Agenda of Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel Thursday, 15 August 2019

Page 73

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

LPP024-19 4 The Esplanade South Hurstville - DA2017/0659

(Report by Development Assessment Officer)

LPP025-19 11 Arnold Street Peakhurst - DA2018/0309

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP026-19 7-11 Short Street South Hurstville - DA2017/0353

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP027-19 1-7 Bowns Road Kogarah - DA2018/0074

(Report by Development Assessment Officer)

LPP028-19 6-8 Vaughan Street Blakehurst - DA2018/0237

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP029-19 105 Victoria Avenue and 2A Cook Street Mortdale - DA2019/0213

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

4. Confirmation of Minutes

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 15 August 2019

LPP Report No	LPP024-19	Development Application No	DA2017/0659
Site Address & Ward Locality	4 The Esplanade South Hurstville Blakehurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures, tennis court and tree removal and construction of a two storey centre based child care facility for sixty eight (68) children over a basement car park for eighteen (18) vehicles
Owners	Lui Tian Yong and Jiang Wei Ying
Applicant	Ekon Pty Ltd C/O Sydney Access Consultants
Planner/Architect	Architect - Sydney Access Consultants
Date Of Lodgement	20/12/2017
Submissions	Twenty five (25) submissions and a submission containing with thirty five (35) signatures objecting to the proposal
Cost of Works	$1,422,278.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	2(b) Contentious Development - more than ten (10) submissions received
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River, State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure, Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation State Environmental Planning Policy Kogaragah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Statement of Environmental Effects, Architectural Plans, Landscape Plan, Plan of Management, Access Report, Acoustic Report
Report prepared by	Development Assessment Officer

Recommendation

That the application be granted a deferred commencement consent in accordance with the conditions included in this report.

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

Not Applicable

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, however the applicant will be able to review the conditions when the report is published.

Site Plan

Figure 1 – Site Plan with the site outlined in red

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures, tennis court and tree removal and construction of a two (2) storey centre based child care facility for sixty eight (68) children over a basement car park for eighteen (18) vehicles on land legally described Lot 189 DP6202 known as 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville.

Site and Locality

2. The site forms a rectangular shaped allotment and is dimensioned as follows; 20.115m along the western frontage to The Esplanade, 50.29m along the southern side boundary, 20.115m along the eastern rear boundary, 50.29m along the northern side boundary with a total site area of 1,011.58sqm. The site slopes from rear (high) to front (low) with an approximate maximum fall of 3.58m. A two (2) storey dwelling house is located at the front of the site and a synthetic grass tennis court within the rear setback.

Zoning and Permissibility

3. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). A “centre-based child care facility” is a permissible use within the zone with development consent.

Submissions

4. The application was notified in accordance with the provisions contained within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. In response, twenty five (25) submissions were received with a submission containing thirty five (35) signatures. The relevant concerns raised within the submissions have been addressed in detail later in this assessment report. Amended plans received were not re-notified as minor changes were sought and this did not generate a greater impact than the original proposal.

Conclusion

5. An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the applicable assessment criterion as outlined in this report, the proposal generally complies. To improve the proposal a deferral commencement is recommended to satisfy the following design changes:

a) The acoustic screen parallel with the northern side boundary is to be reduced to a maximum height of 2.4m to improve the visual impact on the adjoining allotment. The height and screening must be certified by an appropriately qualified and practicing acoustic consultant;

b) The western façade, facing The Esplanade, of the proposed acoustic fencing roof structure is to accommodate a green wall into the design to provide a softening of the development when viewed from the public domain. The design shall incorporate appropriate planting species and an irrigation system to ensure that the green wall is appropriately maintained to enhance its establishment and survival.

c) The buildings front façade is to be amended to incorporate further modulation and the open stair facing The Esplanade is to be enclosed and incorporate openings and a decorative finish to reduce the bulk of the stairwell when viewed from the public domain and improve the appearance of the wide façade facing The Esplanade.

d) A revised colours and finishes schedule is to be provided incorporating the modified design features.

e) The front boundary fence is to be amended to be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.2m at any point along the frontage of the development.

f) The pedestrian walkway parallel with the southern side boundary is to be increased in width to be a minimum of 1500mm.

g) The car parking space numbered 17 on the basement plan is to be converted from a car parking space to the turning bay to assist with the maneuvering of vehicles within the basement to leave the site in a forward direction.

A timeframe of thirty six (36) months is to apply to satisfy the above requirements.

Report in Full

Proposal

6. Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA2017/0659) seeking consent for demolition of existing structures, tennis court and tree removal and construction of a two (2) storey centre based child care facility for sixty eight (68) children over a basement car park for eighteen (18) vehicles. The centre based child care facility is proposed to accommodate children aged zero to five (0 to 5) years of age. In detail, the proposal comprises the following:

· 8 children aged 0-2 years (managed by 2 staff)

· 20 children aged 2-3 years (managed by 4 staff)

· 20 children aged 3-4 years (managed by 2 staff)

· 20 children aged 3-5 years (managed by 2 staff)

7. Eighteen (18) car parking spaces are proposed as part of the development including one (1) accessible car parking space within the basement. As part of the deferred commencement conditions car space 17 is recommended to be converted to a turning bay to facilitate manoeuvrability within the basement to enable all vehicles to leave the site in a forward direction. The deletion of this space results in the following:

· Four (4) staff car parking spaces; and

· Thirteen (13) parent car parking spaces which includes an accessible space.

8. The proposed built form has attempted to replicate a two (2) storey residential dwelling form with a basement. Each level contains the following:

Basement: Car park with eighteen (18) car spaces, lift and access stairs, bin storage area and shared pedestrian walkway (one of the deferred commencement conditions is seeking to remove car space 17 and replace this space with a turning bay to improve manoeuvrability, resulting in seventeen (17) spaces within the basement).

Ground floor: Covered porch, entry, indoor foyer, office, lift, indoor play area (0-2 years = 30sqm) nappy change areas, cot room, bottle and craft preparation areas, indoor play area (2-3 years = 70sqm), toilets, indoor storage, outdoor storage area, internal stair case, outdoor play, acoustic fencing with roofed area and amphitheatre.

First floor: Indoor play area (3-5 years = 139sqm), staff room, staff bathroom, indoor storage areas, lobby, kitchen, laundry indoor store, children’s toilets and craft preparation areas.

Removal of seven (7) trees, front fencing, landscaping works, driveway construction, service provision and ancillary works.

Amended proposal

9. The revised plans amended the design in the following way:

· Bin storage area located within basement;

· Greater articulation along the front building façade presenting to The Esplanade; and

· Revised waste management plan, traffic report and additional information.

10. The amended proposal did not require re-notification as this did not generate a greater impact than the original proposal.

Site and Locality

11. The subject site is legally described as Lot 189 DP 6202 known as 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville. The site forms a rectangular shaped allotment and is dimensioned as follows; 20.115m along the western frontage to The Esplanade, 50.29m along the southern side boundary, 20.115m along the eastern rear boundary, 50.29m along the northern side boundary with a total site area of 1,011.58sqm. The site slopes from rear (high) to front (low) with an approximate maximum fall of 3.58m. A two (2) storey dwelling house is located at the front of the site and a tennis court within the rear setback. Seven (7) trees are located on site with one (1) tree within the front setback. A driveway is located along the northern side boundary. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential as referenced within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP).

Figure 2 – Photograph of due east aspect of front of subject site (4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville) viewed from The Esplanade, South Hurstville (Source: GRC, July 2019).

Figure 3 – Photograph of due north aspect of rear of subject site (4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville) facing northern side boundary (Source: GRC, July 2019).

Figure 4 – Photograph of due east aspect of rear of subject site (4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville) along southern side boundary (Source: GRC, July 2019).

12. One (1) street tree and pedestrian footpath are located in the Council reserve. A drainage outlet in the kerb leads into The Esplanade. The Esplanade is a local road. The immediate surrounding area generally comprises of single and double storey dwelling houses of varying architectural styles and designs. A row of villas adjoins the site to the south. Recent additions to the streetscape include new infill dwellings and dual occupancies. The immediate surrounding area on the eastern side of The Esplanade is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the western side (opposite side) of the Esplanade is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Zoning and Permissibility

13. The subject land is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012). The proposed development is defined by the KLEP 2012 as a ‘Centre-based child care facility’ which is a permitted land use in the zone.

Figure 5 - Extract of Zoning Map and subject site outlined in blue.

Submissions

14. The proposed development was notified to the immediate surrounding residents. In response, a total of (25) submissions and a submission containing thirty five (35) signatures were received by Council, objecting to the proposed development. The relevant concerns raised have been addressed in date later in this report. The amended proposal did not require re-notification as the amendments did not generate a greater impact than the original design.

Conclusion

15. A centre based child care facility is a permissible use in the R3 zone. The proposed development generally complies with the planning controls and objectives of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017.

16. The application is recommended for approval via a deferred commencement determination seeking design changes to the development together with standard conditions of consent.

Background

17.

Date	Event
22 December 2017	Development application lodged for demolition of existing and construction of two storey child based centre facility with basement accommodating sixty eight (68) children
10 January 2018	Request for additional information – request for preliminary contamination report
8 March 2018	Preliminary contamination report provided
12 March 2018	Site inspection
16 - 30 May 2018	Notification period
19 June 2018	Request for additional information – traffic, waste management, additional application details
3 August 2018	Additional traffic information provided
2 April 2019	Additional information provided – revised elevations, section and ground floor plan lowering the basement level and providing greater articulation along the front façade
17 July 2019	Second site inspection

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

18. The site has been inspected and the proposed development has been assessed under the provisions of Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

19. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

20. The proposal is considered to have met the statutory requirements under the Regulation.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

21. State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education and Child Care SEPP) commenced on 1 September 2017 and aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State.

22. Clause 22 of the Education and Child Care SEPP indicates that the consent authority cannot grant consent to a development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility except with the concurrence of the Regulatory Authority. However; concurrence of the Regulatory Authority is only required if the floor area of the building and the proposed outdoor spaces do not satisfy Parts 107 and 108 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations.

23. Part 107(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises is to have at least 3.25sqm per child of unencumbered indoor space equating to 221sqm for the proposed sixty-eight (68) children.

24. The proposed unencumbered indoor space is 239sqmequating to 3.51sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

25. Part 108(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises has at least 7.0sqm of unencumbered outdoor space equating to 476sqm for the proposed sixty eight (68) children.

26. The outdoor space proposed is to be 500sqm equating to 7.35sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
23 Centre-based childcare facility Matters for consideration by consent authorities
25 Centre-based child care facility—non discretionary development standards
	(1) The object of this clause is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to a centre-based child care facility that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for those matters.	Proposal has considered the applicable standards within this assessment.	Yes
	(2) The following are non-discretionary development standards for the purposes of section 4.15 (2) and (3) of the Act in relation to the carrying out of development for the purposes of a centre-based child care facility: (a) location—the development may be located at any distance from an existing or proposed early education and care facility, (b) indoor or outdoor space (i) for development to which regulation 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements = 3.25sqm per child) or 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements = 7sqm per child) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations applies—the unencumbered area of indoor space and the unencumbered area of outdoor space for the development complies with the requirements of those regulations, or (ii) for development to which clause 28 (unencumbered indoor space and useable outdoor play space) of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 applies—the development complies with the indoor space requirements or the useable outdoor play space requirements in that clause, (c) site area and site dimensions—the development may be located on a site of any size and have any length of street frontage or any allotment depth, (d) colour of building materials or shade structures—the development may be of any colour or colour scheme unless it is a State or local heritage item or in a heritage conservation area.	Consideration has been applied to the required minimum unencumbered indoor and outdoor space. The areas exceed the minimum numeric criterion for each age bracket. Indoor unencumbered area = 3.51sqm per child. Outdoor unencumbered area = 7.35sqm per child. The site is 1,011sqm with an allotment width of 20.115m and depth of 50.29m which is considered appropriate to accommodate the proposal. The development proposes neutral off white and grey tones with contemporary materials which is consistent with the local area. The site is not identified as a State or Local heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area.	Yes Yes Yes
	(3) To remove doubt, this clause does not prevent a consent authority from: (a) refusing a development application in relation to a matter not specified in sub clause (2), or (b) granting development consent even though any standard specified in sub clause (2) is not complied with.	The proposal is considered acceptable on this site.	Yes
26 Centre-based child care facility—development control plans	(1) A provision of a development control plan that specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to any of the following matters (including by reference to ages, age ratios, groupings, numbers or the like, of children) does not apply to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility: (a) operational or management plans or arrangements (including hours of operation), (b) demonstrated need or demand for child care services, (c) proximity of facility to other early education and care facilities, (d) any matter relating to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility contained in: (i) the design principles set out in Part 2 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, or (ii) the matters for consideration set out in Part 3 or the regulatory requirements set out in Part 4 of that Guideline (other than those concerning building height, side and rear setbacks or car parking rates).	The proposal seeks development consent for sixty eight (68) children. This clause overrides and numeric control with the Kogarah instruments.	Yes
	(2) This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.	This clause has been considered as part of this assessment.	Yes

