AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 19 September 2019

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Adam Seton (Chairperson)

Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member)

Annette Ruhotas (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a)    61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

b)    16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst

c)    2-6 Lacey Street, Kogarah Bay and 186-190 Princes Highway, Beverley Park

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

2. Public Meeting – Consideration of Items 4.00pm 6.00pm -

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 19 September  2019

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP035-19       61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst – DA2017/0584

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP036-19       16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst – DA2017/0627

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP037-19       186-190 Princes Highway Beverley Park and 2-6 Lacey Street, Kogarah Bay – DA2018/0513

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

MINUTES: Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - 05 September 2019 (18/653)

 

 


 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 September 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP035-19

Development Application No

DA2017/0584

Site Address & Ward Locality

61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Lot consolitation, demolition of the existing structures and construction of three (3) storey residential flat building with basement parking.

Owners

Younan Management Pty Ltd, CHY Holdings Pty Ltd, Maria A. Rasic

Applicant

Cornerstone Design

Planner/Architect

Cornerstone Design

Date Of Lodgement

24/11/2017

Submissions

Nil Submissions

Cost of Works

$3,390,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Development is defined as a “Residential Flat Building” and  is subject to SEPP 65. A Clause 4.6 variation in respect to exceedance of the height control

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 No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development,

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure, Draft Environmental State Environmental Planning Policy, Apartment Design Guide, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River Catchment,

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

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

Survey Plan, Architectural Plans, Landscape Plan, Concept Stormwater Plans, Statement of Environmental Effects,

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

THAT the application be approved, in accordance with the conditions included within 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?

 

Yes  - Clause 4.6 Statement submitted in respect to Height

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 will be available when the report is published

 

Site Plan

Sites outlined in red

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.       Council is in receipt of an application which proposes lot consolidation, demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction a three (3) storey residential flat building containing fourteen (14) residential apartments and one (1) basement level accommodating twenty-two (22) parking spaces and associated landscaping works at 61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst.

 

Specifically the development proposes fourteen (14) residential apartments with the following unit mix:

 

·   2 x 1 bedroom apartments

·   8 x 2 bedroom apartments; and

·   4 x 3 bedroom apartments.

    (two (2) of the units are nominated as adaptable).

·   One (1) basement level containing twenty-two (22) vehicle car parking spaces, two (2) being accessible and one (1) car wash bay.

 

Site and Locality

2.       The development site involves the amalgamation of 61 and 63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst.

 

The sites are rectangular in shape with No 61 Lawrence Street having a 15.24m arced front northern boundary, a 36.505m side eastern boundary, a 36.73m side western boundary, a 17.68m arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 602.6sqm.

 

Number No 63 Lawrence Street has a 15.24m arced front northern boundary, a 36.32m side eastern boundary, a 36.505m side western boundary, a 17.68m arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 599.1sqm.

 

The amalgamated allotments will result in a 30.48m arced front northern boundary, a 36.32m side eastern boundary, a 36.73m side western boundary, a 35.36m arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 1,201.7sqm.

Zoning and Permissibility

3.       The development site is zoned R3 Medium density residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012. The proposed development is a ‘Residential Flat Building’ and satisfies the objectives of the zone and is permissible with consent in the zone.

Clause 4.6 Variation - Height

4.       The proposed development seeks a maximum height of 13.85 metres, a variation to clause 4.3 Height of Buildings under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012. The maximum building height for the development is 12m; the proposed development seeks a 1.85m variation, equating to a 15.4% variation. The height breach is due to the proposed lift overrun and pergola/shade structure located on the Roof Top Level.

Submissions

5.       The proposed development was notified and advertised to the surrounding residents/owners from 6 December 2017 to 5 January 2018. No submissions were received by Council.

Conclusion

6.       This application has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1) and 4.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plans. The application seeks lot consolidation, demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction a three (3) storey residential flat building containing fourteen (14) residential apartments and one (1) basement level accommodating twenty-two (22) parking spaces and associated landscaping works.

Following a detailed assessment it is recommended that Development Application No. DA2017/0584 be approved subject to the recommended conditions at the end of this report.

