Of Lodgement	8/06/2017
Submissions	N/A
Cost of Works	N/A
Reason for Referral to IHAP	For consideration and to seek endorsement to present the Planning Proposal report to Council

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

Site Plan

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

Executive Summary

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

2. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and include Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and Height of Building controls consistent with the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning.

3. The maximum FSR proposed is 1.5:1 and the maximum building height is 9m. Note: The SP2 Infrastructure Zone does not have FSR and height controls.

4. The site comprises of two lots known as Lot 58 DP 206906 and Lot 59 of DP 206906 and has a primary street frontage to Pindari Road and a secondary frontage to Pindari Road Reserve.

5. The site is owned by Learning Links and operates as a community facility that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The site also consists of a community based pre-school that is owned and run by Learning Links.

6. Learning Links is a community-founded organisation and is classified as a non-profit organisation. It is defined as a community facility and is an organisation concerned with the intellectual development and welfare of the community.

7. The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for ‘roads’ and any use other than a use as indicated ‘for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map’. In regards to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for ‘Church and Community purpose’.

8. The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a ‘community facility’ under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone.

9. The pre-school component of the site is defined as a ‘centre-based child care facility’ and is a prohibited land use in the SP2 Infrastructure zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Hurstville City Council. Details of the site’s previous development application approvals are provided in paragraph 55 of this report.

10. The objective of the Planning Proposal is to rezone the site to a more appropriate zone that legitimises existing use provisions as permitted land uses on the subject site under the HLEP 2012.

11. The request is to rezone the subject site from SP2 Infrastructure to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in order to provide greater flexibility for any future redevelopment on the site and so as to ensure consistency with the existing B1 Neighbourhood Zone to the south (known as the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct)

12. Consideration was given with respect to the most appropriate zone for the subject site and its relationship to the adjoining sites. The subject site is adjoined by an R2 – Low Density Residential zone, however the nature of the uses are more consistent with the zone objectives for the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone.

13. It is considered that the proposed zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is a more appropriate zone than the R2 Low Density Residential in that the current and future land uses are more consistent with the objectives of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone.

14. The existing uses on the site, although defined as community facilities are more commercial than residential uses and the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone will allow the continued operation and growth of the facility consistent with demand from the community.

15. In terms of the scale of any future redevelopment of the site, consideration was given as to the impact of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone and its relationship to the adjoining R2 – Low Density Residential zone. Currently, the subject site does not have any height and FSR controls.

16. Consistent with the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone, it is proposed to introduce a height of 9m and FSR of 1.5:1 for the subject site, to ensure that any future redevelopment is consistent with the scale of development on the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre.

17. The proposed FSR of 1.5:1 and building height limit of 9m is considered suitable given the site’s context and is not considered to have an impact on the adjoining low density residential zone.

18. As the existing development was approved prior to the enforcement of HLEP 2012, the child care centre component of the site is identified to possess existing use rights which enable their operation on the site despite being prohibited by the HLEP 2012.

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

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

21. The proposal does not seek development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls under the SP2 Infrastructure zone.

22. The formula in Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land value under the PP or DA. In this regard, it would be difficult to assess the uplift as there may not be any uplift due to the existing use rights on the land.

23. It should also be noted that the existing development is a community facility registered as a not for profit organisation.

24. As such, Council has not applied the Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy (adopted 1 August 2016) to the Planning Proposal.

Report in Full

PROPOSAL

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

26. The Planning Proposal requests to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 in the rezoning of the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

27. The Planning Proposal also proposes to include maximum FSR and building height controls for the site that are consistent with adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zoning. The maximum FSR proposed is 1.5:1 and the maximum building height proposed is 9m.

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

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2: Site as viewed from Pindari Road frontage

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

Figure 3: Site viewed from Pindari Road Reserve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 5: Adjoining low density residential uses along Pindari Road

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

Figure 6: Adjacent shop top housing development in the

Peakhurst Height Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre

EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

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

Zoning

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

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

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

38. With respect to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in 1968 (refer to discussion below in paragraph 55).