Child Care Planning Guideline Compliance Table
Controls	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
3.1 Site selection and location	C1- For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone consider:
	§ the acoustic and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the residential properties	An acoustic report accompanies the proposal which was supported by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Health. A deferred commencement condition is recommended to reduce the height of this acoustic fencing proposed to be no greater than 2.4m.	Yes
	§ the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context	The proposal adopts a built form which is considered to be compatible with the streetscape and residential context in the R3 zone.	Yes
	§ traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity	The proposal seeks to provide eighteen (18) car spaces on site which is in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan. The proposal is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator of Traffic. Currently there are no signage restrictions in front of the subject site or immediate vicinity. The proposal is considered to be able to appropriately function without the need for any signage changes within the street. One of the deferred commencement conditions is recommending car space 17 be converted to a turning bay to facilitate increased manoeuvrability within the basement for all vehicles to leave the site in a forward direction.	Yes
	C2 - When selecting a site, ensure that: § the location and surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development or use	The location of the proposed child care centre is considered to be compatible with the adjoining residential development with respect to height and setbacks.	Yes
	§ the site is environmentally safe including risks such as flooding, land slip, bushfires, coastal hazards	The site is not impacted by any affectations such as flooding, landslip, bushfire or coastal hazards.	Yes
	§ there are no potential environmental contaminants on the land, in the building or the general proximity, and whether hazardous materials remediation is needed	A preliminary assessment was provided by the applicant. As addressed earlier within this report under SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land, it was concluded that the proposed site is suitable for the purposes of a childcare centre.	Yes
	§ the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to: - size of street frontage, lot configuration, dimensions and overall size - number of shared boundaries with residential properties. - the development will not have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area, particularly in sensitive environmental or cultural areas.	The proposal is considered to be suitable for the subject site. The proposal is well under the maximum floor space ratio and height of buildings permitted under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.	Yes
	§ there are suitable drop off and pick up areas, and off and on street parking	The proposal provides all car parking on site within the basement level. The design is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator of Traffic. It is acknowledged that a deferred commencement condition has been imposed recommending car space 17 to be converted to a turning bay to facilitate increased manoeuvrability within the basement to leave the site in a forward direction.	Yes
	§ the type of adjoining road (for example classified, arterial, local road, cul-de-sac) is appropriate and safe for the proposed use	The Esplanade is a local road. This road is not identified as a collector road within the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.	Yes
	§ it is not located closely to incompatible social activities and uses such as restricted premises, injecting rooms, drug clinics and the like, premises licensed for alcohol or gambling such as hotels, clubs, cellar door premises and sex services premises.	The subject site is located in a residential setting and is not impacted by any of the criterion listed within this clause.	Yes
	C3 - A child care facility should be located:
	§ near compatible social uses such as schools and other educational establishments, parks and other public open space, community facilities, places of public worship	The subject site is surrounded by residential uses within the immediate vicinity.	Yes
	§ near or within employment areas, town centres, business centres, shops	The subject site is located within relative close distance to the South Hurstville commercial precinct.	Yes
	§ with access to public transport including rail, buses, ferries	Bus stops are located within 100m due north along Connells Point Road, South Hurstville.	Yes
	§ in areas with pedestrian connectivity to the local community, businesses, shops, services and the like.	The subject site has pedestrian connectivity to the South Hurstville commercial precinct.	Yes
	C4- A child care facility should be located to avoid risks to children, staff or visitors and adverse environmental conditions arising from proximity to:
	§ heavy or hazardous industry, waste transfer depots or landfill sites § LPG tanks or service stations § water cooling and water warming systems § odour (and other air pollutant) generating uses and sources or sites § which, due to prevailing land use zoning, may in future accommodate noise or odour generating uses § extractive industries, intensive agriculture, agricultural spraying activities	The site is not located within proximity to any of the risks identified within this clause.	Yes
	§ any other identified environmental hazard or risk relevant to the site and/ or existing buildings within the site.	A preliminary contamination report was submitted with the application prepared by LG Consult which concluded that the proposal is suitable for the proposed child care centre.	Yes
3.2 Local character, streetscape and the public domain interface	C5 - The proposed development should:
	§ contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape	The proposal adopts a logical design which is compatible with the streetscape in terms of setbacks, bulk, scale and height of the building and supporting structures.	Yes
	§ reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas	The proposal adopts a built form which reads similar to a two (2) storey dwelling with basement car park. This is considered to be compatible with the built forms within the immediate vicinity and is not inconsistent with the residential development form permitted on the site.	Yes
	§ recognise predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, materials and colours	The Esplanade is characterised by predominately dwelling houses with landscaped front setbacks. Given the existing surrounding built forms which vary from masonry, tile, timber, weatherboard etc. The proposal is not inconsistent with the character of the existing streetscape.	Yes
	§ include design and architectural treatments that respond to and integrate with the existing streetscape	The proposal adopts a slender line built form which allows for significant spatial separation to the adjoining northern and southern side properties. The proposal is further embellished with improved landscaping which comprises of a mixture of trees and shrubs. It is also noted that the proposal seeks to retain and protect the large tree within the Council reserve in front of the site.	Yes
	§ use landscaping to positively contribute to the streetscape and neighbouring amenity	The proposal seeks embellishment of the landscaping along the northern (side), eastern (rear) and southern (side) boundaries and within the front setback. The landscaping has sufficient dimensions and tree species to allow for growth and maturity of the trees and plants. The landscape plan has been reviewed by Council’s consulting arborist who supports the proposal subject to conditions.	Yes
	§ integrate car parking into the building and site landscaping design in residential areas.	The car parking is integrated within the proposal through the basement proposed. The design of the basement has been lowered from the original design to improve the visual presentation to the development to the public domain.	Yes
	C6 - Create a threshold with a clear transition between public and private realms, including:
	§ fencing to ensure safety for children entering and leaving the facility	Appropriate fencing provided onsite. One of the imposed deferred commencement conditions recommends the lowering of the front fence to be no higher than 1200mm to improve the scale and form to the public domain.	Yes
	§ windows facing from the facility towards the public domain to provide passive surveillance to the street as a safety measure and connection between the facility and the community	Ground floor and first floor windows fronting The Esplanade which allow for passive natural surveillance. It is noted that the front fence along The Esplanade is to be reduced in height to 1.2m which will facilitate greater opportunities for passive surveillance.	Yes
	§ integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.	The landscaping and fencing proposed, subject to the deferred commencement condition compliance, is considered to be appropriate.	Yes
	C7- On sites with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with the child care facility should be differentiated to improve legibility for visitors and children by changes in materials, plant species and colours.	The proposal has a defined pedestrian entry which is separate from the basement carpark entry both of which are clearly legible.	Yes
	C9- Front fences and walls within the front setback should be constructed of visually permeable materials and treatments. Where the site is listed as a heritage item, adjacent to a heritage item or within a conservation area front fencing should be designed in accordance with local heritage provisions.	The front fence along the Esplanade is conditioned via deferred commencement to be a maximum of 1200mm in height. The fence is masonry and does not have any heritage affectations as the site is not listed as a heritage item or within a conservation area.	Yes
	C10- High solid acoustic fencing may be used when shielding the facility from noise on classified roads. The walls should be setback from the property boundary with screen landscaping of a similar height between the wall and the boundary.	An acoustic fence with roof over is proposed along the northern side of the site. The height of this acoustic fencing is required to be amended via a deferred commencement condition requiring the height of the fence to be no greater than 2400mm.	Yes
3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design	C11- Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to:
	ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by: § facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties § placing play equipment away from common boundaries with residential properties § locating outdoor play areas away from residential dwellings and other sensitive uses	The proposal adopts appropriate spatial from adjoining properties. The proposal incorporates acoustic fencing and tree planting along the side and rear boundaries. Outdoor play equipment is located with the rear eastern portion of the site.	Yes
	§ optimise solar access to internal and external play areas	The proposal has been designed to maximise solar access to internal and external areas.	Yes
	§ avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties	The site is located on an east-west axis. 6 The Esplanade comprises of a row of villas with north facing private open space. Overshadowing to the south being 6 The Esplanade cannot be avoided. The height of this development is below the 12m permitted on the site and the built form is well setback from the southern boundary.	Yes
	§ minimise cut and fill	The proposal seeks minimal cut and fill with the largest excavation to accommodate the basement.	Yes
	§ ensure buildings along the street frontage define the street by facing it	The proposal has been designed to have frontage to The Esplanade. The development is considered to require increased modulation to the front façade. In this regard the enclosure of the open stair is required, which is to incorporate openings to The Esplanade façade. This has been required by a deferred commencement condition.	Yes
	§ ensure that where a child care facility is located above ground level, outdoor play areas are protected from wind and other climatic conditions.	The proposal is located above ground level with appropriate shelter protection from the elements.	Yes
	C12- The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character:
	§ building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality	The proposal is considered to be consistent with other centre based child care facilities within the locality.	Yes
	§ building height should respond to the scale and character of the street	The proposal adopts a two storey built form which responds which is consistent with the form of development in the streetscape. It is acknowledged the development is proposed well below the permitted 12m height of the R3 zone.	Yes
	§ setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility	The proposal adopts reasonable setbacks as follows; South - 3.75m North - 4.69m East - 16.15m	Yes
	§ setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance	Setbacks are sufficient for the purposes of general access and maintenance.	Yes
	§ setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character.	The proposal seeks setbacks which are considered to be compatible with the streetscape.	Yes
	C13- Where there are no prevailing setback controls minimum setback to a classified road should be 10m. On other road frontages where there are existing buildings within 50m, the setback should be the average of the two closest buildings. Where there are no buildings within 50m, the same setback is required for the predominant adjoining land use.	The proposal adopts a front setback of 5.5m which is compatible with the adjoining properties which have the following minimum setbacks 6 The Esplanade - 5m 2 The Esplanade - 15.6m 2A The Esplanade - 3.96m 8 The Esplanade - 7.35m 1 The Esplanade - 3.41m 3 The Esplanade - 7.14m 5 The Esplanade - 5.59m	Yes
	C14- On land in a residential zone, side and rear boundary setbacks should observe the prevailing setbacks required for a dwelling house.	The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposal adopts compatible setbacks to the streetscape given the immediate residential context.	Yes
	C15- The built form of the development should contribute to the character of the local area, including how it:
	§ respects and responds to its physical context such as adjacent built form, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage	The proposal is considered to adopt appropriate spatial separation in relation to existing adjoining built forms.	Yes
	§ contributes to the identity of the place	The proposal is considered to contribute to the character of the area.	Yes
	§ retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant	The proposal seeks to retain a tree on site and within the front setback.	Yes
	§ considers heritage within the local neighbourhood including identified heritage items and conservation areas	The subject site and immediate surrounding area are not identified as being heritage listed or within a conservation area.	Yes
	§ responds to its natural environment including local landscape setting and climate	The proposal seeks to retain one tree on site and provides appropriate landscaping improving what is presently on site.	Yes
	C16- Entry to the facility should be limited to one secure point which is:
	§ located to allow ease of access, particularly for pedestrians § directly accessible from the street where possible § directly visible from the street frontage § easily monitored through natural or camera surveillance § not accessed through an outdoor play area. § in a mixed-use development, clearly defined and separate from entrances to other uses in the building.	The proposal seeks a main entry along the southern side elevation which is accessed from The Esplanade via a pedestrian walkway. This is a direct clear path in accordance with this clause. In addition, the basement car park lift and stairwell lead to this entry on the ground floor.	Yes
	C17- Accessible design can be achieved by:
	§ providing accessibility to and within the building in accordance with all relevant legislation § linking all key areas of the site by level or ramped pathways that are accessible to prams and wheelchairs, including between all car parking areas and the main building entry § providing a continuous path of travel to and within the building, including access between the street entry and car parking and main building entrance. Platform lifts should be avoided where possible § minimising ramping by ensuring building entries and ground floors are well located relative to the level of the footpath. NOTE: The National Construction Code, the Discrimination Disability Act 1992 and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 set out the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.	The proposal has been designed to provide access to and within the site in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code and relevant Australian Standards.	Yes
3.4 Landscaping	C18- Appropriate planting should be provided along the boundary integrated with fencing. Screen planting should not be included in calculations of unencumbered outdoor space. Use the existing landscape where feasible to provide a high quality landscaped area by:
	§ reflecting and reinforcing the local context § incorporating natural features of the site, such as trees, rocky outcrops and vegetation communities into landscaping.	The proposal provides screen planting along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries.	Yes
	C21- Minimise direct overlooking of indoor rooms and outdoor play spaces from public areas through:
	§ appropriate site and building layout § suitably locating pathways, windows and doors § permanent screening and landscape design	The proposal has been designed to reasonably satisfy the requirements of this clause.	Yes
	C22 Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through: § appropriate site and building layout § suitable location of pathways, windows and doors § landscape design and screening.	The proposal has been designed having regard to reducing adverse overlooking impacts to adjoining properties. This is also assisted by screen planting and acoustic screening.	Yes
	C23- A new development, or development that includes alterations to more than 50 per cent of the existing floor area, and is located adjacent to residential accommodation should:
	§ Provide an acoustic fence along any boundary where the adjoining property contains a residential use. (An acoustic fence is one that is a solid, gap free fence).	New building proposed and acoustic fencing and roof over along the northern side boundary and acoustic fencing to the perimeter of the other boundaries where there is outdoor play areas has been proposed implementing the recommendations of the acoustic report.	Yes
	C24- A suitably qualified acoustic professional should prepare an acoustic report which will cover the following matters:		Yes
	§ identify an appropriate noise level for a child care facility located in residential and other zones § determine an appropriate background noise level for outdoor play areas during times they are proposed to be in use § determine the appropriate height of any acoustic fence to enable the noise criteria to be met.	The acoustic report has identified an appropriate background noise and required an acoustic fence to a height of 3.0m along the northern boundary and a 2.4m solid fence to the perimeter of the other boundaries of the outdoor play areas. The acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Health and is supported subject to conditions of consent.	Yes, the acoustic wall/fence with a roof over, along the northern side boundary is conditioned to be reduced in height to 2.4m as a deferred commencement requirement to reduce the bulk to the adjoining allotment and the public domain.
3.6 Noise and air pollution	C25 Adopt design solutions to minimise the impacts of noise, such as: § creating physical separation between buildings and the noise source § orienting the facility perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses § using landscaping to reduce the perception of noise § limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources § using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (winter gardens) § using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties, such as solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits § locating cot rooms, sleeping areas and play areas away from external noise sources.	The proposal incorporates an acoustic fence along the northern side and the boundaries enclosing the outdoor play areas are recommended. The northern acoustic screen and roof over is to be reduced in height from 3.0m to 2.4m consistent with the other acoustic fencing to reduce visual bulk presented to the adjoining allotment and the public domain. Figure 6 below shows the recommended location of the acoustic fencing. The proposal has incorporated several design elements within this clause to result in a reasonable built form.	Yes
	C26- An acoustic report should identify appropriate noise levels for sleeping areas and other non-play areas and examine impacts and noise attenuation measures where a child care facility is proposed in any of the following locations:	An acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health and considered appropriate.	Yes
	C27- Locate child care facilities on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development.	The site is located on a local road and is not within close proximity to any industrial uses.	Yes
	C28- A suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care facilities close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines. The air quality assessment report should evaluate design considerations to minimise air pollution.	The subject site is located away from potential impacts from external sources. Therefore an air quality assessment report was not required.	N/A
3.7 Hours of operation	C29- Hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The hours of operation of the proposed child care facility may be extended if it adjoins or is adjacent to non-residential land uses.	The proposal seeks consent to operate between 7.30am – 6.00pm Monday to Friday. Closed on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.	Yes
3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation	C31 Off street car parking should be provided at the rates for child care facilities specified in a Development Control Plan that applies to the land.	Compliant car parking provided on site within the basement in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.	Yes
	C33- A Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised. § the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected § there will be no impacts on the safe operation of the surrounding road network	A Traffic and Parking study was submitted. This was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator Traffic and is supported subject to conditions. Car space 17 is proposed to be converted to a turning back to facilitate increased manoeuvrability to leave the site in a forward direction.	Yes
	C36- The following design solutions may be incorporated into a development to help provide a safe pedestrian environment: § separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility	The proposal provides separate pedestrian and vehicular access from The Esplanade.	Yes
	§ pedestrian paths that enable two prams to pass each other	The pedestrian pathway along the southern side boundary is proposed with a width of 1200mm.	Yes - This is conditioned to be 1500mm in width as referenced in the a deferred commencement condition
	§ delivery and loading areas located away from the main pedestrian access to the building and in clearly designated, separate facilities	Delivery and loading areas are located within the basement level. Deliveries are to occur outside peak pick up and drop off times.	Yes – a condition has been imposed to ensure that deliveries are to occur outside peak pick up and drop off times within the approved hours of operation.
	§ vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction.	Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction which is facilitated by an appropriate basement layout subject to the turning bay which is conditioned as part of the Deferred Commencement conditions.	Yes – subject to compliance with the Deferred Commencement Condition
	C38 Car parking design should:
	§ include a child safe fence to separate car parking areas from the building entrance and play areas § provide clearly marked accessible parking as close as possible to the primary entrance to the building in accordance with appropriate Australian Standards	The proposal provides a separate pedestrian entry to that of the basement entry.	Yes

Figure 6 – Extract from the Acoustic Report prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd dated 20 December 2017 – showing the location of the acoustic fencing

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

27. The subject land is located within the Georges River Catchments and as such The Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River applies to the application.

28. Georges River Catchment generally aims to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries. The proposal seeks to drain to the front of the site being The Esplanade which is supported by Council’s Development Engineer subject to conditions of consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

29. The Vegetation SEPP regulates clearing of native vegetation on urban land and land zoned for environmental conservation/management that does not require development consent.

The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

(b) Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s development control plan (DCP).

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

The proposal is supported by Council’s consulting arborist subject to conditions of consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of land

30. The site has a history of being used as a residential premise. A preliminary environmental site investigation prepared by Land and Ground Water Consulting concluded that the subject site is suitable for the proposed centre based child care facility. In this regard appropriate consideration has been given to the SEPP.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

31. The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

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

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

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

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

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

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005;

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

32. The proposal is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

Draft Remediation SEPP

33. The draft SEPP was exhibited from 31 January to 13 April 2018. The following are the aims of the SEPP as per below;

· provide a state-wide planning framework for the remediation of land

· maintain the objectives and reinforce those aspects of the existing framework that have worked well

· require planning authorities to consider the potential for land to be contaminated when determining development applications and rezoning land

· clearly list the remediation works that require development consent

· introduce certification and operational requirements for remediation works that can be undertaken without development consent.

Given the above, a contamination report was submitted which was reviewed and by Council’s Co-Ordinator Environmental Health subject to conditions. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP.

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan

34. The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) is outlined in the table below.

Applicable LEP Clause	Standards	Proposal	Complies
4.3 Height of Buildings	“M” 12m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	8.59m (RL50.11)	Yes
4.4 Floor Space Ratio	“N” 1:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map (1,011.58sqm max)	0.4:1 (400.5sqm)	Yes
6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils	The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.	The site is not identified as being affected by acid sulfate soils.	Yes

Development Control Plans

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

35. The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable subsections and considerations below.

· Part B General Controls

· B1 – Tree Management and Greenweb

· B4 – Parking and Traffic

· B5 – Waste Management and Minimisation

· B6 – Water Management

· B7 – Environmental Management

36. The proposal has adequately satisfied the above subsections.

Section C1 - Low Density Housing (guidance)

37. As the proposal adopts setback and building heights and visual bulk which is compatible to other residential built forms (dwelling houses) within the visual catchment.