Report in Full

Proposal

7.         The proposed development seeks lot consolidation, demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building containing fourteen (14) residential apartments and one (1) basement level accommodating twenty-two (22) parking spaces and associated landscaping works. Specifically, the proposed development contains the following;

 

Basement:

-   Parking for twenty-two (22) vehicles which includes two (2) accessible spaces and four (4) visitor spaces, one (1) doubles as a car wash bay;

-   Individual storage spaces allocated to each unit;

-   Garbage room;

-   Access lift;

-   Access stairs;

-   Cleaner’s room;

-   Six (6) bicycle parking spaces;

-   Store room; and

-   Meter room.

 

Ground Floor – Total: Five (5) Units:

-   One (1) by three (3) bedroom apartment;

-   Three (3) by two (2) bedroom apartment;

-   One (1) x one (1) bedroom apartment;

-   Lift; and

-   Access stairs.

 

First Floor – Total: Five (5) Units:

-   One (1) x three (3) bedroom apartment;

-   Three (3) x two (2) bedroom apartments;

-   One (1) x one (1) bedroom apartment;

-   Lift; and

-   Access stairs.

 

Second Floor – Total: Four (4) Units:

-    Two (2) x three (3) bedroom apartments;

-    Two (2) x two (2) bedroom apartments;

-    Lift; and

-    Access stairs;

 

Unit

Number of Units

1 bedroom units

2

2 bedroom units

8

3 bedroom units

4

Total

14

 

Figure 1: Northern elevation (view from Lawrence Street) of the proposed development (Source: Cornerstone Design, 2018)

The Site and Locality

8.       The subject development site is identified as Lot 248, DP 36317, No. 61 Lawrence Street and Lot 249, DP 36317, No. 63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst.

 

The allotment is located on the southern side of Lawrence Street, between Pearce Avenue to the east and Trafalgar Street to the west.

 

The site is generally rectangular in shape with No 61 Lawrence Street having a 15.24m arced front northern boundary, a 36.505m side eastern boundary, a 36.73m side western boundary, a 17.68m arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 602.6sqm.

 

No 63 Lawrence Street has a 15.24m arced front northern boundary, a 36.32m side eastern boundary, a 36.505m side western boundary, a 17.68m arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 599.1sqm.

 

The amalgamated allotments will result in a 30.48m arced front northern boundary, a 36.32m side eastern boundary, a 36.73m side western boundary, a 35.36 arced rear southern boundary and a total site area of 1,201.7sqm.

 

Existing on site are single storey residential dwellings and seven (7), trees which are the subject of removal.

 

Council’s nature strip/verge (directly in front of 61-63 Lawrence Street) accommodates two (2) street trees, which are to remain and be protected throughout construction. An electricity power pole, a Telstra pit and a drainage lintel for the purposes of stormwater drainage exist within the public domain.

 

The site has a fall of 5.65m measured from the rear south-eastern corner (RL43.69) to the front north-western corner (RL38.04).

 

The site is located within the R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone and is not affected by bushfire, acid sulfate soils, heritage, heritage conservation or flooding. The rear southern boundary adjoins land that is zoned RE1 - Public Recreation, which is located adjacent to the road reserve of Forest Road (State Classified Road).

 

The immediate surrounding environment is characterised by residential development with a mixture of single dwellings, attached dual occupancies and residential flat buildings consisting of three (3) storeys.

 

The site is located approximately 1.4km from Riverwood Station and is located 300m (east) and 450m (west) from bus stops on Forest Road. Bus routes 943 and M91 provide services from Forest Road to Hurstville Station. The site is also located within a bus stop on Trafalgar Street which services bus route 944 to Riverwood Station and Hurstville Station.

 

Figure 2: Locality map for 61 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst (Source: Google Maps, 2019)

 

Figure 3: Bus routes from 61 Lawrence Street (Source: Google Maps, 2019)

Background

9.       DA2004/0071          59-59A Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

Approved by Council on 21/04/2004

Construction of attached dual occupancy

 

DA2013/0283          77-79 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

                             Approved by NSW Land & Environment Court 15/10/2014

        Demolition of existing structures and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building comprising fifteen (15) units and basement carparking with ninteen (19) spaces.

 

DA2014/1132          47-51 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

Approved by JRPP on 07/05/2015

Affordable rental housing consisting of 3-4 storey residential flat building with 39 dwellings and basement car parking.