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

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

41. With respect to the adjoining R2 – Low Density zone, the objective of the zone is to provide for the housing needs of the community as well as to encourage development of sites for a range of housing types. Although community facilities, health consulting rooms and centre based child care facilities would be permissible in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone, it is considered that the objectives and permitted land uses would limit the range of uses (eg: offices, shop top housing) and does not take into account the employment generating nature of the existing use on the site.

42. The objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is to provide a range of small scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

43. The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning for the subject site allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater flexibility for redevelopment of the site for alternative uses, which may be required over time in order for the facility to meet the needs of the community.

44. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed zoning and maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate in the context of the adjoining low density residential development - the adjoining low density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height limits of 9m.

Figure 7: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Land Zoning Map

Land Uses

45. The existing uses on the site are defined as a ‘community facility’ and a ‘centre-based child care facility’ under the HLEP 2012.

46. The HLEP 2012 defines ‘community facility’ as:

“a building or place:

(a) Owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit organisation, and

(b) Use for physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

But does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation”.

47. The HLEP 2012 defines a ‘centre-based child care facility’ as:

“(a) a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides any one or more of the following:

(i) long day care,

(ii) occasional child care,

(iii) out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

(iv) preschool care, or

(b) an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW),

but does not include:

(c) a building or place used for home-based child care or school-based child care, or

(d) an office of a family day care service (within the meanings of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW), or

(e) a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f) a child minding service that is provided in connection with recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium) to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(g) a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or providing private tutoring, or

(h) a child-minding service that is provided by or in a health services facility, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating in the facility”.

48. Learning Links was community founded and has evolved into a community body that has government recognition and some government funding. The legal entity is that of a company limited by guarantee, which is a specialist form of public company expressively designed for non-profit organisations. It is not defined as an educational establishment.

Development Standards

49. Height of Buildings: the site has no nominated maximum building height as shown on the extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet HOB_002 below (Figure 8).

50. The adjoining and surrounding land has a maximum building height of 9m.

Figure 8: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Height of Buildings Map

51. Floor Space Ratio: the site has no nominated maximum Floor Space Ratio as shown on the extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet FSR_002 below (Figure 9).

52. The surrounding and adjoining low density residential housing has a maximum FSR of 0.6:1. Land to the south in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone has a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

Figure 9: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Floor Space Ratio Map

APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

53. The chronological events of the Planning Proposal are described below:

· On 8 June 2017, the applicant’s Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) was lodged with Council.

· On 19 June 2017, an email was sent to the applicant setting out areas to be further addressed in the Planning Proposal.

· On 10 July 2017, the applicant submitted the additional information requested by Council.

· On 4 August 2017, the applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal with proposed mapping.

54. The site has a long history of being owned and occupied by Learning Links which is a community facility and associated child care centre.

55. Council’s records show the following Building Application and Development Application approvals for the site:

· BA-758 was granted in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville to use the rear of the site as a “pre-school kindergarten”. At this time, the site was being used as a place of public worship by the Baptist Church’.

· DA 479/90 was granted on 18 December 1990 by former Hurstville City Council for office space and after school accommodation.

· Section 96 Modification for DA 479/90 was granted on 10 May 1995 to amend Condition 4 relating to operating hours. The S96 states that “the pre-school operates between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday. The office and after school accommodation operates between the hours of 9.00am and 7.00pm, Monday to Friday”.

· DA 970/99 was granted on 9 December 1999 by former Hurstville City Council for access stairs and ramp to front of building.

56. The SP2 Infrastructure zone was not extensively reviewed in the preparation of the HLEP 2012. The SP2 zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and “for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map”.

57. In regards to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in 1968 (as detailed above in paragraph 24).

58. The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 is considered overly restrictive. The current SP2 zoning for the site is considered out-dated. The site has not been used as a public of public worship for over 25 years.

59. The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning for the site allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater flexibility for redevelopment of the site for alternative uses. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed zoning and maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate. The adjoining low density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height limits of 9m.