Part D4 Child Care Centres

Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
5.1 Siting, Layout and Design
	(1) Child care centres must be sited, designed and operated so that any disturbance to adjacent/nearby properties is minimised.	The proposal is appropriately designed, sited and adequate consideration has been given to its operation to minimise unnecessary disturbance to the adjoining properties.	Yes
	(2) Areas within the building used by children must be situated at ground floor level.	The proposal seeks to utilise the ground floor and first floor for the purposes of play and ancillary areas.	No, however the proposal seeks fully enclosed play areas on the first floor. There are no outdoor play areas proposed on this level. The application has been designed to satisfy the provisions of the SEPP therefore overriding the provisions of Council’s DCP.
	(3) The design of centres must be in character with the streetscape.	The proposal adopts a two storey built form which is consistent with the streetscape. The height and floor space are well below that permitted in an R3 zone. The built form is compatible with development in the immediate vicinity of the site.	Yes – subject to an additional deferred commencement condition to improve modulation of the front façade of the building, enclosure of the external stairs introduction a green wall for the detached awning structure fronting The Esplanade.
	(4) Buildings located in residential areas must be "residential" in external appearance and finishes and visually conform with nearby residential streetscapes.	The proposals external finishes are concrete render with a pitched roof. The colour and finishes palate comprises contemporary neutral tones described as ranging from off-white to grey tones.	Yes
5.2 Location
	(1) Sites selected for child care centres should conform to the following desired criteria: (i) Be situated in church or school properties; (ii) Be within or adjoining existing recreation / open space areas; (iii) Be corner sites; (iv) Be located in areas where a proposed centre would have minimal effect on the amenity of adjoining properties; (v) Be of a similar scale and intensity of use to existing development in the area; (vi) Be located in areas of high environmental quality; (vii) Be easily accessible by public transport (viii) Not have frontage and/or vehicular access to streets with high traffic volumes (that is 1500-2000 vehicles per day or more) and/or on streets where there is a high demand for on street parking during times of the day when centres are likely to be operating (Refer to Appendix 1); (ix) Not be located on roads with carriageways less than 8m in width; (x) Not be located in dead-end or cul-de-sac streets; (xi) Not be affected by on-street parking restrictions such as bus stops, no standing areas, poor sight distances etc; (xii) Not be located in or near industrial areas, former service stations or other similar sites where any risk of contamination or health hazard may occur. In such locations, applicants are required to submit with Development Applications, environmental audit reports stating that the site is environmentally safe or detailing the measures to be taken to remove any contamination; (xiii) Not be located on sites with a frontage less than 20m. This will ensure that the width of the site is sufficient to allow compliance with the pick-up/drop off configuration and car parking requirements.	The site is surrounded by residential properties. This location criteria is overridden by the provisions of contained within SEPP(Education) 2017. This site is considered an appropriate location for a centre based child care facility.	Yes
5.3 Size of Centres
	(1) The maximum number of children who may be enrolled at a child care centre should be as follows: (i) for centres located on sites previously or currently used for residential purposes, no greater than 40.	The proposal seeks development consent for sixty eight (68) children.	No – however complies with SEPP (Education) 2017 indoor and outdoor space provisions which override the controls of the KDCP.
5.4 Off-Street Parking and Traffic Movements
	(1) There must be a minimum ratio of parking spaces to children of 1:4. This includes parking for both staff and parents. Seventeen (17) spaces required	The proposal seeks development consent for sixty eight (68) children. The proposal provides eighteen (18) car spaces.	Yes, with an additional design condition in the form of deferred commencement for parking space 17 to be changed to a turning bay to improve internal circulation. As a result there will be 17 spaces within the basement.
	(2) Council may consider a reduction in parking requirements where a study justifies the assumptions that staff and users of the centre will use public transport, or live or work within walking distance or due to other considerations on an individual site’s merits. Particular consideration will be given to centres with a high number of staff due to the provision of 0-2 year old spaces (refer to Note below).
	(3) Car park spaces design should comply with Australian Standard 2890- Parking Facilities.	The proposal complies with 2890.1	Yes
	(4) Where a centre is part of a residential property (dual use), one (1) off street parking space must be provided for the resident. This is in addition to the parking required for the child care centre.	The proposal is for a sole use as a centre based child care facility.	Yes
	(5) A maximum of two parking spaces may be “stacked”, provided they are clear of the driveway. Stacked parking spaces shall be designated for the use of staff only are not permitted for the space required for the resident of a dual use site.	No car parking spaces within the basement are stacked.	Yes
	(6) All parking and manoeuvring areas are to be suitably sign posted, drained and line marked.	This information will be required to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans and documents.	Yes
	(7) Access for motor vehicles, wherever possible, must be separated from pedestrian access by safety fencing and gates.
	(8) Provision should be made for one-way drive through arrangement on the site, which has separate ingress and egress. Within this driveway, provision should be made for a parking/passing bay. Alternative arrangements may be acceptable for corner sites (Figure 1 below).	The proposal seeks a dual access driveway to service the proposal so there is no conflict between persons entering and leaving the basement.	Yes
	(9) All on-site parking must be designed so as to be able to leave the site in a forward direction.	The proposal seeks a dual access driveway which allows for vehicles to simultaneously enter and exit in a forward direction.	Yes
5.5 Outdoor Play Areas
	(1) Outdoor and indoor play areas must be clearly identified and dimensioned on the submitted DA plans.	Outdoor areas have been dimensioned and clearly identified on the site plan. The outdoor areas are located along the northern and eastern portions of the site.	Yes
	(2) Locate outdoor and indoor play areas to the north or north eastern portion of the site where practical.	The outdoor play area has been orientated to the north and north east to maximise solar access. This siting and configuration also facilitates solar access penetration into the indoor play areas.	Yes
	(3) Locate outdoor play areas away from the main entrance, car parking areas or vehicular circulation areas.	The outdoor play areas are segregated from the main entrance and parking areas. The outdoor play areas are located to the north and north east, the entry is located along the southern side boundary and parking is accessed via The Esplanade to the eastern side of the allotment.	Yes
	(4) Provide adequate separation between outdoor play areas and habitable rooms of adjoining residential properties.	The proposal seeks sufficient spatial separation to adjoining properties.	Yes
	(5) Indoor play areas must have adequate access to sunlight and natural ventilation	Indoor areas contain windows along each elevation which has adequate access to sunlight and natural ventilation.	Yes
	(6) Dedicate at least 50% of outdoor play areas for unencumbered activity and use a variety of surfaces (e.g. grass, sand, hard paving, and moulding).	More than 50% of outdoor play area comprises of unencumbered activities which comprise of synthetic grass, soft fall areas, hard paving and a sand pit.	Yes
	(7) Provide physical shading devices that are integrated into the design of the building. The material and colour of shading devices must be considered in relation to the streetscape and adjoining properties.	The proposal provides shading devices within the side and rear setbacks. The proposal seeks a shade sail structure within the rear setback and an awning style cover along the northern side boundary. These elements are considered to be reasonable given the design and sitting of these structures. The northern structure doubles as an acoustic barrier. The colours nominated are consistent with the development and the locality.	Yes Yes
	(8) Toilets should be easily accessible from both indoor and outdoor play areas	Toilets are readily accessible from both indoor and outdoor areas.	Yes
	(9) Design and layout of outdoor play areas should maximise clear sight lines and ensure ease of access to the main indoor play areas.	The design and layout results in clear and direct sight lines with direct access to indoor play areas.	Yes
5.6 Facilities to be provided
	(1) The following list of requirements should be considered in the planning and design of a child care centre. • Space requirements • Laundry • Craft preparation facilities • Food preparation facilities • Nappy Change Facilities • Toilet and Washing Facilities • Sleeping facilities • Storage facilities • Play equipment • First aid • Fire safety • Ventilation, lighting and heating • Hot water • Fencing • Glass • Cleanliness, maintenance and repairs	The proposal adequately provides for the criteria referenced in this clause.	Yes
	(2) This list is based on the Children Education and Care Services Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 and is intended as a guide only. Applicants should refer to the Regulation for a complete and detailed list of equipment standards and service requirements.	The proposal meets the requirements of the Regulation.	Yes
5.7 Landscaping
	(1) Sites must be landscaped to Council's satisfaction. A minimum of 40% (404.59sqm) of the site should be retained for "soft" landscaping.	The proposal provides 40.62% 411sqm) landscaping within the front, rear and side setbacks which are considered to be satisfactory. It is acknowledged that the plans nominate soft fall areas, but this is man made products not soft green landscaping. This is consistent with the needs of the facility and the requirements of the SEPP and Regulation for child safety at play.	Yes
	(2) A landscape plan must be submitted to the Council with all development applications. This should meet the following requirements: (i) existing vegetation and other landscaped features should be retained where possible; (ii) new driveways and off-street parking areas should be surfaced in "hard" landscaping; (iii) areas between the building and street alignment which are not used for pedestrian or vehicular access or parking should be landscaped; (iv) screen landscaping to provide privacy to adjoining properties and areas of shade for children; and (v) provision of garden beds adjacent to boundaries to facilitate planting of shrubs / trees and to allow for recycling of green waste.	A landscape plan has been submitted with this application which meets the criterion within this clause.	Yes
5.8 Noise
	(1) Designs should aim to locate playrooms, sleep rooms and playgrounds away from the noise source. Where necessary the impact of noise must be reduced by barriers such as solid fencing, placement of buildings or acoustic treatment within the building.	The proposed playrooms and sleep rooms are appropriately located away from noise sources. The proposal seeks an acoustic wall with roof over along the northern side boundary and also acoustic fencing surrounding all play areas to minimise noise impacts. As previously stated, The Esplanade forms a local road which is unlikely to result in adverse noise impacts.	Yes
	(2) Centres must be carefully designed so that noise is kept to a minimum and does not create an "Offensive Noise" as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Factors to consider are: layout and orientation of buildings; erection of noise barriers; insulation of external noise sources (e.g. air conditioners); window glazing; fencing placement, design and materials.	An acoustic report accompanies this development application which was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator of Health and considered adequate. A condition of the deferred commencement determination will reduce the 3.0m acoustic wall and roof along the northern boundary from 3.0m to 2.4m reducing the bulk presented to the neighbouring allotment and the bulk and scale to The Esplanade.	Yes
5.9 Health and Safety
	(1) Access should be provided and designed in accordance with AS 1428.1 Design for Access and Mobility, and in all respects comply with Part D of the Building Code of Australia for the relevant class of building. Reference to these requirements should be made in the early stages of the design to ensure the development complies with the relevant standards.	The proposal complies with Australian Standards. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor supports the proposal subject to conditions of consent.	Yes
5.10 Hours of Operation
	(1) Council will exercise its discretion in relation to permitted hours of operation taking into consideration the nature of adjoining land uses and the circumstances of the case.	The proposal seeks of operation between 7.30am to 6.00pm Monday. Closed on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays.	Yes
	(2) However, Council will not permit a centre located on a site or within an area used for residential purposes to operate between the hours of 7.00pm to 7.00am on any day of the week.	The proposed hours of operation fall within the permitted hours contained in this DCP.	Yes
Appendix 1 – High volume traffic routes	List of high volume traffic routes	The Esplanade, South Hurstville is not nominated in this clause.	Yes

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

38. The proposal is supported by Council’s Consultant Arborist subject to conditions of consent.

Built Environment

39. The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts upon the built environment for reasons discussed throughout the report.

Social and Economic Impact

40. The proposed development will not result in any adverse social and/or economic impacts within the locality subject to compliance the conditions of consent.

Suitability of the Site

41. 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 and relationship to adjoining developments.

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

42. The proposal was notified to adjoining neighbours on for a period of fourteen (14) days of which twenty five (25) submissions plus a further submission containing thirty five (35) signatures objecting to the development were received. The submissions raised the following issues.

Number of children

43. Concerns were raised in relation to the number of children sought exceeded Council’s Development Control Plan requirements.

44. Comment: State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 takes precedence over the KDCP in the event of an inconsistency. Accordingly, the rates in the SEPP and not those in the KDCP apply, under these controls sixty eight (68) children are permitted on this site.

Close proximity to existing childcare centres

45. Concerns were raised that the proposal is in close proximity to existing child care centres within South Hurstville.

46. Comment: The State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 overrides local controls. Clause 25(a) of the SEPP clearly states that a centre based childcare facility can be located any distance from another.

Lack of need for a child care centre

47. Comment: The proposal seeks development consent for a child care centre. A child care centre is a permissible use within the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The need for a child care centre does not form matter of consideration and is subject to market forces.

Traffic impacts

48. Concerns were raised in relation to traffic impacts to The Esplanade and the surrounding road network, increased traffic generation and the narrow width of the road.

49. Comment: The proposal provides complaint off street car parking for seventeen (17) car spaces contained within the basement. The proposal complies with the Australian Standards in relation to car parking manoeuvrability access and dimensions. The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator of Traffic and is supported subject to conditions. Further that, the proposal does not require the need for any signage on The Esplanade to minimise traffic impacts.

Traffic report, vehicle and pedestrian safety

50. Concerns were raised in relation to impacts generated by the proposal in relation to vehicle and pedestrian safety. Concerns were raised that the traffic study comprised of a study over one (1) day.

51. Comment: The proposal seeks a separate the pedestrian entry which is accessed from The Esplanade; this is separated from the basement access driveway. Appropriate signage and delineation are provided to facilitate safety on site. A revised traffic report was provided for consideration which included a SIDRA analysis which was supported by Council’s Traffic Section. Furthermore, Council’s Traffic Engineer has recommended that a light/sign system be incorporated to assist in providing additional pedestrian safety. This is incorporated within the conditions of consent. It is noted that the proposal is not expected to negatively interfere with the operation of the local road network.

Noise impacts

52. Concerns were raised in relation to noise impacts generated by the proposal.

53. Comment: An acoustic report accompanied the development application which was subsequently reviewed and supported by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Health. The proposal incorporates acoustic screening and a roof awning along the northern side boundary and acoustic screening to the perimeter of the outdoor play areas.

Commercial use

54. Concerns were raised that the proposal forms a commercial use within a residential zone.

55. Comment: A child based centre facility forms a permissible use within the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Loss of trees and landscape

56. Concerns were raised regarding the loss of trees and landscaping.

57. Comment: The proposal was reviewed by Council’s consulting arborist who supports the proposal which seeks to protect one (1) tree on site, remove (6) trees on site, protection of one (1) Tree at 6 The Esplanade and protection one (1) street tree on the Council reserve. The proposal will improve the quality of landscaping on site and provide appropriate screen planting, ground cover and shrubs including seven (7) trees capable of growing to a mature height of a minimum of 5m.

Solar access impacts

58. Concerns were raised in relation to adverse solar access impacts.

59. Comment: The proposal does not result in any unreasonable solar access impacts to adjoining properties given the orientation of the site which is on an east-west axis. The design of the proposal adopts generous side setbacks, is below the maximum height of building and floor space ratio permitted, given this, overshadowing impacts are considered to be unavoidable due to lot orientation. It is noted that Council’s controls are silent in relation to solar access impacts from childcare centres, however given the residential locality and zoning, the development form has been considered having regard to the controls relating to a residential dwelling house. The solar access resulting from this development is consistent with what would be experienced if a residential development was to be constructed on this allotment.

Streetscape/general amenity

60. Concerns were raised regarding streetscape and general amenity concerns.

61. Comment: The proposal adopts a built form which is considered to generally present as a built form which is not inconsistent with a two storey dwelling house making it compatible with the immediate residential context. The proposal is not considered to unreasonably detract from the amenity of the adjoining properties or beyond given the proposed use as a child based centre facility.

Incorrect waste management Plan

62. Concerns were raised that the submitted waste management plan related to a dual occupancy and not of that of child care centre.

63. Comment: The applicant provided a revised waste management plan which is considered to be satisfactory in relation to details regarding construction and ongoing use of the proposal.

Council Referrals

Coordinator Environmental Health

64. The proposal is supported by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health subject to conditions of consent.

Traffic Engineer and Coordinator Traffic

65. The proposal is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator Traffic subject to conditions of consent.

Building Officer

66. The proposal is supported by Council’s Building Officer subject to standard conditions.

Development Engineer

67. The proposal is supported by Council’s Development Engineer subject to conditions of consent.

Waste Management

68. The proposal is supported by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Sustainability and Waste subject to standard conditions.

Tree Management

69. The proposal is supported by Council’s Consultant Arborist subject to compliance with the conditions of consent.

Traffic Engineer

70. The proposal is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer subject to conditions of consent in addition to the following;

Warning sign(s) to be placed at the entrance and within the car park advising to “Give Way to pedestrians within carpark” and that the management of the centre continuously advice staff and parents to drive safely at low speeds and watch for pedestrians within the car park.

Development Contributions

71. The development is subject of a Section 7.12 contribution (former Section 94A Contribution), under the provisions of the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017. The below information, will form a part of the conditions of consent (if applicable).

Fee Type	Fee
Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017	$4,601.28

CONCLUSION

72. The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures, tennis court and tree removal and construction of a two (2) storey centre based child care facility for sixty eight (68) children over a basement car park for eighteen (18) vehicles. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the applicable Statutory Controls and has considered concerns contained within the submissions. The proposal, subject to the design changes referenced in the deferred commencement condition, is considered to be an acceptable development form and use for this site.

73. In view of the above, the application is recommended for determination as a deferred commencement approval subject to conditions included in the report.

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

74. Statement of Reasons

a) The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the allotment and is permissible within the zone.

b) The proposed development will provide minimal impact upon the natural and built environment and the adjoining allotments.

c) The proposal is compliant with respect to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 and proposes a compliant and acceptable form of development for the subject allotment and locality.

Determination

75. THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), the Council grant deferred commencement for thirty six (36) months to development consent to Development Application No. DA2017/0659 demolition of existing structures, tennis court and tree removal and construction of a two storey centre based child care facility for sixty eight (68) children over a basement car park for eighteen (18) vehicles on land legally described as Lot 189 DP6202 known as 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville subject to the conditions below.

The Development Application described above has been determined by the granting of a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the conditions specified in this notice.

This Development Application is a Deferred Commencement Consent under Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (as amended) 1979.

Schedule 1

A. Deferred Commencement – Design changes - Pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this consent will not operate until such time as the following requirements are satisfied:

The following design changes must be provided in the form of amended plans:

b) The western façade, facing The Esplanade of the proposed acoustic fencing roof structure is to accommodate a green wall into the design to provide a softening of the development when viewed from the public domain. The design shall incorporate appropriate planting species and an irrigation system to ensure that the green wall is appropriately maintained to enhance its establishment and survival.

c) The buildings front façade is to be amended to incorporate further modulation and the open stair facing The Esplanade it to be enclosed and incorporate openings and a decorative finish to reduce the bulk of the stairwell when viewed from the public domain and improve the appearance of the wide façade facing The Esplanade.

d) A revised colours and finishes schedule is to be provided incorporating the modified design features.

e) The front boundary fence is to be amended to be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.2m at any point along the frontage of the development.

f) The pedestrian walkway parallel with the southern side boundary is to be increased in width to be a minimum of 1500mm.

Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within thirty six (36) months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent.

Commencement of the Consent cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

Subject to A above being satisfied a development consent be issued, subject to the following conditions:

Schedule 2

Development Details

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	10	19 Aug 2018	A	Sydney Access Consultants
Basement Plan	10	2 April 2019	A	Sydney Access Consultants
Ground Floor Plan	107	2 April 2019	A	Sydney Access Consultants
Section	203	2 April 2019	A	Sydney Access Consultants
First Floor Plan	17D049-108	20 December 2017	A	Sydney Access Consultants
North and East Elevations	201	2 April 2019	A	Sydney Access Consultants
South and West Elevations	202	2 April 2019	A	Sydney Access Consultants
Stormwater Plans	D.01-03	10 Nov 17	C	Rise Consulting Engineers
Landscape Plans	LA-01,LA-02	12.12.17	A	Susan Stratton Landscape Architects
Colour Scheme	17D049-204	December 2017	A	Sydney Access Consultants
Operational Plan of Management		December 2017
Waste Management Plan	17D049	20 Dec 2017		Sydney Access Consultants
Acoustic Report	6386-1.1R	20 December 2017		Day Design
Arborist Report		22 October 2017		Susan Stratton Landscape Architects
Access Report		20 November 2017		Sydney Access Consultants

2. Signage - A separate application shall be submitted to Council prior to the erection of any additional signage unless the proposed signage is ‘exempt development’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or any other applicable environmental planning instrument.

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

3. Section 138 Roads Act 1993 and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 - Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

Separate approval is required under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath) listed below.

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

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

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

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

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

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

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au. For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 9330 6400.

4. Driveway Crossing - Constructing a driveway crossing and/or footpath requires a separate approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 prior to the commencement of those works.

To apply for approval, complete the “Application for Driveway Crossing and Associated Works on Council Road Reserve” issued under Section 138 Roads Act.” which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s Website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au. Lodge the application form, together with the associated fees at Council’s Customer Service Centre, during business hours. Refer to Section P1 and P2, in Council’s adopted Fees and Charges for the administrative and inspection charges associated with Driveway Crossing applications.

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

The design boundary level is to be received from Council prior to construction of the internal driveway

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

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

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

7. Electricity Supply - An application is required to be made to Ausgrid for a network connection. This may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. Evidence of this application being lodged with Ausgrid is required to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. For further details, you are advised to contact Ausgrid on 13 13 65 or www.ausgrid.com.au (Business and Commercial Services).

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

9. Notice of Requirements for a Section 73 Certificate - A Notice of Requirements of what will eventually be required when issuing a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. Please refer to the ‘Plumbing, building and developing’ section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to ‘Providers’ under ‘Developing’ or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following application, a ‘Notice of Requirements’ will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Co-ordinator, as it can take some time to build water/sewer pipes and this may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Notice of requirements must be submitted prior to the commencement of work. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate will be required at the completion of development in accordance with further conditions.

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An on-site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering must be designed, approved and installed. The design must include the computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:

a) peak flow rates from the site are to be restricted to a permissible site discharge (PSD) equivalent to the discharge when assuming the site contained a single dwelling, garage, lawn and garden,

b) at Annual Recurrence Intervals of 2 years and 100 years.

Refer to Flow Controls in Council's Draft/Adopted Stormwater Drainage Policy.

The OSD facility shall be designed to meet all legislated safety requirements and childproof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is greater than 300mm. A durable metal plate or similar sign is to be placed at the OSD facility and must bear the words:

"BEWARE: This is an on-site detention basin/tank for rainwater which could overflow during heavy storms."

Full details shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

13. Pump-Out System Design for Stormwater Disposal - The design of the pump-out system for storm water disposal will be permitted for drainage of basement areas only, and must be designed in accordance with the following criteria:

a) The pump system shall consist of two pumps, connected in parallel, with each pump being capable of emptying the holding tank at the rate equal to the rate of inflow for the one-hour duration storm. The holding tank shall be capable of holding one hour’s runoff from a one-hour duration storm of the 1 in 20 year storm;

b) The pump system shall be regularly maintained and serviced, every six (6) months; and

c) Any drainage disposal to the street gutter from a pump system must have a stilling sump provided at the property line, connected to the street gutter by a suitable gravity line.

Details and certification of compliance from a professional engineer specialising in civil engineering shall be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

14. Driveway Construction Plan Details - Detailed engineering plans for the driveway shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application for approval that show:

a) Longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials designed in accordance with Council's Subdivision standards and AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

b) Suitable underground provision for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits).

c) The full length of the driveway designed with a minimum 150mm thick reinforced concrete and minimum of 2.7m wide pavement/kerb face to kerb face width, and a non-slip surface.