 

DA2017/0000          53-57 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

Approved by JRPP on 17/10/2016

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building containing 21 dwellings with basement parking (Crown Application).

 

DA2016/0276          1-3 Pearce Avenue & 83 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

                             Approved by Delegated Authority on 13/06/2017

        Demolition of existing structures and removal of trees, construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building with basement parking accessed from Lawrence Street and Strata subdivision.

 

DA2016/0224          65-67 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

Deffered by LPP on 03/12/2018

Construction of a part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 13 apartments, basement car parking for 19 vehicles and associated landscaping and site works.

Zoning

10.     The subject site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP), the proposed ‘Residential Flat Building’ is permissible in the zone with the consent. The proposal satisfies the zone objectives which are:

 

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

·     To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

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

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

 

 

Figure 4: Zoning Map for 61 and 63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst outlined in blue

 

APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

11.     The provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) apply to the proposed development which complies with the relevant provisions as follows.

 

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

2.3 – Zone objectives and land use table

R3 – Medium Density Residential

The development is consistent with the zone objectives and land use table.

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

12m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

13.85m.

No (1)

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

FSR = 1:1.

Yes

4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

Formal written request required addressing provisions of Cl.4.6

Formal written request lodged and addressed in detail as part of this assessment

Yes - Clause 4.6 Statement addresses relevant provisions of Clause 4.6.

6.2 - Earthworks

To ensure that earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land

The proposed earthworks involve excavation to accommodate one (1) level of basement car parking.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of this clause.

 

The works are unlikely to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, or features of the surrounding land.

 

The proposed basement is fully contained within the building footprint with soft landscaping and deep soil areas proposed along the side, rear and front boundaries.

 

A condition has been recommended for dilapidation reports for the adjoining allotments and the excavation shall be undertaken using rock saws if required.

Yes

12.     Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings – (1)

 

The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to height. Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 identifies a maximum height of 12m. The proposed development will have a maximum height of 13.85m.

 

A variation to the height can be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards in the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan. In assessing the variation, the provisions identified in Clause 4.6 have to be considered. The applicant’s town planning consultant, Planning Principles has provided a response which is detailed and considered below.

 

Figure 5: Western elevation of the building illustrating area of non-compliance with the height control in red (Source: Planning Ingenuity, 2018)

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

13.     The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

 

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

The Applicant has shown the elements which exceed the height control and Council has concluded with the following:

 

·     The lift over run which reaches a RL of 54.0 and achieves an overall numerical height of 13.0m, amounting to 1.0m over the height control.

·     A roof extension of 1.43m, which reaches a RL of 54.4 and achieves an overall numerical height of 13.85m.

 

The non-compliance amounts to 1.85m (breach to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings to the HELP, 2012) which equates to a 15.4% variation in the standard.

 

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

Comment: Yes Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings is a development standard.

           

What is the underlying objective or purpose of the standard?

Comment: The objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of buildings Standard are;

 

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes,

(c)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity,

(e)  to establish maximum building heights that achieve appropriate urban form consistent with the major centre status of the Hurstville City Centre,

(f)  to facilitate an appropriate transition between the existing character of areas or localities that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation,

(g) to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

 

14.     Applicant’s comment:

 

“Clause 4.3(2) of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 relates to the maximum height requirements and refers to the Height of Buildings Map. The relevant map identifies the subject site as having a maximum height of 12m. Building height is defined as:

 

“Building height (or height of building) means:

 

(a)  in relation to the height of a building in metres—the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building, or

 

(b) in relation to the RL of a building—the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.”

 

Figures 13, 14 and 15 of this report provide elevations and a sectional diagram indicating that due to the provision of a roof shading structure and the lift overrun when compared to the and the natural fall of the land, the building height exceeds the maximum permissible for the site. The height non-compliances are shaded in red”.

 

Figure 6: ‘Figure 13’ from the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) Eastern Elevation (Source: Planning Ingenuity, 2018)

 

“As indicated in the eastern elevation, all residential floor space a significant amount of the building is located below the maximum height limit and the projecting elements are limited to the lift overrun and shading structure where the site falls away to the street frontage. In addition, the building is fully compliant with the height requirements at the street frontage to Lawrence Street”.