Summary of Planning Proposal Request

60. A revised Planning Proposal request submitted on 4 August 2017 and included the following documents which form the basis of the Planning Proposal request considered in this report:

· Planning Proposal report revised 2 August 2017 (refer Attachment 1)

· Appendix 1 – Copy of Submission on the Draft Georges River Council Employment Lands Study (refer Attachment 2)

· Appendix 2 – Site Survey

61. The Planning Proposal requests the following amendments to the HLEP 2012 in relation to the site:

a. Amend Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_002 to rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood centre.

b. Amend the Height of Buildings Map - Sheet HOB_002 to include a maximum height limit of 9m.

c. Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map – Sheet FSR_002 to include a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

62. The proposed changes to the LEP maps are outlined below (Figures 10 to 12):

Figure 10: Proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone

Figure 11: Proposed Building Height Map to 9m

Figure 12: Proposed FSR Map of 1.5:1

THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

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

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

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

64. Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 outlines that a planning proposal must explain the intended effect and the justification for making the proposed instrument and must include the following components:

· A statement of the objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed instrument (Part 1).

· An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument (Part 2).

· The justification for those objectives, outcomes and the process for their implementation (Part 3).

· Maps, where relevant, to identify the intent of the planning proposal and the area to which it applies (Part 4).

· Details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken on the planning proposal (Part 5).

65. The information below addresses the requirements for Planning Proposals.

Objectives and Intended Outcomes

66. The objective of the Planning Proposal is to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

a. Changing the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood centre.

b. Providing a height of building control of 9m (currently there is no maximum height).

c. Providing a Floor Space Ratio control of 1.5:1 (currently there is no maximum FSR).

67. The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:

a. Ensure the existing and approved use of the land is a permissible form of development in the zone.

b. Ensure principal building envelope controls (height and FSR) are legislated to allow for any future redevelopment of the site.

c. Provide certainty in the community in relation to any future redevelopment of the site.

Explanation of Provisions

68. The proposed intended outcomes will be achieved by amending the Hurstville LEP 2012 as follows:

a. Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

b. Amend the Height of Buildings Map to include a maximum height limit of 9m.

c. Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to include a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

69. It is noted that currently under the HLEP 2012 there are no maximum height or FSR controls for the site due to its SP2 Infrastructure zoning.

70. As outlined above, it is considered that the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone would be more appropriate than the R2 – Low Density Residential zone as the existing and proposed uses are consistent with the objectives of the zone and adjoining B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to the south.

71. The B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone also formalises the employment generating nature of the uses, consistent with the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct to the south.

72. The Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the standard controls that apply to the development of B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned land from the perspective of permissible uses, FSR and maximum building heights. This is considered appropriate given the surrounding context and the existing usage of the site as a community facility and centre-based child care facility.

73. The Planning Proposal impacts the relevant zoning map, height of buildings map and FSR map. There will be no impact on any relevant clauses of HLEP 2012.

Strategic Planning Context

74. The draft South District Plan (November 2016) and Towards our Greater Sydney 2056 (which will amend A Plan for Growing Sydney) was placed on public exhibition (ended March 2017) and will apply to the Georges River Council area.

75. Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the current plans and strategies (A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy), draft plans Towards our Greater Sydney 2056, draft South District Plan, Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 and Draft Employment Lands Study is provided below.

A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy)

76. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the aims of A Plan for Growing Sydney which was adopted in December 2014. It achieves the following relevant Goals and Directions:

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

· Direction 1.10: Plan for education and health services to meet Sydney’s growing needs.

77. The Planning Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by retaining employment land that is currently used as a child care centre and community facility that helps support children with learning difficulties and disabilities. The location of the site, opposite Peakhurst South Public School, benefits the community and future residents.

Goal 3: Sydney’s great places to live

· Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs

78. The Planning Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by allowing permissible uses that revitalise the local community and contribute to an attractive suburb. The proposal ensures the site be used for employment land providing business activity for the area and meeting the needs of a growing population.

Draft Towards Our Greater Sydney 2056

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

Vision	Metropolitan Priority
A productive Greater Sydney	A growing city A city with smart jobs A 30 minute city
A liveable Greater Sydney	An equitable, polycentric city A city of housing choice and diversity A collaborative city
A sustainable Greater Sydney	A city in its landscape An efficient city A resilient city

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

Draft South District Plan

81. In relation to the draft South District Plan (November 2016) which proposes a 20 year vision for the South District, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the following priorities:

Priorities of A Productive City

· Growing economic activity in centres.