15. Council Property Shoring - Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, plans and specifications prepared by a professional engineer specialising in practising structural engineering must detail how Council’s property shall be supported at all times.

Where any shoring is to be supporting, or located on Council’s property, certified structural engineering drawings detailing; the extent of the encroachment, the type of shoring and the method of removal, shall be included on the plans. Where the shoring cannot be removed, the plans must detail that the shoring will be cut to 150mm below footpath level and the gap between the shoring and any building shall be filled with a 5MPa lean concrete mix.

16. 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.

17. Contamination Site Assessment - Prior to Council or an accredited certifier issuing a construction certificate, a detailed site investigation and remedial action plan (if required) shall be undertaken/completed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the relevant guidelines approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

The Assessment shall satisfy the PCA that the untested land as defined under the Statement of Environmental Effects is suitable for the proposed use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Development Assessment - Slip resistance Slip Resistance - All pedestrian surfaces must have slip resistance classifications, as determined using test methods in either wet or dry conditions, appropriate to their gradient and exposure to wetting. The classifications of the new pedestrian surface materials must comply with AS/NZS4586:2004 - Slip Resistance Classifications of New Pedestrian Materials and must be detailed on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

21. Acoustic Requirements - Compliance with submitted Acoustic Report – The Construction Certificate plans shall demonstrate compliance with the Acoustic Report submitted and approved by Council, titled Environmental Noise Assessment Proposed Child Care Centre, 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville NSW prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd and dated 20 December 2017.

22. Food Premises - The following information shall be provided and shown on the Construction Certificate Plans:

(a) Plans and Specifications

Details of the construction and fit out of food premises must be submitted to Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The plans and specifications must demonstrate compliance with the:

i. Food Act 2003 (as amended)

ii. Food Regulation 2015 (as amended)

iii. Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia

iv. New Zealand and Australian Standard AS4674:2004 Design, Construction and fit out of food premises (as amended)

Environmental Health Officers’ must advise in writing that the plans and specification are considered satisfactory prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

(b) Retail Meat Premises

Details of the construction and fit out of the retail meat premises must be submitted to Council’s Environmental Health Officers. Such details must demonstrate compliance with the:

i. NSW Standard for Construction & Hygienic Operation of Retail Meat Premises (as amended)

ii. Food Regulation 20105 (as amended)

iii. Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia

iv. New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674:2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises (as amended)

v. Sydney Water Corporation - Trade Waste Section

Council’s Environmental Health Officers’ must advise in writing that the plans and specification are considered satisfactory prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

(c) Waste Facility

Details of the construction and fit out of the waste facility of the food premises must be submitted to Council’s Waste Services Team for approval. Such details must demonstrate compliance with the Food Act 2003 (as amended), Food Regulation 20105 (as amended); the Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674:2004 Design, construction and fit out of food premises (as amended.) and must be:

i. provided with a hose tap connected to the water supply;

ii. paved with impervious floor materials;

iii. coved at the intersection of the floor and the walls;

iv. graded and drained to a waste disposal system in accordance with the requirements of the relevant regulatory authority (Sydney Water);

v. adequately ventilated (mechanically or naturally) so that odour emissions do not cause offensive odour as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;

vi. Must be large enough to accommodate the bins required.

Council’s Environmental Health Officers’ must advise in writing that the plans and specification are considered satisfactory prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

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

24. Fees to be paid - The fees listed in the table below must be paid in accordance with the conditions of this consent and Council’s adopted Fees and Charges applicable at the time of payment (available at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au).

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

Please contact Council prior to the payment of Section 7.11 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted by Council.

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

A summary of the fees to be paid are listed below:

Fee Type	Fee
GENERAL FEES
Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service Corporation. See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/
Builders Damage Deposit	$3,750.00
Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit	$371.00
Driveway and Restoration Works Design Inspection Fee (Commercial Industrial)	$344.00

Georges River Council Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan 2017	$4,601.28

General Fees

The fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

Development Contributions

The Section 7.11 contribution is imposed to ensure that the development makes adequate provision for the demand it generates for public amenities and public services within the area.

A Section 7.12 contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 7.12 Contributions Plan.

Indexation

The above contributions will be adjusted at the time of payment to reflect changes in the cost of delivering public amenities and public services, in accordance with the indices provided by the relevant Section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan.

Timing of Payment

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

Further Information

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

25. Damage Deposit - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

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

b) Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $155.00

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

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

26. Site Management Plan - A Site Management Plan must be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate, and include the following:

a) location of protective site fencing;

b) location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

c) location of building materials for construction, e.g. stockpiles

d) provisions for public safety;

e) dust control measures;

f) method used to provide site access location and materials used;

g) details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

h) method used to provide protective measures for tree preservation;

i) provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

j) location and size of waste containers/skip bins;

k) details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

l) method used to provide construction noise and vibration management;

m) construction and demolition traffic management details.

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

27. Required design changes - The following changes are required to be made and shown on the Construction Certificate plans:

Amendments to approved plans	All changes made in red on the approved plans shall be updated and shown on the Construction Certificate plans.
	The stormwater plans, landscape plans and accompanying documentation must be amended to be consistent with the approved architectural plans.

28. Erosion & Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to ensure:

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

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

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

(e) All erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition,

excavation and/or development works

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

roadway

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

similar

(h) Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book)

produced by Landcom 2004.

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

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

a) All stormwater shall drain by gravity to Council's kerb and gutter directly in front of the development site in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

b) Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

Evidence from a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering that this design requirement has been adhered to shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

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

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

31. Traffic Management - Compliance with AS2890 - All driveways, access ramps, vehicular crossings and car parking spaces shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current version of Australian Standards, AS 2890.1 (for car parking facilities) and AS 2890.2 (for commercial vehicle facilities).

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

33. Landscape Plans - All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plans drawn by Susan Stratton, Landscape Architects, Plan numbers – LA-01 and LA-02. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity.

34. Compliance with submitted Arborist Report - The recommendations outlined in the Arborist’s Report titled Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Susan Stratton, Arboricultural Consultant, dated 22 October 2017 must be implemented throughout the relevant stages of construction. Details of tree protection measures to be implemented must be detailed and lodged with the Construction Certificate application for approval and shall be in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009: Protection of trees on development sites.

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

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

T1 Araucaria heterophylla

T8 Eucalyptus microcorys

T9 Fraxinus Spp

Back corner of property, north east

Street tree

Neighbours tree, 6 The Esplanade South Hurstville

6.24m

12.48m

5.64m

35. Tree Protection and Retention – The following trees shall be retained and protected:

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

T1 Araucaria heterophylla

T8 Eucalyptus microcorys

T9 Fraxinus Spp

Back corner of property, north east

Street tree

Neighbours tree, 6 The Esplanade South Hurstville

6.24m

12.48m

5.64m

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

General Tree Protection Measures

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

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

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

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

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

(f) The Tree Protection Zone of each tree, to be protected, shall be watered thoroughly, regularly to minimise the effects of construction works.

(g) No services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree unless approved by Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone – DO NOT ENTER’ attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

Excavation works near trees to be retained

T1, T8 and T9

(h) 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.

(i) 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.

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

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

Pier and Beams

(k) To preserve - Tree 1, Araucaria heterophylla, Tree 9, Fraxinus Spp and Tree 8, Eucalyptus microcorys, the footings of the proposed retaining walls and fences shall be isolated pier and beam construction within a 5 metre radius of the trunk. The piers shall be hand dug and located such that no roots of a diameter greater than 50mm are severed or injured in the process of any site works during the construction period. The beam shall be located on or above the existing soil levels.

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

Removal or pruning of any other tree (that would require consent of Council) on the site is not approved. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist in accordance with AS4373 -2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and Amenity Tree Industry, Code of Practice (SafeWork NSW August 1998).

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

36. Tree Removal & Replacement - Tree removal - Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees:

Tree species

Number of trees

Location

T2 Citrus reticulate

T3 Citrus aurantifolia

Along southern boundary fence line, towards back

T4 Citrus reticulate

T5 Glochidion ferdinandi

T6 Melaleuca armillaris

T7 Cupressus Spp

Along southern boundary fence line, towards back

Along southern boundary fence line, midway

The front yard, within property

General Tree Removal Requirements

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

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

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

Tree Replacement

The following replacement trees are to be planted prior to the issue of either an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate (whichever is first). All replacement trees must be replanted a minimum of 3m away from any driveway, building or structure.

As per landscape Plan drawn by Susan Stratton, Landscape Architects, Plan numbers – LA-01 and LA-02

A copy of the Hurstville City Council’s Tree Removal and Pruning Guidelines and Kogarah City Council, Street Tree Management Strategy and Masterplan, can be downloaded from Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

Prior to the Commencement of Work (Including Demolition & Excavation)

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

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

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

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

38. Demolition Notification Requirements - The following notification requirements apply to this consent:

(a) The developer /builder must notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition. Such notification is to be a clearly written note giving the date demolition will commence, contact details of the developer/builder, licensed asbestos demolisher and the appropriate regulatory authority. Notification is to be placed in the letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any) either side and immediately at the rear of the demolition site.

(b) Five (5) working days prior to demolition, the developer/builder is to provide written notification to Council advising of the demolition date, details of the SafeWork licensed asbestos demolisher and the list of residents advised of the demolition.

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

39. Dial before your dig - The applicant shall contact “Dial Before You Dig on 1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate. The sequence number obtained from “Dial Before You Dig” shall be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council for their records.

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

a) Set out before commencing excavation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During Construction

42. Physical connection of Stormwater to site - No work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system from the land the subject of this consent to Council's infrastructure in The Esplanade, South Hurstville.

43. Structural Engineers Details - The proposal must be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by the practising qualified structural engineer. All structural works associated with the proposed building must be inspected and structurally certified for compliance by an independent practising structural engineer. In addition a Compliance or Structural Certificate, to the effect that the building works have been carried in accordance with the structural design, must be submitted to the Certifying Authority at each stage of Construction or prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50. Hazardous or Intractable Waste – Removal and Disposal Hazardous or intractable waste arising from the demolition or construction process shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of SafeWork NSW and the NSW Environment Protection Authority and with the provision of:

· Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (as amended);

· Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (as amended);

· Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (as amended); and

· Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (as amended)

51. Waste requirements - The waste room will contain the following to minimise odours, deter vermin, protect surrounding areas, and make it a user-friendly and safe area:

· waste room floor to be sealed;

· waste room walls and floor surface is flat and even;

· all walls painted with light colour and washable paint;

· equipment electric outlets to be installed 1700mm above floor levels;

· The bin storage rooms will be mechanically exhausted as required by AS 1668.2;

· light switch installed at height of 1.6m;

· waste rooms must be well lit (sensor lighting recommended);

· optional automatic odour and pest control system installed to eliminate all pest

· types and assist with odour reduction - this process generally takes place at

· building handover - building management make the decision to install;

· all personnel doors are hinged and self-closing;

· waste collection area must hold all bins - bin movements should be with ease of access;

· conform to the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and local laws; and childproofing and public/operator safety shall be assessed and ensured.

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

52. Major Development - Internal driveways and parking spaces are to be adequately paved with concrete or bitumen, or interlocking pavers to provide a dust-free surface. All car parking spaces are to be line marked in accordance with AS1742, ‘Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices’ and the relevant guidelines published by the RMS.

53. Restriction to User and Positive Covenant for On-Site Detention Facility - A Restriction on Use of the Land and Positive Covenant shall be created and registered on the title of the property, which places the responsibility for the maintenance of the on-site stormwater management system on the owners of the land. The terms of the instrument are to be in accordance with Council’s standard terms and restrictions which are as follows;

Restrictions on Use of Land

The registered proprietor shall not make or permit or suffer the making of any alterations to any on-site stormwater management system which is, or shall be, constructed on the lot(s) burdened without the prior consent in writing of Georges River Council. The expression “on-site stormwater management system” shall include all ancillary gutters, pipes, drains, walls, kerbs, pits, grates, tanks, chambers, basins and surfaces designed to manage stormwater quantity or quality including the temporary detention or permanent retention of stormwater storages. Any on-site stormwater management system constructed on the lot(s) burdened is hereafter referred to as “the system”.

Name of Authority having the power to release, vary or modify the Restriction referred to is Georges River Council.

Positive Covenants

1. The registered proprietor of the lot(s) hereby burdened will in respect of the system:

a) keep the system clean and free from silt, rubbish and debris

b) maintain and repair at the sole expense of the registered proprietors the whole of the system so that if functions in a safe and efficient manner

c) permit the Council or its authorised agents from time to time and upon giving reasonable notice (but at any time and without notice in the case of an emergency) to enter and inspect the land for the compliance with the requirements of this covenant

d) comply with the terms of any written notice issued by the Council in respect of the requirements of this covenant within the time stated in the notice.

2. Pursuant to Section 88F(3) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 the Council shall have the following additional powers:

a) in the event that the registered proprietor fails to comply with the terms of any written notice issued by the Council as set out above the Council or its authorised agents may enter the land with all necessary materials and equipment and carry out any work which the Council in its discretion considers reasonable to comply with the said notice referred to in part 1(d) above

b) the Council may recover from the registered proprietor in a Court of competent jurisdiction:

i. any expense reasonably incurred by it in exercising its powers under subparagraph (i) hereof. Such expense shall include reasonable wages for the Council’s employees engaged in effecting the work referred to in (i) above, supervising and administering the said work together with costs, reasonably estimated by the Council, for the use of materials, machinery, tools and equipment in conjunction with the said work.

ii. legal costs on an indemnity basis for issue of the said notices and recovery of the said costs and expenses together with the costs and expenses of registration of a covenant charge pursuant to section 88F of the Act or providing any certificate required pursuant to section 88G of the Act or obtaining any injunction pursuant to section 88H of the Act. Name of Authority having the power to release vary or modify the Positive Covenant referred to is Georges River Council.

54. Traffic Control Devices - The internal road network, pedestrian facilities and parking facilities (including visitor parking and employee parking) shall be designated and line marked in accordance with Australian Standard - AS1742, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

If an exit from car park utilises a pedestrian footpath, then a warning system such as flashing light and/or ‘alarm sound’ must be installed on the subject property to alert pedestrians of vehicles exiting the car park. The Alarm System must be designed and installed in accordance with AS2890.1 -2004.

55. Stormwater drainage works - Works As Executed - Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, stormwater drainage works are to be certified by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering, with Works-As-Executed drawings supplied to Council detailing:

(a) Compliance with conditions of development consent relating to stormwater;

(b) The structural adequacy of the On-Site Detention system (OSD);

(c) That the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved design and will provide the detention storage volume and attenuation in accordance with the submitted calculations;

(d) Pipe invert levels and surface levels to Australian Height Datum;

(e) Contours indicating the direction in which water will flow over land should the capacity of the pit be exceeded in a storm event exceeding design limits.

Council must advise in writing that they are satisfied with the Works-As-Executed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

56. Fire Safety Certificate before Occupation or Use - In accordance with Clause 153 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, on completion of building works and prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the owner must cause the issue of a Final Fire Safety Certificate in accordance with Clause 170 of the aforesaid Regulation. The Fire Safety Certificate must be in the form or to the effect of Clause 174 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000. In addition, in relation to each essential fire or other safety measure implemented in the building or on the land on which the building is situated, such a Certificate is to state:

(a) That the measure has been assessed by a person (chosen by the owner of the building) who is properly qualified to do so.

(b) That as at the date of the assessment the measure was found to be capable of functioning at a standard not less than that required by the attached Schedule.

A copy of the certificate is to be given by the applicant to the Commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW and a further copy is to be displayed in a frame and fixed to a wall inside the building's main entrance.

57. Acoustic Compliance - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted to the PCA certifying that the construction has incorporated the recommendations in the DA Acoustic Report titled Environmental Noise Assessment Proposed Child Care Centre, 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville NSW prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd and dated 20 December 2017.

58. Acoustic Compliance - General Operation of Premises - An Acoustic Report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant demonstrating that the operation of the premises and plant equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise sources under consideration by more than 5dB. The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

59. Food Premises - Inspection & Registration - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate or occupation or use of any food premises:

(a) An inspection of the fit out of the Food Premises must be arranged with Council's Environmental Health Officer;

(b) A satisfactory final inspection must have been undertaken by Council's Environmental Health Officer; and

(c) The Food Premises must notify and register its business details with Georges River Council as required under section 100 of the Food Act 2003.

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

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

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

61. Allocation of car parking spaces - Car parking associated with the development is to be allocated as follows:

(a) Child care spaces: Seventeen (17) including an accessible space.

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

63. Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation/Subdivision Certificate.

64. Vehicular crossing - The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works shall be constructed by a private contractor at the expense of the applicant, in accordance with the ‘Application for Driveway Crossing and Associated Works on Council Road Reserve’ approval issued by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Division.

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

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

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

Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

65. Noise Control - The use of the premises must not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended).

66. Final Acoustic Report - Verification of Noise report - Within three months from the issue of an Occupation Certificate, an acoustic assessment is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, in accordance with the EPA's Industrial Noise Policy and submitted to Council for consideration. This report should include but not be limited to, details verifying that the noise control measures as recommended in the acoustic report (titled Environmental Noise Assessment Proposed Child Care Centre, 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville NSW prepared by Day Design Pty Ltd and dated 20 December 2017) are effective in attenuating noise to an acceptable noise level and that the use is not calculated to give rise to ‘offensive noise’ as defined under the provision of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 (as amended).

67. Waste – ongoing

· Occupational Health and Safety issues such as slippery floors in waste rooms and the weight of the waste and recycling receptacles will need to be monitored.

· Cleaners will monitor the bin storage area and all spills will be attended to immediately by cleaners.

68. Hours of operation and maximum number of children - The approved hours of operation shall be restricted to the following:

Monday – Friday: 7.30am – 6.00pm

Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays: Closed

The maximum number of children permitted is sixty-eight (68)

Loading and Unloading of Deliveries - deliveries are to occur outside peak pick up and drop off times being from 9.30am – 2.30pm within the approved hours of operation of the childcare centre.

69. Child Numbers

· 8 children aged 0-2 years.

· 20 children aged 2-3 years.

· 20 children aged 3-4 years.

· 20 children aged 3-5 years.

70. Allocation of car parking spaces - Car parking associated with the development is to be allocated as follows:

Childcare spaces: Seventeen (17) including an accessible space.

71. Lighting - General Nuisance - Any lighting on the site shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to other residences in the area or to motorists on nearby roads and to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill or glare.

Flashing, moving or intermittent lights or signs are prohibited.

72. Food premises - Maintenance of food premises - The food premises must be maintained in accordance with the Food Act 2003 (as amended), Food Regulation 2015 (as amended); the Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia & New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004: Construction and fit out of food premises (as amended).

73. Annual Fire Safety Statement - The owner of the building premises must ensure the Council is given an annual fire safety statement in relation to each essential fire safety measure implemented in the building. The annual fire safety statement must be given:

(a) Within 12 months after the date on which the fire safety certificate was received.