 

 

Figure 7: ‘Figure 14’ from the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) Western Elevation (Source: Planning Ingenuity, 2018)

 

Figure 7: ‘Figure 15’ from the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) Section Plan (Source: Planning Ingenuity, 2018)

 

“As indicated in Figure 14 the height non-compliance is limited to the centre of the building where access to the roof top terrace is achieved via lift and stair access and the shade structure is provided. The maximum extent of non-compliance is 1.85m above the 12m height plane, representing a variation of 15.4% of the standard”.

 

“The building has been designed to be below the height requirement at the street edge and results in a building that is consistent with the scale of development expected at the site. Maximum height control is a “development standard” to which exceptions can be granted pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP”.

 

Officer Comment - The applicant’s justification is supported. As identified in red, the extent of the height variation relates to the lift overrun and vergola which is centrally located within the building footprint. The proposed variation does not comprise of floor space or area which could be readily converted into floor space.

 

The height of the building results in minimal additional impacts of overshadowing or visual bulk when viewed from the adjoining allotments and the public domain, when compared to that of a numerically compliant building, the additional shadowing resulting from the additional height will fall within the allotment boundary and not adversely impact the southern allotment.

 

Given the above, the proposed variation is not inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3, and is acceptable despite the numerical non-compliance.

 

15.     4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

 

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(i)     the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

(b)    the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

(5)  In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

 

(a)    whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 

(b)    the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

 

(c)    any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

 

(6)  Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

 

(a)    the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

 

(b)    the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

 

Note - When this Plan was made it did not include Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living.

 

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

 

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

 

(a)    a development standard for complying development,

 

(b)    a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

 

(c)    clause 5.4,

 

(ca) clause 6.6.

 

Applicant’s Comment: “The development standards in clause 4.3 are not “expressly excluded” from the operation of clause 4.6.

 

Objective 1(a) of clause 4.6 is satisfied by the discretion granted to a consent authority by virtue of subclause 4.6(2) and the limitations to that discretion contained in subclauses (3) to (8).

 

This submission will address the requirements of subclauses 4.6(3) & (4) in order to demonstrate to Council that the exception sought is consistent with the exercise of “an appropriate degree of flexibility” in applying the development standard, and is therefore consistent with objective 1(a). In this regard, the extent of the discretion afforded by subclause 4.6(2) is not numerically limited, in contrast with the development standards referred to in subclause 4.6(6)”.

 

Objective 1(b) of clause 4.6 is addressed later in this request.

 

The balance of this request will be divided into the following sections, each dealing with the nominated aspect of Clause 4.6:

 

·     consistency with the development standard objectives and the zone objectives (Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii));

 

·     sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (Clause 4.6(3)(b)); and

 

·     that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (Clause 4.6(3)(a)).

 

Consistency with the Objectives (Clause 4.6(4)(A)(Ii))

 

16.     The objectives and relevant provisions of clause 4.3 are as follows, inter alia:

 

4.3 Height of buildings

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a)    to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b)    to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes,

(c)    to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage items,

(d)    to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity,

(e)    to establish maximum building heights that achieve appropriate urban form consistent with the major centre status of the Hurstville City Centre,

(f)     to facilitate an appropriate transition between the existing character of areas or localities that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation,

(g)    to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

 

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

Applicant’s Comment: “The Height of Buildings Map nominates a maximum height of 12m for the site. It is hereby requested that an exception to this development standard be granted pursuant to Clause 4.6 so as to permit a maximum height of 13.85m (RL54.4), excess of 1.85m to accommodate the lift overrun and a shade structure at the roof top of the building.

 

Officer Comment – The development is of a form and scale that will provide for the housing needs of the community in a manner that is consistent with the medium density housing zoning of the land and the anticipated building form for the locality, having regard to the height and floor space ratio provisions that apply.

 

In order to address the requirements of subclause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), each of the relevant objectives of clause 4.4 are addressed in turn below”.

 

Objective (a):

“Objective (a) seeks to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality. The proposal is fully compliant at the Lawrence Street frontage and will be consistent with the height and scale of future residential flat building development. Due to the minor non-compliance being limited to the lift overrun and shade structure at the centre of the building, the development is generally indistinguishable from a fully compliant scheme when viewed from the public domain and the adjoining street frontage. As such, it cannot be said that the proposal by virtue of the minor height exceedance is incompatible with the desired future character of the surrounding properties”.