· Leveraging health and education assets as catalysts to grow smart jobs.

· Manage employment and urban services land across the District.

· Accessing a greater number of jobs and services within 30 minutes.

Priorities of A Liveable City

· Create great places.

· Foster cohesive communities in the South District.

· Respond to people’s need for services.

Priorities of A Sustainable City

· Creating an efficient South District

· Integrate land use and transport planning to consider emergency evacuation needs.

82. The Planning Proposal to rezone the site to B1 Neighbourhood Centre addresses a number of priorities in the Plan but specifically in relation to “A Productive City”. The Plan encourages and supports growth of health and ancillary activities in strategic centres and as relevant, local centres.

83. The proposal protects the employment land of the Learning Links site and the provision of existing children’s educational support services in the local community. It allows for flexibility in planning for the expansion of the Peakhurst Heights precinct as well as the continuation of employment generating uses within the Precinct.

84. The proposed rezoning provides opportunities for new ancillary uses to cluster around existing health and education facilities. The site’s immediate adjacency and accessibility to Peakhurst South Public School addresses priorities of the Plan in relation to planning for connected and stronger economic and employment centres where proximity of health and educations assets creates significant opportunity to drive economic activity and a sustainable and liveable city.

Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025

85. The former Hurstville City Council endorsed the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 on 3 June 2015. It is the overarching strategy for Council’s objectives and operations. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the principles of the Plan.

Draft Employment Lands Study

86. A report on the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study was considered by Council at its meeting on 3 April 2017 where Council resolved to place the draft Study on public exhibition.

87. The area to the south of the subject site is zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone and is known as the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct

88. The draft Study considers Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as a centre that has opportunity to accommodate growth. The Precinct is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Key land uses in the zone are neighbourhood shops and shop top housing such as hairdressing, yoga studio, and podiatry.

89. Surrounding land uses are predominantly low density residential. The Learning Links site and Peakhurst South Public School are located on Pindari Road and adjoin the Precinct.

90. The current development standards within the Precinct are a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and building height limit of 9m. The draft Study makes the following recommendations in respect to the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct:

a. Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

b. Increase the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

c. Review land uses in the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to allow additional land uses.

91. The draft Study identifies the opportunity across all B1 Neighbourhood Centres as an increase of permitted maximum height of building. The current height limits the potential for the permitted FSR of 1.5:1 to be realised.

92. The subject site is not included in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as it is not currently zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

93. The Learning Links facility is one of the largest employers in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct. The site generates a significant amount of employment for the local area and wider community.

94. It comprises approximately 22 full time staff, 47 part time staff, 122 causal staff and 1 volunteer. Submissions on behalf of the subject site were made during the public exhibition of the draft Employments Lands Study requesting consideration of inclusion into the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

95. The site, despite currently being zoned SP2 Infrastructure plays a vital role in providing employment for the precinct. The Planning Proposal supports the viability of the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

State and Regional Statutory Framework

96. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) deal with matters of State or regional environmental planning significance. A review of the prevailing list of SEPPs was conducted by the applicant at the time of lodgement (dated 8 June 2017) and no applicable SEPP was identified.

97. On 1 September 2017, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 was gazetted.

98. The SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State by:

(a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for educational establishments and early education and care facilities, and

(b) simplifying and standardising planning approval pathways for educational establishments and early education and care facilities (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(c) establishing consistent State-wide assessment requirements and design considerations for educational establishments and early education and care facilities to improve the quality of infrastructure delivered and to minimise impacts on surrounding areas, and

(d) allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or use of surplus government-owned land (including providing for consultation with communities regarding educational establishments in their local area), and

(e) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing, and

(f) aligning the NSW planning framework with the National Quality Framework that regulates early education and care services, and

(g) ensuring that proponents of new developments or modified premises meet the applicable requirements of the National Quality Framework for early education and care services, and of the corresponding regime for State regulated education and care services, as part of the planning approval and development process, and

(h) encouraging proponents of new developments or modified premises and consent authorities to facilitate the joint and shared use of the facilities of educational establishments with the community through appropriate design.