(b) Subsequent annual fire safety statements are to be given within 12 months after the last such statement was given.

(c) An annual fire safety statement is to be given in or to the effect of Clause 181 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(d) A copy of the statement is to be given to the Commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW, and a further copy is to be prominently displayed in the building.

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

75. 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.

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

76. Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued.

77. Appointment of a PCA - The erection of a building must not commence until the applicant has:

(a) appointed a PCA for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner -Builder.

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner - Builder, the applicant must:

(a) appoint a Principal Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the details of any such appointment; and

(c) notify the Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

An Information Pack is attached for your convenience should you wish to appoint Georges River Council as the PCA for your development.

78. Notification Requirements of PCA - No later than two days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

(a) the consent authority and the Council (if not the consent authority) of his or her appointment; and

(b) the applicant of the critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

79. Notice of Commencement - The applicant must give at least two days notice to the Council and the PCA of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

80. Critical Stage Inspections - The last critical stage inspection must be undertaken by the PCA. The critical stage inspections required to be carried out vary according to Building Class under the Building Code of Australia and are listed in Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

81. Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the PCA at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to be carried out.

Where Georges River Council has been appointed as the PCA, 48 hours notice in writing, or alternatively 24 hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

82. Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

Only the PCA appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

Notes/Advice

83. Review of Determination - Section 8.2 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.

84. Appeal Rights - Part 8 (Reviews and appeals) 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.

85. 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 4.53 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

86. Council as PCA - Compliance with the BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by the following details, with plans prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the BCA:

a) Access and Egress provisions including travel distances and the operation and swing of final exit doors.

b) Installation of alert signage for the operation of exits doors and lifts

c) Fire safety services and equipment including portable fire extinguisher, exit signs and

emergency lighting.

d) Hydraulic services including fire hydrants, fire hose reels and any fire safety measure

used in conjunction with the protection of opening.

e) Smoke hazard management provisions required under Table E2.2a and with

Specification E2.2a

f) The provision of natural light and ventilation.

g) Window schedule is to include the protection of openable windows.

h) Compartmentation and separation of lift and stairway shafts.

In this regard, detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements of the BCA must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate Application.

Should there be any non-compliance, an alternative method of fire protection and structural capacity must be submitted, with all supporting documents prepared by a suitably qualified person.

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 Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate

87. Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the PCA, a report prepared and endorsed by an Energy Efficiency Engineer or other suitably qualified person must be submitted, detailing the measures that must be implemented in the building to comply with Section J of the BCA. The proposed measures and feature of the building that facilitate the efficient use of energy must be identified and detailed on the architectural plans. At completion of the building and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate certifying that the building has been erected to comply with the energy efficiency provisions must be submitted to the PCA.

Energy efficiency provisions relate only to new building work or the installation of new measure. Existing building fabric and measures may not be upgraded.

88. Food Premises - Information on Australian Standards can be obtained from www.standards.com.au.

Guidelines and Food Safety Standards may be obtained by contacting the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Authority at foodstandards.gov.au or the NSW Food Authority on 1300 552 406, email: contact@foodauthority.nsw.gov.au or by visiting the website www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au.

Notification of Food Business under Section 100 of the Food Act 2003 requires the proprietor of a food business to give written notice, in the approved form, before conducting a food business. Penalties apply for failure to comply.

89. Noise - Noise related conditions - Council will generally enforce noise related conditions in accordance with the Noise Guide for Local Government (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm) and the Industrial Noise Guidelines (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm) publish by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Other state government authorities also regulate the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Useful links relating to Noise:

(a) Community Justice Centres - free mediation service provided by the NSW Government (www.cjc.nsw.gov.au).

(b) Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Noise Policy Section web page (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise).

(c) New South Wales Government Legislation home page for access to all NSW legislation, including the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Noise Control Regulation 2000 (www.legislation.nsw.gov.au).

(d) Australian Acoustical Society - professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au/index.php).

(e) Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants - professional society of noise related professionals (www.aaac.org.au).

(f) Department of Gaming and Racing - (www.dgr.nsw.gov.au).

90. Acoustical Engineer Contacts & Reference Material - Further information including lists of Acoustic Engineers can be obtained from:

(a) Australian Acoustical Society - professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au)

(b) Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants - professional society of noise related professionals (www.aaac.org.au)

91. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site Plan - 4 The Esplanade, South Hurstville
Attachment ⇩2	Elevations - 4 The Esplanade South Hurstville
Attachment ⇩3	Colours and Finishes - 4 The Esplanade South Hurstville

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel Thursday, 15 August 2019

Page 103

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 15 August 2019

LPP Report No	LPP025-19	Development Application No	DA2018/0309
Site Address & Ward Locality	11 Arnold Street Peakhurst Peakhurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and the construction of a eleven (11) room boarding house with basement car parking
Owners	Dr Hassib Faraj
Applicant	Monument Design Partnership
Planner/Architect	George Mourad - Monument Design Partnership
Date Of Lodgement	26/07/2018
Submissions	Sixteen (16) individual submissions and a submission containing fourteen (14) signatures
Cost of Works	$1,991,000.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	The number of individual submissions exceeds 10
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation Of Land; State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017; Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment; Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy; Draft Remediation of Land SEPP; Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012; Hurstville Development Control Plan No1 (amendment No. 7)
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Architectural Plans; Statement of Environmental Effects; Plan of Management of Boarding House; Geotechnical Report; Arborist Report; Preliminary Site Investigation
Report prepared by	Development Assessment Planner

een (16) individual submissions and a petition with fourteen (14) signatures

Recommendation

That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons included in this report.

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

Not Applicable

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No as the application is being recommended for refusal. The reasons for refusal will be available upon the publishing of the application.

Site Plan

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site outlined in red - (Source: Intramaps 2019)

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. Development consent is sough for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey boarding house comprising of eleven (11) rooms and basement car parking.

Site and Locality

2. The subject site is a rectangular shaped allotment located on the southern side of Arnold Street in Peakhurst, with a 16.765m northern frontage and a site area of 613sqm. The area is characterised by single and two (2) storey dwelling houses, dual occupancies, and multi dwelling housing.

Zoning and Permissibility

3. The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). Boarding houses are permitted with consent.

Submissions

4. The application was notified in accordance with Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1. Sixteen (16) individual submissions and a submission containing fourteen (14) signatures were received objecting to the application. The issues raised are summarised below:

· Size of subject site;

· Compatibility with streetscape

· Scale of development;

· Car parking;

· Lack of public transport;

· Privacy;

· Noise;

· Security;

· Permissibility;

· Population density; and

· Sewerage.

Conclusion

5. Having regard to the matters for consideration under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment, the proposed Development Application (DA2018/0309) is recommended for refusal for the reasons contained within this report.

Report in Full

Proposal

6. Development consent is sought for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey boarding house development comprising eleven (11) rooms; and basement car parking. The eleven (11) rooms are comprised of one (1) manager’s room, and ten (10) double lodgers’ rooms; of which two (2) are accessible. The total capacity is therefore twenty (20) lodgers plus one (1) boarding house manager.

A further description of the proposed development is provided as follows:

Basement Layout:

· Six (6) nominated car parking spaces including two (2) accessible spaces;

· A car wash bay which can be utilised as a car space;

· Three (3) motorcycle spaces;

· Three (3) bicycle parking spaces; and

· Garbage room.

Ground Floor Layout:

· Two (2) double lodger accessible rooms;

· Two (2) single storey double lodger rooms with rear private open space;

· Two (2) two storey double lodger rooms;

· One (1) two storey manager’s room;

· Communal room, communal open space and a communal vegetable garden;

· Private open space for the two (2) storey rooms; and

· Landscaping around the perimeter of the site.

First Floor Layout:

· Four (4) single storey double lodger rooms;

Note: Each room is self-contained with a kitchen and laundry space, bathroom, and a living and sleeping area.

The Site and Locality

7. The subject site legally is described as Lot 86 in DP36368 and commonly known as 11 Arnold Street Peakhurst. The site is located on the southern side of Arnold Street, between Jacques Avenue to the east and Belmore Road to the west. The site is also located opposite to the intersection of Arnold and Church Streets. The site is rectangular in shape with a 16.765m northern frontage to Arnold Street, a depth of 36.575m, and a site area of 613sqm (by survey plan prepared by S N Triffett and Associates). The site has an approximate fall of 1.8m from the rear to Arnold Street.

A sewer manhole exists to the front western boundary of the site. Any impacts on the sewer network will be addressed with Sydney Water should the application be approved as part of the Construction Certificate preparation.

Two (2) trees are proposed to be removed; one (1) within the site and the other is the street tree. Also observed is a power pole located in the front nature strip adjacent to the driveway entry. The proposed driveway is setback 1.0m from the power pole in accordance with Council’s Traffic Engineers recommendations. The application was referred to Ausgrid as per Clause 45(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and no response was received at the time this report was prepared (26 July 2019).

The site is currently occupied by a single storey brick and tiled roof dwelling with a detached carport at the rear. Adjoining the site to the east, west and south are single storey dwelling houses. The immediate locality is characterised by low density residential development comprising single and double storey dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing.

In the wider context, the subject site is located approximately 200m from an R3 Medium Density Residential Area which has been up-zoned and contains a mixture of residential flat buildings, boarding houses and dual occupancies, with some of the traditional single storey dwelling houses remaining. The site is approximately 800m from Riverwood Town Centre.

Figure 2: Subject site as viewed from Arnold Street

Background

8. Development Application DA2016/0348 lodged on 15 December 2016 for demolition and construction of a boarding house was refused by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) on 17 August 2017. The reasons for refusal are listed below:

· The orientation of the rooms and the number of private open spaces to side boundaries is uncharacteristic and will result in unacceptable amenity impacts to the adjoining premises.

· The landscape treatment of the front setback area is incompatible with the streetscape in which the building is located having regard to the amount of hard surface area and the location of the bin storage area.

· The upper level windows to the habitable rooms will result in unacceptable privacy impacts on adjoining premises.

· The solar access to the communal living room is inadequate.

· The depth and orientation of the communal open space is not adequate to facilitate potentially 18 boarders/lodgers.

· The amenity of the adaptable room is unacceptable as it contains no windows to the habitable space.

It is noted that DA2016/0348 was referred to the IHAP due to the number of submissions received (12 individual letters, 28 form letters, and petition with 32 signatures).

Subject Application

This Development Application DA2018/0309 was lodged with Council on 27 July 2018.

Compliance and assessment

9. The development has been inspected and assessed having regarding to Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

10. Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) is detailed below.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009

11. The application is made under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARHSEPP) and as such the provisions of Division 3 relating to Boarding Houses are applicable to the application.

Division 3 Boarding Houses

Clause 25 - 28 Development to which this Division applies

12. The subject site is located in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, and boarding houses are permissible with consent under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). The site satisfies the provisions of Clause 27 of SEPP (ARH) 2009 which states the following:

‘27 Development to which Division applies

(1) This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.

(2) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.

(3) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.’

The site is located in the Sydney region and therefore must be located in an accessible area for the division to apply. An accessible area is defined by Clause 4 of SEPP (ARH) 2009 as follows:

‘accessible area means land that is within:

(a) 800ms walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or

(b) 400m walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or

(c) 400m walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.’

By virtue of the definition, the subject site at 11 Arnold Street satisfies the requirements of an accessible area. A table outlining bus services within proximity to the site is provided below.

Figure 3: Bus stops in vicinity of subject site (shown in red)

Location of Bus Stop	Bus Route	Walking Distance	Mon – Fri Frequency	Saturday Frequency	Sunday Frequency
Belmore Road	942 Towards Campsie (bus stop 1 on figure 3)	<400m	Hourly service ceases at 7.36pm	Complies	Hourly service does not commence until 10:08am
Belmore Road	942 Towards Lugarno (bus stop 2 on figure 3)	<400m	Hourly service ceases at 6.46pm	Complies	Hourly service does not commence until 9:42am
Henry Lawson Drive	M91 Towards Parramatta (bus stop 3 on figure 3)	<400m	Complies	Complies	Complies
	M91 Towards Hurstville (bus stop 4 on figure 3)	450m	Complies	Complies	Complies
	M91 Towards Parramatta (bus stop 7 on figure 3)	450m	Complies	Complies	Complies
Jacques Avenue	944 Towards Bankstown (bus stop 5 on figure 3)	<400m	Complies	Complies	First bus to pass through Stop 5 is at 9:31am Hourly service commences at 8.38am (commences from Riverwood station and misses bus stop 5)
	944 Towards Mortdale (bus stop 6 on figure 3)	<400m	Complies	Complies	Complies (bus passes through Peakhurst at 8:44am)

As can be seen from the above table of the bus services within the locality of the site, one bus stop (bus stop 3 on figure 3) satisfies the frequency requirements of the SEPP. Although the bus stop for the M91 in the other direction; towards Hurstville, is located 450m from 11 Arnold Street, the SEPP is silent in relation to return trips.

The location of proposed boarding house is considered appropriate in relation to the definition of accessibility with respect to the SEPP.

Clause 29 - Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

13. Council cannot refuse a development application for a boarding house under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP for the following reasons if the proposal meets the criterion below.

Clause 29	Standards	Proposal	Complies
Floor Space Ratio - If Residential accommodation is permitted	If the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a FSR is not more than the existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted (0.6:1 under HLEP 2012).	0.59:1	Yes
Height	If the building height is not more than the maximum height permitted under another EPI for any building on the land: Maximum 9m in R2 under the HLEP 2012.	7.11m (front building) 6.83m (rear building	Yes
Landscape Area	The landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.	The development seeks to raise the existing ground level by approximately 1.2m predominantly at the front potion of the site, to create an above ground OSD basin which cannot be heavily planted. As a result of the raised ground, a disabled platform lit is required to be installed forward of the building line. The proposed landscape treatment is not considered to be compatible with that of the streetscape.	No
Solar Access	Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.	The communal room is located at the rear south eastern corner of the site. The communal area observes a high ceiling as there is a void area equivalent to the first floor of the adjoining rooms to the west. In the first floor level northern façade there is a window that will enable light to enter the room, but it is unclear if sunlight will reach the ground floor of the communal room. Glass brick openings are proposed along the eastern façade of the communal room. Although glass bricks allow for filtered light to reach the communal room, concern is raised regarding natural ventilation of the communal room given the glass bricks are fixed. With reference to the shadow diagrams submitted it has been demonstrated the window in the upper part of the void will allow for at least 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June. In this case solar access to the communal room complies.	Yes
Private Open Space (other than the front setback area)	If a minimum of the following is provided: (i) one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for the use of the lodgers (ii) if accommodation is provided on-site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to that accommodation	87.10sqm with dimensions 5.195m x 16.7m provided in the centre of the site. In addition 14.16sqm (3m x 4.6m) of open space is provided to the rear of the communal room. These spaces do not receive solar access. 10.57sqm of open space provided with dimensions 3.5m x 3m directly accessible from the Managers suite. It is located on the southern side of the building, poor solar access is available.	Yes Yes
Parking	(iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room,	In this case: 10 lodger rooms x 0.5 car space = 5 car spaces required. 6 nominated car parking spaces provided (5 for the boarding rooms and 1 for the manager’s room); in addition 3 motorcycle spaces and 3 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. One (1) car wash bay is also provided which meets the dimensions of a car space.	Yes
Accommodation size	Each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least: (i) 12sqm in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or (ii) 16sqm in any other case	No single lodger rooms proposed. All rooms are a minimum 16.98sqm excluding kitchen facilities and bathrooms.	Yes Yes

Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses

14. A consent authority must not consent to development for boarding houses unless it is satisfied of each of the following.

Clause 30	Standards	Proposal	Complies
Communal living	(a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided	One communal living room provided.	Yes
Size of boarding rooms	(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25sqm	All rooms less than 25sqm (excluding area of bathrooms and kitchens). The biggest rooms provided are at the rear with a floor area of 23.94sqm (excluding bathrooms and kitchens).	Yes
Maximum occupancy	(c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers	Maximum 2 adult lodgers per room proposed (20 lodgers total therefore 1 manager required). If the application was to be supported, maximum lodger numbers would be the subject of a condition of consent.	Yes
Kitchen and bathroom facilities	(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger	All rooms have kitchen and bathroom facilities.	Yes
Boarding house manager	(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager	The boarding house rooms have the capacity to accommodate 20 lodgers. A Managers room has been provided.	Yes
Bicycle and motor cycle space	(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.	In this case 10 boarding rooms provided: 2 motorcycle and 2 bicycle spaces required. 3 motorcycle spaces and 3 bicycle spaces provided.	Yes

30AA Boarding houses in Zone R2 Low Density Residential

15. Clause 30AA states that:

A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms.

The proposed boarding house is located in an R2 Low Density Residential zone and consists of ten (10) boarding rooms and one (1) manager’s room.

Clause 30A – Character of local area

16. Clause 30A states that Council cannot grant consent to a boarding house unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

Case law has held that the test in Clause 30A is “one of compatibility not sameness” (Gow v Warringah Council [2013] NSWLEC 1093 (15 March 2013)). Compatibility is widely accepted to mean “capable of existing together in harmony” (Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191.

It has also been held that in assessing ‘compatibility’ both the existing and future character of the local area needs to be taken into account (Sales Search Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1052 (2 April 2013) and Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1029).

Relationship to the Existing and Future Character of the Local Area

17. In Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSW LEC 1029, Commissioner Morris concluded that the ‘local area’ includes both sides of the street and the ‘visual catchment’ as the minimum area to be considered in determining compatibility.

The ‘local area’ in this case is taken to include both sides of Arnold Street and the immediate surrounding streets. Within this local area, development is primarily characterised by single storey dwelling houses punctuated by recently constructed two (2) storey dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing developments.

In Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 the Land and Environment Court specifically set out a relevant planning principle. Consideration has therefore been given to the two key questions identified in the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles:

(a) Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

Comment: It is acknowledged this development typology is permissible in this zone, and the transition of this location from single residential developments to increased density in the form of multi-unit housing is evident within the visual catchment.

The proposal in its current form is considered to result in a built form that is inconsistent with the recently constructed development, in that it is a boarding house constructed on a single allotment.

The development is being artificially raised through the placement of fill at the front of the site to facilitate an above ground onsite detention (OSD) basin. The result of this raising of the land levels is that the required transitions from the public domain to the boarding rooms cannot be achieved without the need for a combination of stairs and a platform lift within the front setback. In addition the development has proposed the egress stair from the basement forward of the front façade and the staircase to the upper level forward of the façade of the development. The front setback is dominated by services areas of the development and in an attempt to obscure this; screening has been proposed to the front elevation being the full height of the two (2) storey façade for approximately two thirds of the front facade. This does not promote active surveillance to and from the site.