 

Officer Comment - The locality during the up-zoning was considered capable of supporting increased population within this precinct. The proposed development provides for a range of unit types and sizes to meet the demand of the public.

 

Objective (b):

“Objective (b) seeks to minimise the visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and the adjoining public domain from buildings. As detailed at Section 4.3.5.1 of the Statement of Environmental Effects, the proposal has been designed to minimise loss of privacy and is of a contemporary aesthetic that will not give rise to visual impact. The portion of the building that exceeds the building height is minor and limited to the centre of the building. The proposal is fully compliant with the building height requirements for the remainder of the building and where it fronts Lawrence Street the building appears to be of a scale that is expected at the site.

 

The non-compliant parts of the building will not in itself create any amenity related impacts due to the centralised location of the non-compliance on the building. On this basis, the proposal is consistent with objective (b)”.

 

Officer Comment - The design of the development providing the additional height centrally, ensures that a high level of amenity is achieved for the development and maintained to the surrounding residential properties.

 

Objective (c):

“There are no heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site and therefore objective (c) is met”.

 

Officer Comment – There are no heritage items in the visual catchment of this site.

 

Objective (d):

“Objective (d) seeks to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity. As discussed, the site is located at the centre of the medium density area and would have no impact upon any nearby lower density residential zones. The minor height non-compliance would have no bearing on built form or land use intensity and is therefore entirely consistent with this objective”.

 

Officer Comment - The additional height is located centrally and does not adversely impact upon the public domain or the adjoining allotments. The breach in height is for the lift overrun and communal open space infrastructure is consistent with other developments within this precinct and does not undermine this objective.

 

Objective (e):

“The site is not located within Hurstville City Centre and is therefore not applicable to the subject site”.

 

Officer Comment - The applicant’s justification is considered sound given that the underling objectives have been satisfied.

 

Objective (f):

“In relation to objective (f) the locality is undergoing a transition from low density to medium density development and therefore the existing character of the area will undergo change. The requirements of objective (f) are therefore not impacted by the proposed height non-compliance”.

 

Officer Comment - The additional height of the lift overrun and vergola above the 12m standard will not result in a visually dominant form and a scale not envisaged by the up-zoning. The additional overshadowing will fall upon itself and not cause any material impacts onto the adjoining allotments. The non-compliance with the height standard does not contribute to an unreasonable visual impact or loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

 

Objective (g):

“Due to its centralised location on the proposed building, the increased height of 1.85m to the lift overrun and shade structure will not result in any adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

The proposed development is therefore consistent with the objectives for maximum height, despite the numeric non-compliance”.

 

Officer Comment - Despite the height non-compliance of the lift overrun and the roof top communal open space infrastructure, the scale, form and intensity of the building is consistent with the intended character, scale and from of the uplift of the precinct.

 

Clause 4.6(4) also requires consideration of the relevant zone objectives. The objectives of the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone are as follows:

 

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

·     To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

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

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

 

Applicant’s Comment: “The proposal will provide a medium density residential development that provides a range of unit layouts, orientations, internal living arrangements as well as the required number of adaptable dwellings. The proposal is a well-designed and sited residential flat building that offers high levels of residential amenity and is entirely consistent with the intentions of the zone”.

 

Officer Comment - The development is considered to observe the objectives of the height development standard. The proposal is considered to positively contribute to broadening of the variety of housing types within this Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds (Clause 4.6(3)(b)

 

17.     Applicant’s Comment: “Having regard to Clause 4.6(3)(b) and the need to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, as discussed above it is considered that there is an absence of significant impacts of the proposed non-compliance on the amenity of future building occupants, on area character and on neighbouring properties. The assessment of this numerical non-compliance is guided by the decision of the NSW LEC Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 whereby Justice Pain ratified the decision of Commissioner Pearson.

 

On “planning grounds” and in order to satisfy that the proposal meets objective 1(b) of Clause 4.6 in that allowing flexibility in the particular circumstances of this development will achieve “a better outcome for and from development”, it is considered that the current proposal will facilitate greater amenity for future residents on a site that is highly suited for such purposes and in a configuration that will not detract from the existing approved developments or future anticipated development on neighbouring properties.