99. The SEPP also introduces a common assessment framework made up of the Child Care Planning Guideline and non-discretionary development standards. The Guideline contains key national requirements and planning and design guidance for child care facilities and will generally prevail over local development control plans.

100. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP by legitimising the existing centre-based child care facility land use on the subject site and henceforth allowing future upgrades and/or expansion of the early education facility on site. This will ensure the essential services currently provided on the site are protected whilst promoting the employment growth and viability of the Peakhurst Heights Neighbourhood Centre.

S117 MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS

101. Ministerial Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 set out a range of matters to be considered when prepared an amendment to a Local Environmental Plan.

102. The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant ministerial directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 1 below:

S117 Direction	Assessment
1.1 Business and Industrial Zones	The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction in that it encourages employment growth and supports the viability of the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.
7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney	The proposal is consistent with the objectives of A Plan For Growing Sydney, as assessed in report above.

EXISTING USE RIGHTS

103. Under Division 10 Existing uses of Part 4 Development assessment of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, existing use is defined as the use of a building, work or land for which development consent was granted before the commencement of a provision of an environmental planning instrument having the effect of prohibiting the use.

104. In accordance with the above definition, the existing development on the site is deemed to possess existing use rights in that the use of a ‘centre-based child care facility’ was approved prior to the commencement of the HLEP 2012. The use was approved as a ‘pre-school kindergarten’ under BA-758 in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville. The former Hurstville City Council also approved ‘office space and after school accommodation’ in 1990 under development application DA 479/90.

105. The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre will ensure the ‘centre-based child care centre facility’ is a permissible form of development in the zone. The existing child care centre benefits the community which is the intent of the existing special use zone ‘Church and Community Purpose’.

106. The Planning Proposal ensures the site is maintained for employment land that can facilitate growth and provide essential services to the Peakhurst Heights Precinct and wider community.

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

107. The Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements. The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

108. Clause 5.3 of the Policy states that where either a Planning Proposal is proposed, or development consent is sought, which will result in an exceedance of development standards, resulting in an inherent increase in value of the land or development, the concept of land value capture may be used to assess the appropriate contribution.

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

110. The formula in Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land value under the PP or DA. In this regard, it would be difficult to assess the uplift as there may not be any uplift due to the existing use rights on the land.

111. As outlined above, the existing development is community facility registered as a not for profit organisation. The site is owned by Learning Links and operates as a community facility that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The site also consists of a community based pre-school that is owned and run by Learning Links.

112. The Planning Proposal is seeking to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and allowing for a broadening of land uses that would be consistent with the existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to B1 Neighbourhood Centre. The proposed height and FSR are consistent with the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, being 9m and 1.5:1

113. The proposal also provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties.

114. For these reasons, Council has not applied the VPA Policy to the Planning Proposal.

Conclusion

115. The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre allows for the continuation of existing and approved community facility and centre-based child care facility uses.

116. The proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning is considered an appropriate zone for the site. It allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater flexibility for redevelopment of the site for future upgrades and expansions. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed new zone ensures that future uses are compatible with existing surrounding uses.

117. The proposed zoning and maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate. The adjoining low density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height limits of 9m.

118. The draft Georges River Employment Lands Study identifies Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as a centre that has opportunity to accommodate growth. The Planning Proposal ensures the site is maintained for employment land that can facilitate growth and provide essential services to the Peakhurst Heights Precinct and wider community.

Community Consultation

119. Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (“DPE”) requesting a Gateway Determination.