Given the need for the above ground OSD the development has been recessed 10m to the font façade of the development and 6.3m to the screen described earlier. This setback is inconsistent with the recently constructed development in the locality.

The service areas of the development should be recessive within the development. A more appropriate outcome would be to open the front of the development by the removal of the screening and the relocation of the service areas centrally discharging within the courtyard separating the two (2) buildings and moving the street facing building toward Arnold Street to facilitate this design change, this would also result in additional solar access to the courtyard space and the openings in the building at the rear.

The setbacks of the side elevations require protection of the openings given they are within 3m of the boundary under the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (NCC), as a result the development is proposing glass bricks along the eastern and western elevations which results in poor amenity for the future occupants, and a bland elevation and outlook from the adjoining developments.

The development proposes a roof form for both buildings that has the ability to be more sympathetic with its surroundings. The building facing Arnold Street could benefit of a defined roof form rather than the roof visually being obscured by the screening and appearing as an imbalanced development form.

The roof form of the rear building is visually dominating when viewed from the allotments adjoining; there is a clear imbalance between the ground level and the upper (which contains areas of residential floor space), which to the elevations facing the neighbours as it reads as a dominant roof form as there are no openings facing the adjoining allotments only internally within the development. The amenity of the upper level bedrooms is considered to be compromised and the bulk of the roof form is considered to be able to be better designed to provide an improved visual outlook from the neighbours.

The development in its current form is considered not to meet the character test.

The proposed development would cause adverse physical impacts upon surrounding residential development and would constrain the development potential of adjoining sites. The following concerns are raised:

· The development presents unreasonable visual bulk and scale impacts to the neighbouring properties along both the southern and eastern side elevations. The fill proposed along the front boundary in addition to the building’s proximity to the dividing boundaries, further adding to the scale of the development in these locations.

· The design of the proposed development including the choice of roof form would be discordant with the established streetscape character. In particular, the bulk and scale of the development would be inconsistent with the predominant built form in the streetscape.

· The screening proposed along the front façade of the development is not considered to be in character with that of the local visual catchment. Front façade treatments observed in the locality are characterised by recessed or projected elements, windows, entry features, awnings or architectural features which visually breaks up the façade avoiding a blank wall appearance.

(b) Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

Comment: The existing streetscape is characterised by single and two (2) storey detached dwellings. Pitched tiled roof forms are common and can be found on the majority of dwellings. This development proposes a flat and skillion roof form which is characteristic of modern developments, however in its current design the proposal will be visually discordant with the predominant established hipped/gable roof form. In this regard, the proposal will adversely disrupt on the built form rhythm in the streetscape.

In relation to the side facades, the eastern and western side elevations do not provide for adequate articulation and minimal architectural relief is provided. The blank side walls are expected to pose an adverse visual impact to adjoining sites.

The proposed roof form of the rear building is visually dominating when viewed from adjoining allotments. The rear roof is considered to be of an intrusive design which will likely result in adverse impacts on the visual harmony of building surrounding the subject site and the general character of the Arnold Street.

Comparison Table

The character of an area is not only defined by what is physically existing on the adjoining allotments, but also what is permitted under the planning controls which apply at the time. The proposal adopts a built form commensurate to that of a detached dual occupancy.

Whilst Council does not have prescribed controls for the built form of boarding houses, as a “best fit in consideration with the Character Test”, the proposal has been considered against the provisions Section 4.1 Single Dwelling Houses and Section 4.2 Dual Occupancy of Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide below.

Control	Single Dwelling	Dual Occupancy	Proposal
Height Maximum ceiling height	9m 7.2m	9m 6.8m	7.11m (front building) 6.83m (rear building) 6.11m (front building) 5.83m (rear building)
Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 (0.55:1 for dwelling house only)	0.6:1	0.59:1
Landscape (minimum 2m x 2m)	20%	20%	19% or 115.8sqm (minimum 2m x 2m)
Setbacks: Front Rear setback: Ground First Side setback: Ground First	4.5m 3m 6m 900mm 1.2m	4.5m 7m 9m 900mm 1.2m	6.5m 3m First floor consists of a tilted roof with the habitable space in the front towards the middle of the site. East – 1.16m West - 1.24m East – 1.16m West - 1.24m

As demonstrated by the above table, the proposed development observes key controls comparable with that of a single dwelling house. However, given the proposal consists of two separate buildings each under a separate roof form separated by a courtyard, the proposal adopts a built form commensurate with that of a detached dual occupancy. The rear 3m setback proposed is not consistent with a dual occupancy which requires a minimum rear setback of 7m. The reduced setbacks are expected to adversely impact the solar amenity of future residents and adjoining sites and impacts on the visual outlook from the adjoining allotments.

Assessing ‘compatibility’ required both the existing and future character of the local area to be taken into account (Sales Search Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1052 and Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1029). It is acknowledged that there are sites within the Arnold Street streetscape that are yet to reach their development potential. However, given the proposed development has been designed in contrast to what may be considered an acceptable setback and separation from neighbouring developments, the design and streetscape presentation of future development on adjoining sites is unlikely to resemble that of the proposed development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

18. The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated. A Preliminary Site Investigation Report prepared by Benviron Group (reference E1895 dated 21 July 2018) submitted concluded that the presence of contaminants and the risk of contamination are low and that the site is suitable for the proposed development. In addition, based on Council’s records, the subject site has not been used for any potentially contaminating activities. As such, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

19. A BASIX Certificate is required to be lodged for any residential development application in NSW. BASIX Certificate 778724M_02 dated 24 May 2018 prepared by GEC Consulting Pty Ltd was lodged to confirm that the proposed development satisfies the sustainability requirements.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS) 2017

20. The Vegetation SEPP regulates clearing of native vegetation on urban land and land zoned for environmental conservation/management that does not require development consent.

The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

(b) Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s development control plan (DCP).

The objectives of the SEPP are to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas and preserve the amenity of non-rural areas through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This policy is applicable pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the SEPP as the site is within both Georges River Council and the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Pursuant to Clause 8(1) of the SEPP, clearing does not require authority under the policy as it is a type of clearing that is authorised under Section 60O of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (specifically, that associated with a development consent issued under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

One (1) site tree identified as ‘Cinnamomum camphora’ in the front setback was nominated for removal. The street tree has also been nominated for removal. If the application was to be supported the conditions recommended by Council’s Consulting Arborist would be imposed which would require replacement planting in accordance with Council’s Tree Management Policy.

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.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Environmental SEPP

22. The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

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

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

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

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

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

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

The proposal is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

23. The Draft Remediation of Land SEPP was exhibited from 31 January 2018 to 13 April 2018. The proposed remediation of land SEPP will:

· Provide a state-wide planning framework for the remediation of land;

· Maintain the objectives and reinforce those aspects of the existing framework that have worked well;

· Require planning authorities to consider the potential for land to be contaminated when determining development applications and rezoning land;

· Clearly list the remediation works that require development consent;

· Introduce certification and operational requirements for remediation works that can be undertaken without development consent.

The proposal is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

24. The extent to which the proposed development complies with the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) is detailed and discussed in the table below.

Figure 4: Land Zoning Map as per HLEP 2012 (subject site in red)

Clause	Standard	Proposed	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	Boarding House: means a building that: (a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and (b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and (c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and (d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.	The proposed development is consistent with the definition.	Yes
2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table	Meets objectives of R2- Low Density Residential Zone. Development must be permissible with consent	The proposal fails to meets all objectives. The proposal is permissible with development consent.	No, refer to comment (a) Yes
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	7.11m (front building) 6.83m (rear building)	Yes
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map	0.59:1 or 361.67sqm. Site area: 613sqm.	Yes
5.10 – Heritage conservation	In accordance with Clause 5.10 (1)	The site is not a heritage item and not located within the vicinity of any heritage items. Site is not in a heritage conservation area.	Yes
6.1 – Acid sulfate soils	(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.	Site has not been identified as located in an area containing Acid Sulfate Soils as per the LEP maps.	Yes
6.7 – Essential Services	The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required: - Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage - Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation - Suitable vehicular access	- Adequate facilities for the supply of water and removal of sewage available to the site and can be extended to service this development. - Stormwater can drain via gravity to the street. - New 3.6m wide driveway crossing to the site from Arnold Street (standard conditions for the submission of separate vehicular crossing applications and driveway design would be required if the application was to be supported).	Yes Yes Yes

(a) Zone Objectives

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone as identified in HLEP 2012 are as listed below:

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

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

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

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

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

· To provide for a range of home business activities where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the surrounding residential amenity.

The proposed development fails to satisfy all the R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives as:

i. The development presents unreasonable visual bulk and scale compromising the amenity of the surrounding area.

ii. The proposed development does not maximize solar amenity and natural ventilation to the site comprising the residential amenity of future residents.

iii. The proposed development will result in significant built form at the rear of the subject site with a lake of emphasis on landscaping. The added bulk will result in adverse visual amenity impacts to adjoining neighbours.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

25. The proposal has been assessed under the relevant sections of Development Control Plan No 1 (Amendment No 7) as follows.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 - LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 VEHICLE ACCESS, PARKING AND MANOEUVRING

26. The DCP requires parking to be required at a rate of one (1) space per three (3) beds plus one (1) space per two (2) employees. As the development proposes ten (10) beds with one (1) manager room, 3.8 (rounded to 4) car spaces is required to be provided.

The proposal provides seven (7) car spaces inclusive of the a car wash bay, three (3) motorcycle spaces, and three (3) bicycle spaces, satisfying the car parking requirements of the DCP.

The design and layout of the parking area is consistent with the objectives of Section 3.1 of the DCP and the relevant Australian Standards.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.3 ACCESS AND MOBILITY

27. Section 3.3 requires that one accessible room be provided per five (5) bedrooms or part thereof. As the proposed development accommodates ten (10) bedrooms, two (2) accessible rooms are required. The development provides two (2) accessible rooms accessible via lifts from the public domain and the basement level. Two (2) accessible car parking spaces have been provided.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

28. The proposal has been considered in accordance with the relevant provisions. The proposal allows opportunities for passive and casual surveillance to and from the street. The Plan of Management provided would form part of the development consent conditions if the application is to be supported and covers acceptable behaviour protocols of boarders and visitors.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.5 LANDSCAPING

29. A detailed landscape plan was submitted with the application and was assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer. Specific conditions of consent would be imposed if the application was to be approved.

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

30. The development can drain to the street via gravity. If the application was to be supported, appropriate conditions of consent relating to OSD would be included in the consent.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.1 – SECTION 4.6 SPECIFIC CONTROLS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

31. It is noted that, pursuant to Clause 8 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, the provisions of the SEPP prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with any other planning instrument. Council’s DCP does not contain any specific controls for boarding house development. The proposal has been considered against the provisions relating to single dwelling houses and dual occupancies in order to establish whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - APPENDIX 1 - SECTION 7 WASTE MANAGEMENT

32. A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the application which is acceptable. Should consent be granted, it will be subject to conditions requiring the provision of appropriate waste facilities for the ongoing use of the development.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - APPENDIX 1 - SECTION 8 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

33. The application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate which identifies that the development meets the target scores.

In terms of overshadowing, shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the proposed development will not result in any significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining residential properties and that three hours of solar access to their private open spaces will be maintained.

It is important to note that the proposal does not maximize natural sunlight to its future occupants. The front building overshadows the rear building in addition to obscuring the rear private open space areas, communal area, and communal vegetable garden from receiving adequate sunlight in mid-winter.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - APPENDIX 1 - SECTION 9 PRESERVATION OF TREES AND VEGETATION

34. The development requires the removal of one tree from the front of the site and one street tree. The tree removal was assessed by Council’s Arborist and no objection was raised regarding the removal. Council’s Arborist supports the tree removal proposed. If the application was to be supported replacement planting would be conditioned as well as protection of the two (2) significant trees on the adjoining property.

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

35. The proposal seeks to remove an onsite and a street tree and the removal has been assessed and endorsed by Council’s Consultant Arborist. If the application was to be supported conditions would be imposed for replacement trees to be provided.

The proposal seeks to drain stormwater to the street which is consistent with Council’s requirements and a requirement for OSD was also recommended by Council’s Stormwater Engineer.

Built Environment

36. The built form of the proposed development is of a bulk and scale that is inconsistent with contemporary development in the locality. The development presents unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the neighbouring properties along both the southern, western and eastern side elevations. The fill proposed along the front boundary, in addition to the building’s proximity to the lot boundaries, further adds to the scale of the development in these locations. In addition to the bulk, the front façade screening treatment results in an undesirable precedent within the locality.

The proposed boarding house does not provide future residents with adequate solar amenity. The front building mostly overshadows the proposed rear communal open space and communal vegetable garden in mid-winter.

The development does not attempt to maximize natural ventilation in the boarding rooms as all proposed windows along the side facades are fixed and obscured through the use of glass bricks.

Social Impact

37. The assessment demonstrates that the proposal in its current form will have an adverse impact on the character of the locality and the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. The environmental impacts on the social environment are considered to be unreasonable and the application is not supported.

Economic Impact

38. The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable material economic impact given that the boarding house provides affordable housing opportunities within the locality.

Suitability of the Site

39. The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. Whilst the proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone, it is considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties and the streetscape in its current form. The proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment and ultimately, the site is unsuitable for the development.

SUBMISSIONS, REFERRALS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

40. The application was advertised and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Sixteen (16) individual submissions and one submission containing fourteen (14) signatures were received objecting to the development. The issues raised are discussed below.

41. Size of site

The area of the subject site is not suitable for boarding houses.

Comment: As discussed throughout this report, the boarding houses are a permissible use in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. No minimum lot size is required to be complied with for a boarding house development.

42. Compatibility with streetscape

The proposed development is not compatible with the streetscape.

Comment: As discussed throughout this report, the proposed development would not co-exist in harmony with the existing development in the streetscape and does not satisfy the character test within clause 30A of the ARHSEPP 2009.

43. Size and scale of development

The development is considered to be too large and an overdevelopment of the site.

Comment: The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 nominates a building height control of 9m for the site and a floor space ratio control of 0.6:1 for residential development. Although the proposal complies with both of these standards providing for a maximum height of 7.11m and a floor space ratio of 0.59:1, the design of the proposed development including the choice of roof form would be discordant with the established streetscape character. In particular, the bulk and scale of the development would be inconsistent with the predominant built form in the streetscape.

44. Car parking

· Insufficient parking.

· There is a primary school within 200m of the proposed development and at peak times vehicles park in Arnold Street.

· The provided parking is too narrow.

· Traffic in Peakhurst is already congested.

Comment: Clause 29(2)(e)(iia) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 requires that in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider that at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room. Accordingly as 10 boarding rooms are proposed, 6 car spaces are proposed in addition to the car wash bay. Clause 29(2)(e)(iii) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 further states that in the case of any development – not more than one (1) parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is a resident on site. The proposal provides for one on site manager who is provided with an available car space. Should approval be granted, a condition of consent will require a car space to be nominated to the onsite manager.

In addition to providing the required car parking ratios in relation to the SEPP, the development also provides the required car parking ratios as per the Hurstville DCP.

45. Poor access to public transport

The proposed development is not serviced by sufficient public transport.

Comment: As stated in the report, the location of proposed boarding house is considered appropriate in relation to the definition of accessibility with respect to the SEPP.

46. Privacy

Windows have the potential to overlook into neighbouring properties.

Comment: The proposal has provided windows orientated to the front and rear of the property. Notably the rear boarding rooms only provide for windows at ground level, with upper level windows orientated within the development minimising the potential for overlooking. Glass brick windows along the side facades do not allow for overlooking.

47. Noise

The proposed development will have an adverse impact on amenity and noise.

Comment: There is no substantiative evidence that this form of development results in an increase noise. Having said this, the boarding house Plan of Management accompanying this application fails to outline how the house rules of the boarding house will be enforced.

48. Limited policing

· Safety for neighbours.

· Security issues arising from future residents of the boarding house.

Comment: The manager of the boarding house will reside on the premise. An ongoing Plan of Management for the boarding house details the house rules and the roles and responsibilities of the onsite manager.

49. Permissibility

Boarding houses are not permissible in low density residential zones.

Comment: The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone which according to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 lists boarding houses as permissible with consent.

50. Population density

· Oversupply of affordable housing in the area as there is extensive existing public housing in the area.

· The boarding house will be over crowded with residents.

Comment: As is evident from other similar developments in the area, the rental price of boarding house rooms targets a different demographic to public housing and provides and alternative housing type to the locality.

51. Sewerage

Current sewerage system cannot cater for the increased number of people in the area.

Comment: Council does not have jurisdiction over sewerage assets. All sewerage related works are generally assessed by Sydney Water.

Internal Referrals

Team Leader - Subdivision and Development (Stormwater and Subdivision)

52. No objections were raised, if the application was to be supported conditions of consent would be imposed.

Environmental Health Team

53. No objections were raised, if the application was to be supported conditions of consent would be imposed.

Environmental Services Team (Waste)

54. No objections were raised, if the application was to be supported conditions of consent would be imposed.

Traffic Team

55. No objections were raised, if the application was to be supported conditions of consent would be imposed.

Consultant Arborist

56. No objections were raised for the removal of trees subject to replanting new trees, and the protection of the two (2) trees on the adjoining sites during construction, if the application was to be supported conditions of consent would be imposed.

External Referrals

Ausgrid

57. The application was referred to Ausgrid as per Clause 45(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No communication was received at the time this report was prepared (30 July 2019).

Local Infrastructure Contributions

58. The development is subject to Section 7.12 (former Section 94A Contribution) contribution as the proposed cost of works, registered with Council exceed $100,000.00. In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Plan, Section 7.12 – Fixed Development Consent Levies are applicable to boarding house developments.

CONCLUSION

59. Development consent is sought for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey boarding house development comprising of eleven (11) rooms and basement car parking.

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. As discussed throughout this report, the proposal is not considered to be compatible with the character of the local area in its current form, notwithstanding the numeric compliance with the SEPP (ARH) 2009. The proposal also fails to satisfy all the R2 Low Density zone objectives and the character test under the SEPP (ARH) 2009, resulting in adverse environmental impacts. The proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site or its locality and is likely to set an undesirable precedent.

The application was notified and advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide. Sixteen (16) individual submissions and a submission with fourteen (14) signatures were received objecting to the development. The issues raised have been addressed in this report.

The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined below.

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

60. Statement of Reasons:

· The proposed development is not considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the site and the character of the locality.

· The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and built environments.

· The proposed development will result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of future residents and the locality.

· In consideration of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed development is not a suitable and planned use of the site and its approval is not in the public interest.

Determination

61. THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Council refuse DA2018/0308 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of an eleven (11) room boarding house with basement car parking at Lot 86 DP 36368 and known as 11 Arnold Street, Peakhurst, for the following reasons:

1........... The proposal does not satisfy Clause 30(A) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the development is not compatible with the character of the local area in its present form.