 

The alternative would be to remove or relocate the communal open space to ground level adjacent to private open space within the site and on adjoining sites. This would significantly reduce the recreational amenity for future occupants which would be counterproductive as there is no adverse impact created by the non-compliance.

 

An alternative relocation would reintroduce visual and acoustic privacy conflicts and greatly reduce gross floor area, meaning that the allowable density could not be realised, contrary to the zoning objectives.

The height departure relates to encroachment of the lift over run and protruding shade structure, with the remainder of the building positioned below the maximum building height limit.

 

The lift over run is a core service element of the development and is setback significantly from the Lawrence Street facade and will not be readily visible from the street level. The shading device provides necessary amenity benefits to residents using the communal area.

 

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation of the height control, particularly given that:

 

·     The development has been designed to minimise impacts where practicable on neighbouring properties and likely future adjoining properties;

 

·     Strict compliance with the building height standard would result in no material built form benefits and loss of resident amenity;

 

·     The proposed height non-compliance relates to parts of the building that will be imperceptible to the casual observer when viewed from the adjacent street frontage of from private properties;

 

·     The non-compliant sections of the building do not contribute to overshadowing or loss of privacy; and

 

·     The non-compliant sections of the building do not result in view loss

 

The desire to achieve high amenity communal open space at the rooftop (as encouraged by Council) provides clear amenity benefits for the residents of the development, but not to detriment of the amenity of adjoining residents or to area character. For Council to insist on strict compliance in this instance would require relocation of the communal space and potentially the loss of habitable floor area. This would result in an unreasonable burden on the development that is to be balanced with the impacts, or lack thereof, resulting from the non-compliance”.

 

Officer Comment - Flexibility in applying the standard is appropriate and the requisite levels of satisfaction required by the controls have been achieved in this case, given the minor variation to the lift overrun and vergola. The variation, at the highest point of the building is the lift over-run to ensure appropriate access is available to the communal rooftop area.

 

Insistence on compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary (Clause 4.6(3)(a)

 

18.     Applicant’s Comment: “Returning to Clause 4.6(3)(a), in Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ sets out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. It states, inter alia:

 

“An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.”

 

The judgement goes on to state that:

 

“The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

 

However, in Four2Five v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 the Land and Environment Court said that whether something was ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ is now addressed specifically in Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), with separate attention required to the question of whether compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary. Accordingly, while the objectives of the standard are achieved despite non-compliance with the standard, this request goes further. It seeks to demonstrate that requiring strict adherence to the standard would be ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ for reasons that are additional to mere consistency with the development standard.

 

Preston CJ in the judgement then expressed the view that there are 5 different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy, as follows (with emphasis placed on number 1 for the purposes of this Clause 4.6 variation [our underline]):

 

(1)  The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

(2)  The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

(3)  The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

(4)  The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

(5)  The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard that would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone.

 

Additionally, in an analogous context, in Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp [2011] NSWCA 308 Court of Appeal said that a requirement may be unreasonable when ‘the severity of the burden placed on the applicant is disproportionate to the consequences attributable to the proposed development’. In support of this point:

 

·     The proposed height variation will be visually imperceptible when viewed from the adjoining properties and public domain;

·     The proposed development meets the objectives of the height control and strict compliance with the height control would undermine or thwart its objectives, or the zone’s objectives (or both); and

·     The burden placed on future residents (by relocating the communal open space area to ground level adjacent to private open space) would be disproportionate to any consequences that may arise from the proposed non-compliance with the height control.

 

Given that compliance with the zone and development standard objectives is achieved and that the building complies with the overall height limit except for an overall encroachment of a lift over run and shade structure, insistence on strict compliance with the building height control is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

 

The proposal is compliant with the relevant objectives and will have no adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The proposal is therefore justified on environmental planning grounds. For the reasons above, the proposed building height variation is consistent with the requirements of Cause 4.6(3) of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

 

On this basis, the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) are satisfied.

 

The proposal will provide a residential development with superior amenity and streetscape presentation. This is achieved by well-planned and functional built form. The non-compliance relates essentially to the provision of communal open space on the roof level. This will provide significant high quality amenity (views and solar access) to the future occupants of the building with minimal impact on surrounding development. There would be no broader environmental planning benefit achieved in requiring compliance.

 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that Council permit the variation to the maximum building height development standard”.