120. If a Gateway Determination (Approval) is issued, and subject to its conditions, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation, 2000 and any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

121. Exhibition material, including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council offices and libraries.

122. Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

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

· Exhibition notice on Council’s website,

· Notices in Council offices and libraries,

· Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination (if required),

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

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

Task	Anticipated Timeframe
Lodgement of Planning Proposal request	8 June 2017
Report to Georges River IHAP on Planning Proposal	October 2017 (this report)
Report to Council on Planning Proposal	27 November 2017
Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway determination)	March 2018
Anticipated timeframe for completion of any further technical information	April 2018
Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway determination)	May 2018
Commencement and completion dates for community consultation period	June 2018
Dates for public hearing (if required)	N/A
Timeframe for consideration of submissions	July 2018
Reporting to Georges River IHAP on community consultation	August 2018
Reporting to Council on community consultation and finalisation	August 2018
Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP	September 2018
Anticipated date for notification.	September 2018

124. It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the DPE and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

NEXT STEPS

125. The Planning Proposal will be considered at a future Georges River Council meeting (“the relevant planning authority”) for consideration, including the IHAP recommendations. If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

126. If Council resolves not to support the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has the opportunity to request a pre-Gateway Review by the Planning Panels under the delegation of the Greater Sydney Commission. An applicant has 40 days from the date of notification of Council’s decision to request a review.

TRIM FILE

PP2017/0002

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Planning Proposal Report - Amended - 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights
Attachment View2	Appendix 1 - Copy of Submission on the Draft Georges River Council Employment Lands Study

Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Thursday, 26 October 2017

Page 74

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Thursday, 26 October 2017

IHAP Report No	3.2	Application No	DA2017/0149
Site Address & Ward Locality	Suite 1A 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville Hurstville Ward
Proposal	Use of suite as educational training facility for 30 x students
Report Author/s	Team Leader Major Projects
Owners	Georges River Council
Applicant	Hector Abrahams Architects
Zoning	Zone B4 – Mixed Use
Date Of Lodgement	25/05/2017
Submissions	None
Cost of Works	N/A
Reason for Referral to IHAP	Council is land owner

Recommendation

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

Site Plan

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The application seeks consent for the use of the Suite 1A, 34 MacMahon Street as an educational training facility for thirty (30) students.

Zoning and Permissibility

2. The proposed development is permissible in the zone. The development does not involve any external alteration to the building or any substantial fit out to the premises.

Submissions

3. The application was not required to be notified/advertised.

Conclusion

4. 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 DA2017/0149 should be approved subject to conditions of consent.

Report in Full

Proposal

1. The application seeks consent for the use of an existing commercial/office suite as an educational training facility (Sunrise Institute of Australia) providing vocational training to overseas students.

2. The suite to be used is on the first floor of an existing six (6) storey commercial building.

3. The proposed educational/training facility will cater for a maximum of thirty (30) students, three (3) teachers, and two (2) administrative staff members, at any given time.

4. The plans submitted with the application show a maximum student capacity of sixty one (61), however the Statement of Environmental Effects and the Business Details Plan/Plan of Management submitted both reference a maxim of thirty (30) students at a time. The assessment has been undertaken on the basis of a maximum of thirty (30) students.

5. The proposed hours of operation are from 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday, with two (2) shifts/teaching sessions as follows:

Shift 1 (Morning) 9am to 1pm: 15 students x 2 classes = 30 students

Shift 2 (Afternoon) 2pm to 6pm: 15 students x 2 classes = 30 students

The application proposes to use the existing layout and no building works are proposed.

The Site and Locality

6. The subject site is known as Suite 1A, located on the first floor of a six (6) storey building at 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville.

7. The building itself is located on the north western side of MacMahon Street in between the intersections with Forest Road to the south and Dora Street to the north.

8. The site is well located to public transport and is less than 200m from both the Hurstville Bus Interchange and the entrance to the Hurstville Railway Station.

Arial view of the site (source: NearMap)

External view of the site (Source Applicant’s SEE)

9. The tenancy itself is approximately 230sqm in area and comprises four (4) rooms and a common area.

10. Access to the tenancy is from a lobby which has direct lift access to MacMahon Street.

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

11. The subject site is zoned B4 – Mixed Use under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed development is permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the zone objectives.

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

12. The relevant clauses of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 which apply to the proposed development are detailed below.