2........... The proposal does not satisfy the following zone objectives as per Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives and Land Use Table (R2 Low Density Residential) of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012:

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

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

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

3........... The proposal is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the development will cause adverse impacts upon the built environment with respect to the elevated nature of the development and the impact upon the streetscape and adjoining allotments.

4........... The proposed development is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the site is not suitable for the development in its present form.

5........... The proposed development has attracted a number of submissions in regards to Section 4.15(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 objecting to the proposed development.

6........... Approval of the development would not be in the public interest and contrary to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site Plan - 11 Arnold Street Peakhurst
Attachment ⇩2	Elevations Plan - 11 Arnold Street Peakhurst
Attachment ⇩3	Schedule of Colours and FInishes - 11 Arnold Street Peakhurst

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel Thursday, 15 August 2019

Page 152

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 15 August 2019

LPP Report No	LPP026-19	Development Application No	DA2017/0353
Site Address & Ward Locality	7-11 Short Street South Hurstville Blakehurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building containing 41 apartments
Owners	Ahmed Taleb and Nazih Taleb
Applicant	Michael Kitmiridis
Planner/Architect	GSA Planning / Michael Kitmiridis
Date Of Lodgement	23/08/2017
Submissions	Sixteen (16) unique submissions, comprising six (6) in response to the original notification period and ten (10) in response to renotification due to amended plans
Cost of Works	$12,763,588.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	The application relates to development to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies, which contravenes a development standard by more than 10% and is the subject of 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Statement of Environmental Effects Traffic and Parking Report Architectural Plans BASIX Certificate
Report prepared by	Senior Development Assessment Planner

Recommendation

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

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

None submitted

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

Not Applicable as the proposal is recommended for refusal

Site Plan

Subject site outlined yellow

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of three (3) existing dwelling houses and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 41 apartments.

2. The RFB contains two (2) basement levels with 54 residential car parking spaces and eight (8) visitor spaces. Vehicle access is provided via a new driveway from Short Street at the northern corner of the site.

3. Communal open space (COS) areas are proposed at both ground level and on the rooftop (Level 7).

Figure 1: Aerial view of proposal from the corner of Short Street and Grosvenor Road

Figure 2: Street view of proposal from the corner of Short Street and Grosvenor Road

Site and Locality

4. The DA applies to land known as 7–11 Short Street, South Hurstville. The subject site consists of four (4) separate allotments currently occupied by three (3) dwelling houses. It is a corner site, situated on the north western corner of the intersection of Short Street and Grosvenor Road.

5. The site has a total area of 1,646.4sqm, with a frontage width of 40.24m to Short Street and a secondary frontage width to Grosvenor Road of 40.92m. The site is almost square in shape.

6. The land falls by 2.8m from the rear western corner of the site to the eastern corner at the intersection of Short Street and Grosvenor Road.

7. The site is located within an R3 Medium Density Residential precinct that is in close proximity to South Hurstville shops (B2 Local Centre) which has a number of local commercial premises along with South Hurstville Public Library. This local centre is well serviced by bus routes to Hurstville, Miranda and beyond.

Zoning and Permissibility

8. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012). The proposal involves the construction of a residential flat building which is a permissible use in the zone with consent.

Submissions

9. The DA was publicly notified for fourteen (14) days to adjoining properties in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013). Six (6) unique submissions were received in response to that notification. Amended plans received by Council on 14 March 2018 were renotified on 19 July 2018 for a further period of fourteen (14) days. Ten (10) unique submissions were received in response to this re-notification period.

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

10. This DA is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for the following reasons:

a) Contentious development – Sixteen (16) unique submissions of objection were received during the public notification periods.

b) Departure from development standards – The proposal exceeds the FSR development standard of KLEP 2012 by more than 10%.

c) Sensitive development – The DA relates to a residential flat building to which State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies.

Planning and Design Issues

11. The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 2:1 that applies to the site under KLEP 2012, having an FSR of 2.26:1 equating to a gross floor area (GFA) excess of 424.8sqm and a 12.9% variation to the FSR development standard. The excess GFA contributes to an excessively bulky building that fails to meet various design quality principles of SEPP 65 including context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, density, landscape, amenity and aesthetics. The proposal is a poor response to the various dimensional and contextual constraints of the site including the streetscape and character of nearby R2 zoned land, with inadequate street and boundary setbacks, insufficiently modulated facades and poor vertical articulation. A variation to the 2:1 FSR development standard has not been submitted pursuant to clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012.

12. The proposal also fails to comply with the building height development standard of 21m that applies to the site under KLEP 2012. The awning over the rooftop communal open space has a height of 21.14m (0.7% variation) which could potentially be resolved by partial deletion of the awning but for which no objection to the building height development standard has been submitted pursuant to clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012.

13. The proposal does not provide sufficiently dimensioned deep soil zones, particularly along the rear (south western) and north western boundaries, which will preclude the planting of canopy trees around the perimeter of the site that would reach a scale sufficient to ameliorate the scale of the building, provide a landscaped setting for the building and improve the environmental amenity of adjoining properties.

Conclusion

14. The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The proposal is an unreasonable planning and urban design outcome in the context of the site and performs poorly against the design quality principles of SEPP 65. Clause 4.6 Objections have not been submitted in relation to the FSR and building height development standards. As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

Report in Full

PROPOSAL

15. The DA seeks consent for the demolition of three (3) detached dwelling houses and the construction of a seven (7) storey RFB containing 41 residential apartments. Below are two (2) basement levels containing 62 car parking spaces for residents and visitors.

16. A mix of apartments is proposed, consisting of three (3) x studios, nine (9) x one (1) bedrooms, twenty six (26) x two (2) bedrooms and three (3) x three (3) bedroom apartments. Five (5) apartments are adaptable.

17. Further details of the proposal are as follows:

Basement 2

- Thirty four (34) residential car parking spaces including two (2) accessible spaces.

- Residential storage allocated to individual apartments.

Basement 1

- Twenty (20) residential car parking spaces and eight (8) visitor car parking spaces (of which one (1) also functions as a car wash bay).

- Residential storage allocated to individual apartments, bicycle parking for eighteen (18) bikes and on-site detention (OSD) tank.

Ground Floor

- Four (4) apartments of which one (1) is adaptable, all addressing Short Street with individual paths and gate access from the street and private landscaped courtyards.

- Dual width driveway access from Short Street located in the northern corner of the site adjacent to 5 Short Street, with a nil boundary setback apart from an 800mm wide landscape strip for the first 3.4m into the site.

- Landscaped setback to Grosvenor Road with a centrally located communal resident’s security gate.

- Large area of communal open space partially covered by the levels over, comprising a wide central corridor access way, various podium planter boxes, a BBQ and seating area and an artificial turf “open play” area.

- Garbage room, capacity for a substation, concealed rainwater tank and worker’s toilet.

- Deep soil perimeter landscaping on all site boundaries except along the north west boundary shared with 5 Short Street.

Level 1

- Seven (7) residential apartments on each level, of which one (1) is adaptable.

- Dual lift core to a partially enclosed and centrally located “T” shaped breezeway.

- Two (2) fire egress staircases at opposing ends of the breezeway.

- Non-trafficable landscaped area (86sqm) and skylights over the driveway.

Levels 2 – 5

- Seven (7) residential apartments on each level, of which one (1) is adaptable per level (excluding Level 5)

- Dual lift core to a partially enclosed and centrally located “T” shaped breezeway overlooking the ground level communal open space.

- Two (2) fire egress staircases at opposing ends of the breezeway.

Level 6

- Two (2) residential apartments at the southern end of the building.

- North/north east facing rooftop area of communal open space (366sqm) with shading device over, unisex toilet, kitchenette enclosable with french doors, BBQ and various seating areas.

- Perimeter landscaping around the communal open space in planter boxes.

18. The building is of a contemporary design with a flat roof and a variety of external finishes such as precast concrete coloured panels (beige and grey colours) and white cement rendered walls.

19. The proposal involves the removal of nine (9) trees/shrubs from within the site including Frangipani, Macadamia Nut, two (2) Umbrella Trees, three (3) Cocos Palms, Robinia and Mango. The trees range in height from 4m to 12m.

20. One (1) Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) street tree is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new driveway in the northern corner of the site. Another tree of the same species would be retained in the Grosvenor Road footpath.

The Site and Locality

21. The site is located at the corner of Short Street and Grosvenor Road, about 30m north east of King Georges Road and 22–35m south east of the South Hurstville B2 Local Centre. Within that centre are a variety of local commercial premises and the South Hurstville Public Library.

22. The site consists of four (4) separate allotments legally identified as follows:

· Lot 2 DP307250 (7 Short Street)

· Lot 69 DP1999 and Lot 70 DP1061875 (9 Short Street)

· Lot 68 DP1999 (11 Short Street)

23. The site is almost square in shape, with a primary frontage width to Short Street of 40.24m and a secondary frontage width (ie depth) to Grosvenor Road of 40.92m. The total area of the site is 1,646.4sqm.

24. The eastern corner of the site at the intersection of its two (2) road frontages is the lowest point of the site at RL 28.0m AHD. From here, the land rises about 2.8m towards the rear western corner of the site. There is a 1m level difference along the Short Street frontage and a 1.8m level difference along the Grosvenor Road frontage.

25. The land is currently occupied by three (3) detached dwelling houses that have changed relatively little since 1943. These houses address Short Street and each has various outbuildings such as detached garages, external toilets and sheds.

26. The rear of the site is currently quite overgrown with a large extent of bamboo screen planting and nine (9) trees.

27. Adjoining the site to the north west at 1–5 Short Street are three (3) detached dwelling houses of similar age to those on the subject site. Immediately behind the site at 870–876 King Georges Road are four (4) detached dwelling houses, again of similar age.

28. Across the road from the site to the north east (on the opposite side of Short Street) is a row of single dwelling houses numbered 1–33 Grosvenor Road. These are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and have a very consistent urban character.

29. The south eastern side of Grosvenor Road opposite the site is characterised by detached dwelling houses, the majority of which are zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The only exception is a 2–3 storey RFB development with basement parking that was constructed in the early 2000’s. It resembles a two (2) storey townhouse development with landscaped building setbacks and a 4.5m setback from Grosvenor Road.

30. The R3 Medium Density Residential zone in which the site is located is expected to undergo a transition from lower scale multi dwelling housing to higher density RFBs, having had its permissible FSRs and building heights increased under the “New City Plan” (Amendment No. 2 to KLEP 2012). The Zone R2 land in close proximity to the site is not expected to transition in the same manner, having a maximum height of 9m and maximum FSR of 0.55:1.

31. This proposal is the first of its type and scale in the immediate vicinity of the site and as such has the potential to establish the likely expected built form of other developments in the locality.

Photo 1: View west towards subject site from Short Street

Photo 2: View west towards subject site from Grosvenor Road

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

32. Compliance with the relevant SEPPs is summarised in the following table and discussed in further detail below it.

SEPP Title	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	Yes – but note comment regarding age of BASIX Certificate
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development	No - Non-compliance with respect to Design Quality Principles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 9. Refer to SEPP 65 section below.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

33. The primary relevant aims and objectives of this plan are:

· to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries and ensure that development is managed in a manner that is in keeping with the national, State, regional and local significance of the Catchment,

· to protect and enhance the environmental quality of the Catchment for the benefit of all users through the management and use of the resources in the Catchment in an ecologically sustainable manner,

· to ensure consistency with local environmental plans and also in the delivery of the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the assessment of development within the Catchment where there is potential to impact adversely on groundwater and on the water quality and river flows within the Georges River or its tributaries,

· to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment for land along the Georges River and its tributaries and to promote integrated catchment management policies and programs in the planning and management of the Catchment,

34. The DA includes a concept stormwater design prepared by John Romanous and Associates Pty Ltd. Stormwater is proposed to be drained by gravity via an OSD tank to a kerb inlet pit within Short Street at the eastern corner of the site. A maximesh filter is proposed at the OSD tank. The inclusion in the basement pump-out pit of a silt arrestor pit and other water quality treatment devices could be achieved by condition in order to improve water quality if the DA were approved. However, there is no specific local provision for stormwater treatment in an RFB on a site of this size.

35. The stormwater design was referred to Council’s Engineering Section for review. No objection was raised with respect to the management and disposal of stormwater subject to the imposition of conditions if consent is granted.

36. In summary, the proposal would not contravene the aims, objectives or purpose of the Regional Plan if approved with appropriate conditions of consent.

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

37. BASIX Certificate No. 802953M was lodged with the DA and indicates that the proposal meets the provisions and minimum requirements of BASIX in terms of water, thermal comfort and Energy efficiency.

38. However, the DA does not satisfy the lodgement requirements within Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Regulation 2000. The BASIX Certificate was issued on 16 March 2017 and the DA was lodged on 23 August 2017. As such, the BASIX Certificate exceeds the maximum three (3) month validity timeframe specified within Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulation.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

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

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

41. Though a Preliminary Investigation Assessment report was not submitted with the DA, a review of historic aerial photography indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes since at least 1943. Residential usage is not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of land. On this basis, the site would likely to be suitable in its current state for the development proposed with respect to contamination.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

43. Clause 102 of the SEPP, “Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development”, is also relevant to this DA on the basis that the proposal involves the construction of residential accommodation on land that is generally adjacent to the road corridor of King Georges Road (having an annual average daily traffic volume exceeding 20,000 vehicles) and is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration. As a result, the following provisions of Clause 102 of the SEPP are relevant:

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

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

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

44. A Traffic Noise Intrusion Assessment report was submitted with the DA. The report addresses the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP with respect to achieving acoustic compliance and recommends various construction methods and materials (eg 6.38mm laminated glass in bedrooms and acoustic window seals).

45. The report also states that compliant internal noise levels on the rear façade facing King Georges Road are only achieved when windows are closed. The Apartment Design Guide states under Objective 4J-1 (Noise and Pollution) that achieving various design criteria (such as natural cross ventilation) may not be possible in some situations due to noise and pollution. In accordance with the NSW Department of Planning’s “Development near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors – Interim Guidelines” and relevant ventilation requirements of the BCA, mechanical ventilation would be required for the affected apartments and would need to be acoustically designed to ensure that internal target acoustic levels are met and adjacent properties are not affected by the system. This would be achievable by appropriate conditions of consent.

46. In summary, the proposal if approved would be capable of achieving compliance with the Infrastructure SEPP subject to appropriate conditions relating to mechanical ventilation and compliance with the Traffic Noise Intrusion Assessment report.

47. The DA was also referred to Ausgrid on 22 July 2019 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing, no response has been received. The DA may be determined in the event that no response has been received from Ausgrid within twenty one (21) days, ie 12August 2019.

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

48. The Vegetation SEPP aims to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

49. The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

(b) Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s development control plan (DCP).

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

51. The proposal involves the removal of nine (9) trees from the site and one (1) street tree. Five (5) of the trees on site (two (2) x Umbrella Trees and three (3) x Cocos Palms) are undesirable species that are exempt from the tree protection provisions within Part B2 of KDCP 2013 and therefore require no consent for their removal. The remaining five (5) trees (including the street tree) are affected by those DCP provisions. This DA constitutes an application for their removal as part of the proposed development works.

52. Council’s Consultant Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal and raised no objection to approval of the remaining five (5) trees subject to appropriate replacement tree planting both on site and within the public. The recommended conditions provided by the arborist require five (5) new trees to be planted within deep soil areas of the site in addition to those shown on the submitted landscape plans, and seven (7) street trees to be planted within both road frontages.

53. On this basis, the proposal is consistent with relevant provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

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

56. Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings with respect to SEPP 55 detailed above.

Draft Environment SEPP

57. The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property.

58. Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

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

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

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

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

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

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 — Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

60. SEPP 65 was gazetted on 26 July 2002 and applies to the assessment of DAs for RFBs of three (3) or more storeys in height (excluding car parking levels) and containing at least four (4) dwellings. Amendment 3 to SEPP 65 commenced on 17 July 2015 and implemented various changes including the introduction of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to replace the Residential Flat Design Code.

61. The proposal involves the erection of a new seven (7) storey RFB (excluding basement car parking) containing 41 apartments and is therefore affected by the SEPP.

62. In determining DAs to which SEPP 65 relates, Clause 28(2) of the SEPP requires that the consent authority take into consideration:

a) the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

b) the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

c) the Apartment Design Guide.

63. The proposal was considered by the Georges River Design Review Panel (DRP) on 13 October 2017. The DRP assessed the merits of the development against each of the nine (9) Design Quality Principles and the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The DRP’s comments are included and addressed within the table below, along with further comment from Council’s Planner.

64. As detailed within the table, the proposal fails to satisfy various Design Quality Principles and provisions of the ADG, particularly where they relate to context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, density and façade design. The proposal also fails to meet various design criteria of the ADG with respect to residential amenity of the apartments.

SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles

Principle 1 – Context and neighbourhood character

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

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

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

65. DRP Comment: “The site is part of an area of South Hurstville that has been rezoned R3, increasing the density from the present single family low density to attached dwellings. It would be the first site in the block bounded by Short Street, Grosvenor Road and King Georges Road to be re-developed.”

66. Planner’s Comment: Though zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, the site is within close proximity to R2 Low Density Residential development that exists along Grosvenor Road. That road is characterised by one (1) and two (2) storey dwelling houses with landscaped front setbacks averaging about 9m on the north western side of the road and about 4.5m on the south eastern side of the road. These houses establish a consistent low density suburban character with landscaped front setbacks.

67. The subject site is a prominent and highly visible corner location that remains visible from over 100m away along Grosvenor Road to the north east of the site, well into the R2 Low Density zone. As such, it is critical that any redevelopment of this corner location responds well to both the context and the desirable elements of this nearby R2 Low Density Residential area’s character, particularly as this DA is the first of its kind in this locality and as such is likely to establish a precedent within this pocket of R3 Medium Density Residentially zoned land.

68. The proposal does not adequately respond to that context nor respect the neighbourhood character of the locality. Conversely, rather, it will adversely affect that character primarily on the basis that the proposed envelope significantly exceeds the FSR development standard and various setback requirements (refer to “Principle 2” below). Moreover, its facades do not achieve an appropriate scale or proportion to the streetscape and human scale as detailed under “4M – Facades” within the ADG Compliance Table below.

69. As it is, put simply the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and an overreach in terms of its built form and envelope that is incongruous with Principle 1 of SEPP 65.

Principle 2 – Built form and scale

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

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

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

70. DRP Comment: “The form of the building is essentially compliant with height, density and setback controls and in principal would be appropriate for the emerging character of this block.

71. The north western façade shows a marginal non compliance in setback above level 4. Setback provided is 3m, compliance setback required 4.5m. The fact that the wall has no habitable windows makes this non compliance acceptable.