 

Officer Comment - The applicant has provided a written variation request. A copy of this Clause 4.6 request for variation is provided for the Panel’s consideration.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000

19.     The proposed development satisfies the relevant matters for consideration for development under the regulations. 

 

20.     The consent authority is required to consider the objects in Section 1.3 of the EP&A Act when making decisions under the Act. Council has considered the objectives of the EP&A Act in the Table below and is satisfied that the proposal complies with all objects.

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

Proposal

Complies

a)   to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources

The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this objective.

Yes

b)   to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental, and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment

The proposal is accompanied by a revised BASIX Certificate which satisfies the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 and the Regulations.

Yes

c)   to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land

The proposal is considered to provide an orderly and economic development of the land given the recent up-zoning of the precinct.

Yes

d)   to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing

The proposal seeks development consent for fourteen (14) units, being a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units.

The proposal does not seek to provide or retain affordable housing.

N/A

e)   to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats

The proposal does seek the removal four (4) trees on the site. The proposal is supported by Council’s Landscape Officer; subject to conditions of consent.

Yes

f)    to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage

The proposal is not listed as a heritage item or within the immediate vicinity to a heritage item or conservation area within a Local or State Heritage register.

Yes

g)   to promote good design and amenity of the built environment

The proposal is considered to result in a reasonable design. 

Yes 

h)   to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants

The proposal is considered to satisfy the intent of this control, to ensure appropriate construction and maintenance which is supported by Council’s Building Surveyor.

Yes

i)    to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State

The Design Review Panel is a Council Panel.

This application, being the subject of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 is required to be determined by the Georges River Local Planning Panel in accordance with the Ministerial Direction.

Yes

j)    to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan (HDCP).

No submissions were received.

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

21.     Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) is detailed and discussed below. 

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

22.   This REP is applicable to the subject site and the aims of the plan are;

 

(a) 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,

(b) 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,

(c) 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,

(d) 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,

(e) (Repealed)

(f)   to provide a mechanism that assists in achieving the water quality objectives and river flow objectives agreed under the Water Reform Package.

 

Comment: The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and provisions of the Regional Environmental Plan (REP).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

23.     SEPP 55 identifies that the following is to be considered in determining a development application.

 

Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application

 

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a)    it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)    if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)    if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

(2)  Before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

(3)  The applicant for development consent must carry out the investigation required by subclause (2) and must provide a report on it to the consent authority. The consent authority may require the applicant to carry out, and provide a report on, a detailed investigation (as referred to in the contaminated land planning guidelines) if it considers that the findings of the preliminary investigation warrant such an investigation.

(4)  The land concerned is:

(a)    land that is within an investigation area,

(b)    land on which development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines is being, or is known to have been, carried out,

(c)    to the extent to which it is proposed to carry out development on it for residential, educational, recreational or child care purposes, or for the purposes of a hospital-land:

(i)     in relation to which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge) as to whether development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines has been carried out, and

(ii)    on which it would have been lawful to carry out such development during any period in respect of which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge).

 

Comment: The provisions of SEPP 55 require the consent authority to determine if the land the subject of the application is contaminated, and whether it is appropriate for the proposed development having regard to subclause (4).

 

The subject site contains an older style single storey dwelling house at 61 Lawrence Street and 63 Lawrence Street is currently vacant. A desktop review has been conducted and it is evident that both sites have been historically used for residential purposes for many decades.

 

Table 1 of the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines identifies contaminating uses that would trigger the preparation of a preliminary site investigation plan to determine if and the extent of any contamination. The uses of the site identified in Council’s records do not show any uses identified in Table 1. Council’s records also do not show any action or information relating to contamination being identified on the site.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP (Infrastructure)

24.     Comment: Clause 101 of the State Environmental Planning Policy relates to development with frontage to a classified road. Forest Road is located at the rear of the Site. This roadway is a classified arterial road, however, there is no access from the site to this roadway. As such Clause 101 is not applicable in this case. Clause 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) relates to the assessment and consideration of road noise or vibration on non-road development.

 

This clause is applicable to developments that are “on land in or adjacent to the road corridor for a freeway, a tollway or a transitway or any other road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles”.  The RMS website includes traffic volumes at various locations.