Clause	Standard	Assessment Under HELP 2012	Complies
1.2 – Aims of the Plan	In accordance with Clause 1.2 (2)	The development is consistent with the aims of the plan	Yes
1.4 - Definitions	Educational establishment/business premises	Permissible	Yes
2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table	Meets objectives of the B4 Zone Development must be permissible with consent	Development meets objectives Is permissible development with consent	Yes
2.7 - Demolition	Demolition is permissible with consent	Demolition is not proposed with this application	N/A
4.3 – Height of Buildings	15-45m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	No change	Yes
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	4.5 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map	As existing	Yes
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	No additional floor space	N/A
6.6 Active Street Frontage	Ground floor of building to be business or retail	Use proposed on 1^st floor	N/A

STATE POLICIES

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment	N/A – internal fit out
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land	Yes

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

14. There are no draft planning instruments that are applicable to this site.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

15. The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 2 (DCP). The following comments are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the DCP.

Development Control Plan - Compliance Table

16. The development is subject to the provisions of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 2 – Hurstville City Centre.

DCP No 2 largely contains controls and provisions for new building and public domain works. As the proposal is for the use of a first floor tenancy in an existing building, only part 5.4 of the DCP applies.

Development Control Plan No 2 – Hurstville City Centre – Section 5.4 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

17. Development Control Plan No 2 does not have any specific car parking rates for the use proposed. The only reference in the DCP is for “educational establishments” which require one (1) space per two (2) employees. As there are five (5) employees proposed the requirement would be for three (3) parking spaces to be provided.

The existing suite does not provide any car parking for students or staff and there is no car parking provision provided as part of this development application. The building has been in existence for over 30 years and the above ground floor uses have always been of an office/business premises use. The building is not strata subdivided and parking has been managed by Council (as the land owner). Currently there are three (3) retail shops in the building and twenty (20) suites, with a total of twenty nine (29) car parking spaces for the building. Three (3) parking spaces are currently available for the tenancy, if required.

The applicant has proposed the maximum number of students and staff to be thirty five (35) at any time (thirty (30) students, five (5) staff). This is considered to be commensurate with what another permissible business/office use might expect with staff and visitors.

Furthermore, the parking rate for business/office use in the B4 Zone is one (1) space per 100sqm. The existing tenancy would require the provision of three (3) parking spaces for an office or business premises use. As an office or business use (permitted without consent) would require three (3) parking spaces and this proposed use would require three (3) parking spaces there is no additional parking demand for the proposed use.

The site is approximately 150m from the Hurstville bus interchange and less than 200m from the entrance to Hurtsville train station. Given the proposed use as a vocational college and the excellent proximity of the site to public transport, the lack of parking provision is not unreasonable on the site. Further, the proposal does not increase the size or propose and changes to the existing business premises area.

The total number of students and employees proposed does not require the submission of a Travel Plan for the development under the DCP.

Prescribed Matters

18. Not applicable.

Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts

Natural Environment

19. The application is for a change of use only and will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment.

Built Environment

20. The application does not involve any alteration to the external façade of the existing building and therefore has not impact on any adjoining land uses.

Social Impact

21. The proposed development will provide vocational training in the Hurstville City Centre and will be of a positive social impact.

Economic Impact

22. The proposed development has no apparent adverse economic impact.

Suitability of the site

23. The site is located in close proximity to public transport, retail and leisure facilities for the students and the tenancy is accessible for people with a disability. The site is suitable for the development.

Submissions

24. No advertising or notification of this proposal was required to be undertaken

Public Interest

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

Consultation – Internal and External Referrals

Internal Referrals

Senior Building Surveyor

26. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has examined the application and raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being attached to any consent granted.

External Referrals

No external referrals were required for this application.

Conclusion

50. The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relative State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans.

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

RECOMMENDATION

51. THAT pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Georges River Council grant development consent to Development Application DA2017/0149 for use of suite as educational training facility for 30 x students on the site at Suite1a 34 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions of consent:

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Section A - Development Details

1. DEV6.1 - Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

Description	Reference No.	Date	Revision	Prepared by
Site Plan	SIH/02	March 2017	-	Hector Abrahams Architects
Proposed Floor Plan	SIH/03	March 2017	-	Hector Abrahams Architects
Business Details Plan	-	16 May 2017	-	-

Section B – Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

2. CC9.47 - Fire Safety Measures - Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a list of the essential fire safety measures that are to be provided in relation to the land and any building on the land as a consequence of the building work must accompany an application for a construction certificate, which is required to be submitted to either Council or a PCA. Such list must also specify the minimum standard of performance for each essential fire safety measure included in the list. The Council or PCA will then issue a Fire Safety Schedule for the building.