72. The following issue must be addressed:

· The vehicle entry and exit ramp is not enclosed and resulting noise and pollution would have adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining neighbours. It should be enclosed with a vertical wall on the boundary and also roofed over and the setback and roof area landscaped. Setback must be of sufficient width and soil depth to allow for planting to succeed (>300mm).”

73. Planner’s Comment: Despite the above DRP comment with respect to “essentially compliant” built form, the proposal significantly exceeds the 2:1 FSR development standard that applies to the site. The proposal has an FSR of 2.26:1 which equates to a 12.9% variation or a 424.8sqm GFA excess. The reason for the significant difference between the claimed FSR figures shown on the architectural drawings (Drawing No. DA114) and the actual assessed FSR is that many parts of the building have erroneously been excluded from GFA in those submitted calculations, such as enclosed (above 1.4m) ground floor entry areas to Units U001-U004, above ground waste storage rooms, a long egress corridor and partially enclosed “breezeways” on every level. As a result, the building is excessively bulky and is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area in terms of building envelope. The proposal is simply too large for a highly visible site that has two (2) street frontages and is adjacent to an R2 Low Density Residential zone. The lack of meaningful vertical articulation to the Short Street façade results in a monolithic building which will have the appearance of “looming over” the adjacent R2 zoned land, as Grosvenor Road to the north east falls away from the site.

74. The proposal does not achieve appropriate alignments relative to the Grosvenor Road street boundary and the north western boundary adjoining 5 Short Street. The minimum 4.5m street setback from a secondary road (ie Grosvenor Road) specified within KDCP 2013 has not been achieved for a large portion of the south eastern elevation and for a height of six (6) storeys. As a result the proposal would encroach considerably on the public domain of Grosvenor Road and is inconsistent with the desired future streetscape character of the locality with respect to building setbacks, in which a feeling of openness within the public domain should be achieved.

75. The building also does not provide sufficient separation from 5 Short Street, with a visually dominant roofed driveway structure having a nil boundary alignment that will adversely affect the amenity of this adjoining property. Whilst this roof was recommended by the DRP, it is noted that the original design scheme also included a roof over the driveway (albeit without landscaping) with a length of 12.6m and a nominal setback from the boundary of about 100mm. As such, both the original scheme and the amended design are visually intrusive to the neighbouring property. Furthermore, the driveway’s nil setback from the boundary precludes any deep soil tree planting along the north west wall to soften the building’s appearance and ameliorate the scale of the building when viewed from 5 Short Street, and also to create landscaped space (with open sky over) between buildings at the ground level that would be consistent with both the R2 and R3 zones.

76. Levels 4 and 5 of the north western wall facing 5 Short Street have not been sufficiently setback from Levels G – 3 below. Doing so would provide for a four (4) storey building base or podium, at the very least when viewed from adjacent properties to the north and when approaching the site from the north west along Short Street. These two (2) levels should have an increased 4.5m setback as specified within the ADG with some highlight windows (shaded if necessary) to provide modulation and reduce bulk on this elevation.

77. Insufficient articulation and modulation is provided to various other elements of the building’s façades, such as the six (6) storey high south eastern wall facing Grosvenor Road (ie the side wall of the apartments facing Short Street). With respect to that elevation, the DRP advised (under Principle 6 – Amenity) that this elevation requires improved treatment, articulation and formation to “reduce the blandness” of this façade. Very little design development of this façade has occurred in the revised scheme that was lodged in response to the DRP comments, apart from slightly modified window sizes, framing and orientation. This wall requires an increased setback from Grosvenor Road for its full height, and both vertical and horizontal modulation and articulation and even variation in materiality to break down its six (6) storey scale.

78. More appropriate for the site in its context would be a building with a more dominant four (4) storey base with increased setbacks from both Grosvenor Road and 5 Short Street, with Levels 4–6 recessed on all sides and to a reasonable extent for the full depth of the building. This resulting development would provide a more appropriate transition to nearby lower scale (predominantly two (2) storey) R2 Low Density Residential development, respond to the human scale and be more respectful of the public domain.

Principle 3 – Density

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

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

79. DRP Comment: “No adequate justification has been provided for the exceedance of the 4.5:1 control.”

80. Planner’s Comment: Notwithstanding that the DRP comment has misquoted the maximum density that applies to the site, a Clause 4.6 Objection has not been submitted to justify the proposal’s non-compliance with the FSR development standard of 2:1 under KLEP 2012. The proposal has an FSR of 2.26:1 which equates to a 12.9% variation or a 424.8sqm GFA excess. The resulting density of the proposal in conjunction with its non-compliant setbacks and insufficient façade articulation in order to break up the scale is inappropriate for the site and its context.

81. As detailed under Principle 2 above, there is a large difference between the claimed FSR shown on Drawing No. DA114 and the actual assessed FSR due to many parts of the building having been erroneously excluded from total GFA. With respect to the “breezeways” on Levels 1 – 5, screening along their south western edge was suggested by a former Council Planner and its removal would reduce total GFA. However, its removal would also result in poor amenity for the Units 001 and 002 apartment stacks on Levels 1–5 with respect to both weather protection and noise buffering from King Georges Road. Furthermore, the proposal would still remain well in excess of the maximum permitted 2:1 GFA by 273.4sqm, with an FSR of 2.17:1.

82. Council wrote to the applicant on 18 September 2018 and raised the matter of FSR non-compliance. This was not subsequently addressed by way of further amended plans and no Clause 4.6 Objection to the standard has been lodged.

Principle 4 – Sustainability

“Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

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

83. DRP Comment: “Subject to BASIX. It would be highly desirable to incorporate additional environmental initiatives such as solar collection and rain water recycling.”

84. Planner’s Comment: The DA is accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 802953M and NatHERS Certificate No. 0001324380 which demonstrate that the proposal achieves the minimum water, thermal comfort and energy targets for a development of this type. However, the BASIX Certificate was not lodged within three (3) months of its date of issue and is therefore invalid as per the EP&A Regulation.

85. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal meets the minimum solar access provisions of the ADG with respect to direct sunlight into living rooms.

86. No solar panels are proposed. These should be included on a vacant portion of roof slab by condition of consent if the DA is approved.

87. The stormwater drawings show a rainwater tank within a room adjacent to the waste storage room on the ground floor. The size of this room is shown inconsistently between the stormwater drawings and the architectural plans. The indicative volume of this tank is 47,000L but the plan states “Pre-Fabricated Rainwater Tank Vol As Per BASIX”. However, this is not reflected in the BASIX Certificate as there is no rainwater tank commitment shown.

Principle 5 – Landscape

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

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

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

88. DRP Comment: “Awkward site planning which is focused on the building rather than the site as a whole has created a multitude of issues including the following:

· Awkward pedestrian access to building entry including unnecessary ramping and questionable cross fall to the entry footpath. This should be resolved with a direct, simple, and elegant solution that creates a sense of arrival and is easily recognisable as the primary entrance.

· Lack of clarity around spatial definition, quality and program of use in entry forecourt/common area. A program of use should be devised for communal areas as a whole across the full development and each area designed to support this program as appropriate, including structures/furniture, materials, lighting, planting and level of enclosure. Areas that will be engaging for children should be considered. Conflicting uses of coinciding or immediately adjacent areas must be avoided.

· The seemingly random location of landscape planters throughout this space

· It is not apparent how the landscape zone to the south western boundary is to be used or accessed for maintenance

· The relationship between the existing and designed levels on the ground floor is not clear. This must be resolved.

· There is a seemingly unusable narrow paved balcony area to the east of Unit 004

· A planted buffer of 1m width should be provided between the driveway and the adjacent property to the west to the property frontage before the structure begins (see commends on vehicle entry under ‘Built Form’ above).

· The driveway roof area which extends beyond the floors above should be capped and utilised as landscape garden

· Deep soil areas must be used to plant large tree species. Ideally deep soil areas are co-located with common open space so that the amenity offered by trees and planting adds to the quality of that space and therefore the development.

· Street trees shall be required to Council’s specifications.

89. Enclosed amenities and facilities should be provided within the roof top communal space.

90. Tree planting should also be provided on the roof top area.

91. The landscape design should more strongly define and support the importance of the main entrance to the development.

92. The north point as shown on the landscape drawings is incorrect. Planting design should be reviewed to ensure that it is suitable for the correct aspect.”

93. Planner’s Comment: A number of the above matters raised by DRP have been revised and generally resolved. A notable exclusion is the width of the landscaped buffer between the driveway and 5 Short Street, with only 800mm having been provided. This is not wide enough to sustain planting of a reasonable size, 1.5m should be provided.

94. The primary concern with respect to Principle 5 is the proposal’s non-compliance with the deep soil zone requirements of the ADG. There are no deep soil zones proposed that have minimum dimensions of 6m x 6m. As such, there is limited opportunity for significant canopy tree planting to ameliorate the scale of the building, regulate the local microclimate and contribute to a landscaped setting in the locality. The site is generously proportioned and is not heavily constrained by other factors and therefore should more than adequately be able to accommodate ADG-compliant deep soil zones.

95. The finished floor level (FFL) of the rear communal open space occupied by the BBQ and seating area and the artificial turf play area is about 1.6 – 2m below existing ground level (varying depending on exact location). As such, it would be enclosed by high boundary walls that may not necessarily be screened effectively by boundary planting in the long term. As a result, the amenity and enjoyment of this area would be compromised and not as “attractive and inviting” as anticipated by the ADG, resulting in a poor outcome for residents.

Principle 6 – Amenity

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

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

96. DRP Comment: “The following points should addressed:

· Bedroom 2 in Unit 002 is internal and unacceptable

· Cover should be provided to allow protected movement from common area/entrance to lift lobby

· Entrance between common area and garbage area should be eliminated

· See comments above under ‘Landscape’ regarding pedestrian circulation

· The vertical screening devices as indicated on the western façade of balconies to Units 107 and above should be redesigned to allow adequate solar access to balconies and living rooms, while still providing adequate privacy in relation to breezeways on the northern block

· Provide solar protection to extensive glazing in bedroom windows on the north west façade

97. The south east elevation to Grosvenor Road requires improved treatment particularly for the side façade of the Short Street fronting units. These require improved articulation and formation to reduce the blandness of this façade.”

98. Planner’s Comment: The latest scheme retains a number of ADG non-compliances that were not identified by DRP, apart from poor amenity to Bedroom 2 in Units 001 and 002 which remain unresolved (refer to 4D – Apartment Size and Layout in the ARG compliance table below).

99. Fifteen (15) x two (2) bedroom apartments facing Short Street have living room widths that do not meet the minimum requirements of the ADG. This is a strong indication that the width of the site on Short Street cannot accommodate five (5) apartments across.

100. There are also a number of non-compliances with the building separation (visual privacy) design criteria of the ADG, mainly due to balconies that are insufficiently setback from the side or rear boundary and are not adequately screened.

101. Insufficient evidence has been submitted with the DA to demonstrate that the apartments would receive adequate direct sunlight in mid-winter. The solar access diagrams do not show the full extent of sunlight penetration into various living rooms fronting Short Street and the proposal is deemed to be non-compliant in this regard.

102. The proposal has no universal design features (ie Livable Housing) to promote flexible housing for all community members. The ADG design guidance specifies that 20% of the apartments should incorporate Silver Level Livable Housing criteria.

103. The privatised courtyards on the ground floor level fronting Short Street should be eliminated and replaced with a communal landscaped area that is maintained by the owners’ corporation in order to avoid an unmaintained and incongruous frontage. This should be achieved by setting back the fence and gates off the boundary so that it aligns with the edge of the courtyard paving. All landscaping outside this area should be common property. Entry pathways can be consolidated, eg a single, wider path to U001 and U002 and a second such path to U003 and U004, with gates located at the edge of the paving. The street boundary fencing should remain relatively low in height.

Principle 7 – Safety

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

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

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

104. DRP Comment: “Satisfactory.”

105. Planner’s Comment: The proposal performs adequately in this regard. The consolidation and widening of the entry pathways off Short Street will reduce the likelihood of entrapment in this area. Well-lit communal areas could be achievable by condition of consent if approved.

Principle 8 – Housing diversity and social interaction

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

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

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

106. DRP Comment: “The housing mix is skewed towards two (2) bedroom units. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a number of three (3) bedroom units.”

107. Planner’s Comment: The proposal now includes a mix of studio, one (1) bedroom, two (2) bedroom and three (3) bedroom apartments.

108. Five (5) apartments are adaptable to cater for individuals or families with additional needs.

109. Both the ground floor level and rooftop areas of communal open space would provide a variety of opportunities for social interaction amongst residents.

Principle 9 – Aesthetics

“Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

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

110. DRP Comment: “Generally supported with the exception of the south western corner elevation which requires refinement.”

111. Planner’s Comment: Little refinement of the south western corner elevation has occurred apart from minor changes to the window sizes, framing and orientation. More significant changes should be incorporated including a greater setback from Grosvenor Road and additional modulation and articulation.

112. The reliance on rendered concrete walls on the Short Street elevation should be reduced in order to improve weathering performance over time, such as through the use of some face brickwork.

113. Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. The following ADG Compliance Table assesses the proposal against these provisions, with relevant assessment comments provided where non-compliances are proposed.

ADG Compliance Table

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3D – Communal Open Space (COS)

Provide COS at least 25% of the site area (411.6sqm)

Located on a podium or roof if it can’t be located on ground level

At least 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the COS for at least 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

57.3% (943sqm)

COS located on both ground level (577sqm) and at roof level (366sqm)

Insufficient detail available to accurately confirm the percentage of rooftop COS area in sunlight, though compliance could likely be achievable by reducing the extent of the roof over the rooftop COS area if the DA were to be approved.

Yes

Likely achievable by reduction to the awning over the rooftop COS.

3E – Deep Soil Zones

Site area is >1,500sqm = 6m min dimensions

Min deep soil area of 7% (123.3sqm)

Provide acceptable stormwater management and on-structure planting where min. deep soil area not achieved (e.g. CBD, constrained sites, high density areas or in centres or where there is 100% site coverage or non-residential uses at ground level)

No deep soil area proposed has minimum 6m x 6m dimensions. Front landscape strip on Short Street is 3.4m wide. Rear strip is 3m wide.

0% due to minimum dimensions not being met

[250sqm (15%) if all other deep soil areas included]

There is no justifiable reason why the minimum deep soil area of 7% cannot be met on this particular site, as the land is not heavily constrained, nor is in a high density area, CBD or centre.

No (100%)

Comment on Deep Soil Zones

The building fails to provide sufficient deep soil zones with minimum dimensions of 6m x 6m and a minimum total area of 7% of the site area, as required by the ADG for a site of this size. This precludes the planting of canopy trees that would improve residential amenity both within the site and for adjoining properties, ameliorate the scale of the building when viewed from both the public domain and from adjoining and nearby properties and also provide a noise and pollution buffer for the development from King Georges Road. Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate why compliance with this ADG design criteria is not achievable on the site.

3F – Visual Privacy

Minimum separation to side and rear boundaries:

Up to 12m (4 storeys):

3m non-habitable rooms

6m habitable rooms & balconies

Levels G – 3

NW Elevation:

· 3m non-habitable

· 3m to habitable (front balcony)

SW Elevation:

· 4.5m non-habitable

· 4.5m to habitable

Yes

No (50%)

Yes

Yes (on merit due to the windows having raised sill height)

12m to 25m (5-8 storeys):

4.5m non-habitable rooms

9m habitable rooms & balconies

Levels 4 – 5

NW Elevation:

· 3m – 4.5m non-habitable

· 3m to habitable (front balcony)

SW Elevation:

· 4.5m non-habitable

· 4.5m to habitable (balconies and windows, albeit highlight)

Level 6 (incl. rooftop)

NW Elevation:

· 3m – 4.5m non-habitable

· 7.2m to habitable (rooftop terrace)

SW Elevation:

· 4.5m non-habitable

· 4.5m to habitable (balconies and windows, albeit highlight)

No (33%)

No (67%)

Yes

No (50%)

3.5m to lift overrun -acceptable on merit given no privacy implications

No (20%)

No but ok

No (50%)

Comment on Visual Privacy

The north western balconies on Levels 1–5 have a setback of 3m from the north western boundary. They should be setback 6m on Levels 1–3 and 9m on Levels 4 and 5. They have a screening element on their north eastern side but should be screened on their north western side with open batten screening or similar, to protect the privacy of any equivalent front balconies on a redeveloped 5 Short Street.

The balconies adjoining the living rooms of Units 407, 507 and 602 do not meet the minimum required setback from the rear (south western) boundary of the site. These balconies can be relocated in a north easterly direction so that they have a 6.5m setback, aligned with the south western wall of those units, and an open batten screen along their south western edge. The relocated balcony would also be accessible from the master bedroom.

The rooftop COS area has a non-compliant setback of 7.2m. Numeric compliance could be achievable by condition of consent. The landscaping planter box along its north western edge would offer some level of screening.

3G – Pedestrian Access and Entries

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

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

Yes – multiple entries provided including 4 paths and gates to Short Street (which should be consolidated into 2 paths) and access off Grosvenor Road.

Yes

3H – Vehicle Access

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

The driveway has a nil setback from the north west boundary insufficient landscaping between the driveway and the boundary shared with 5 Short Street.

No – see comment below

Comment on Vehicle Access:

The proposed driveway off Short Street has a nil setback from the north west boundary. This results in an inadequate width of the landscape strip between the driveway and the boundary. The strip should be at least 1.5m wide to permit the planting of reasonable trees to provide a landscape buffer between the driveway and the adjacent property within the front setback area.

The driveway ramp has been fully enclosed as suggested by the DRP, as opposed to the partially enclosed ramp of the original design. This enclosure would mitigate noise impacts to the neighbour but would result in a solid wall on the boundary alignment with a height of up to 1.14m above the height of a standard 1.8m high dividing fence (ie 2.9m total) for a length of 18m along the boundary, which is visually intrusive. This wall would adversely impact the amenity of the neighbouring property. The setback to the boundary should be increased to 3m permit the planting of trees along the boundary to soften the visual impact of the building from 5 Short Street. Forward of the building line, the driveway should be at least 1.5m from the boundary to permit the planting of small shrubs or trees.

3J – Bicycle and Car Parking

Car parking provided in accordance with RMS GTTGD

(Applies to sites that are within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area)

Not applicable – site is more than 1km from Hurstville and Allaw

Meeting:	Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)
Date:	Thursday, 15 August 2019
Time:	4.00pm
Venue:	Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville
Panel Members:	Paul Vergotis (Chairperson) Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member) John Brockhoff (Expert Panel Member) Cameron Jones (Community Representative)
Council Staff:	Meryl Bishop (Director Environment and Planning) Ryan Cole (Manager Development and Building) Nicole Askew (Coordinator Development Assessment) Cathy Mercer (PA to Manager Development and Building) Sue Matthew (Team Leader DA Admin) Monica Wernej (Admin Assistant)