3. CC9.53 - Commonwealth Disability (Access to Premises) Standard - The Commonwealth Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards) applies to all applications (i.e. Construction Certificate). This requires any new building, part of a building and the affected part of the existing building to comply with the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.

Section C - Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

4. Hours of operation - The approved hours of operation shall be restricted to the following:

8:30am – 6pm Monday to Friday

5. ONG14.4 - Maximum Patron Capacity - The hours of operation are approved as follows:

(a) The maximum patron capacity within the premises shall be limited to thirty (30) students pat any one time.

6. ONG14.27 - Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

END CONDITIONS

NOTES/ADVICES

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

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

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

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

10. ADV17.1 - Access to NSW Legislations (Acts, Regulations and Planning Instruments) - NSW legislation can be accessed free of charge at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au

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

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

12. ADV17.3 - Disability Discrimination Act - This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The applicant is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which refers to AS1428.1-Design for Access and Mobility.

13. ADV17.8 - Access for persons with disabilities - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA, an Access report prepared by an Accredited Access Consultant may be required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application, detailing the existing level of compliance in the building with the above requirements, and to provide details of proposed upgrading work necessary to bring the building into conformity with the Premises Standards and the BCA. All recommendations of the accredited access consultant must be incorporated in the plans to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

14. ADV17.9 - Building Code of Australia - Detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the below requirements of the BCA must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate Application. Should there be any non-compliance, an alternative method of fire protection must be submitted, with all supporting documents prepared by a suitably qualified person.

· C2.7 - Fire wall requirements, dividing the Class 5 and proposed Class 9b uses, if located on the same storey.

· D1.2 - The requirement for two (2) x Fire Isolated exit stairways where only one (1) is provided.

· D1.4 - Travel distance from the further most point on the proposed floor plan layout exceeds the allowable distance of 20m.

· D1.6 - Exit dimension width shown on plan, will need to be assessed.

· D2.21 - The operation of latches and door handle hardware, to required exit doors, is to be assessed.

· E2.2 - The existing automatic smoke detection and alarm system is to be assessed in accordance with AS1670.1.

· E4.9 - Sound and intercom systems need to be assessed for the proposed use in consideration of it occupying a single floor within a multi-storey building.

· F2.2 - Unless predominately used by the same sex, sanitary facilities will accommodate the proposed numbers of staff and students. Assessment must also take into consideration the use of existing sanitary facilities by other tenants on this floor.

NOTE: The assessment of existing sanitary facilities for use by persons with a disability (including ambulant) must be made by an access consultant.

In the event that full compliance with the BCA cannot be achieved and the services of a fire engineer are obtained to determine an alternative method of compliance with the BCA, such report must be submitted to and endorsed by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

If you need more information, please contact the Development Assessment Planner, below on 9330-6400 between 9.00am -11.00am business days.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Business Details - Suite 1A 34 MacMahon Street
Attachment View2	Proposed Floor Plan - Suite 1A 34 MacMahon St Hurstville

Meeting:	Georges River Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP)
Date:	Thursday, 26 October 2017
Time:	4.00pm
Venue:	Council Chambers, Georges River Civic Centre, Cnr Dora and MacMahon Streets, Hurstville
Participants:	Paul Vergotis (Chairperson) Sue Francis (Panel Member) Juliet Grant (Panel Member) George Vardas (Community Member)
Additional Invitees:	Meryl Bishop (Director Environment and Planning) Tina Christy (Manager Development and Building) Cathy McMahon (Manager Strategic Planning) Cathy Mercer (Team Leader Adminstration) Monica Wernej (Admin Assitant)

Item:	DA No:	Address:	Description:
3.1	PP2017/0002	12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights	Planning Proposal - Rezone site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre witth maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and building height of 9m
3.2	DA2017/0149	Suite 1A, 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville	Use of suite as educational training facility for 30 x students