 

The corner of Forest Road and Stoney Creek Road which is noticeably 300m to the east of the site records traffic volumes in excess of 30,000 vehicles daily. The subject site does not address Forest Road and is screened and setback from the roadway by an existing vegetated verge however an acoustic report was prepared and accompanies the application.

 

In accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy a condition is included to ensure that the recommendations of the acoustic report are integrated into the construction of the building and a condition is included to ensure that “if the development is for the purposes of residential use, 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 10pm and 7 am,

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

 

The development will be constructed to satisfy the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy.

 

The recommendations within the acoustic report relate to installing appropriate double glazing to windows, insulation, minimum wall thicknesses being incorporated etc.

 

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

 

25.     Comment: The extent to which the proposed development complies with the controls and principles in the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (State Environmental Planning Policy 65) and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is detailed and discussed in the tables below.

 

Application of SEPP 65

 

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3 - Definitions

Complies with definition of “Residential Apartment Development” (RAD)

 

Complies with definition

Yes

4 - Application of Policy

Development involves the erection of a new RFB, substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of a RFB or conversion of an existing building into a RFB

Comprises the erection of a new residential flat building

Yes

50(1a) – Development Applications

Design verification statement provided by qualified designer

 

Registered Architect Name and Registration No.

Design Verification Statement provided by Registered Architect Mr. Nickolas Lycenko

(Registration No.3010)

Yes

       

Part 2 Design Quality Principles under the SEPP

 

26.     The original proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) on 1 March 2018 and the Panel was critical of the design when assessed it against the nine (9) Design Quality Principles and ADG. The Design Review Panel (DRP) supported the application subject to amendments which are identified below.  The Design Review Panel (DRP)  concluded the meeting stating that the proposed application satisfies the design quality principles contained in State Environmental Planning Policy 65.

 

The table below highlights the comments in italics which are the original Design Review Panel (DRP)  comments.

 

Clause

DRP Panel comments

Complies

1 – Context and neighbourhood character

The context is one of evolving medium-density 3-4 storey apartment buildings, some on substantially sloping sites. The site falls 3m from the rear to the front (and the rear boundary is approximately 2m below Forest Road). There are three (3) substantial trees to the rear of the property which are on public land which make a positive contribution to the character of site and neighbourhood.

Yes, contextually the development is consistent with the changing nature of the streetscape and the desired future character of this precinct.

 

2 – Built form and scale

Built form is appropriate for the evolving context and complies with the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan controls.

Yes

3 - Density

Appropriate

Yes

4 – Sustainability

Rainwater storage must be provided. The volume of storage must be sufficient to irrigate the soft landscape areas for a number of weeks without rain. Storage must be located under hardstand or out of deep soil areas.

Yes, the proposed development is supported by a rainwater tank. Council’s Land Development Engineers have reviewed the drainage design and have requested design changes prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate (CC).

5 - Landscape

The large areas of paved surfaces at ground level should be broken up with planters and areas of soft landscape to create human-scale spaces suitable for multiple uses.

 

The communal open space on the rooftop should, likewise, be designed with a variety of distinct components so as to be amenable for small groups and individuals rather than large gatherings only. A small amenities room should be included.

 

The design must conserve the existing street and verge trees on Lawrence Street and Forest Road.

 

A more attractive and convenient pedestrian access to the front of the site could be provided by deleting the stairs and designing an attractive, level landscaped pathway from the north east corner of the site to the front door.

 

Direct ground floor access should be provided to Unit G.01 from Lawrence Street.

 

The tree protection zones of trees to be retained must be identified, shown on plan and respected in the design of all disciplines including civil engineering, architecture and landscape architecture.

Yes, the proposed development is supported by Council’s Tree Management Officer; with conditions of consent.

6 - Amenity

Satisfactory

Yes

7 – Safety

Acceptable

Yes

8–Housing diversity and social interaction

Acceptable

Yes

9 - Aesthetics

Further consideration should be given to the vertical blades on the street façade to resolve outlook, privacy and wind protection. Although as proposed they would be acceptable in appearance, their functional value is problematic.

Yes – the amendments are considered acceptable;

27.     Design Review Panel Recommendation

 

The final comments from the Design Review Panel stated “The Panel supports the application subject to the issues raised above being resolved. The application satisfies the design quality principles contained in SEPP 65”

 

The applicant provided amended plans addressing the above recommendations which were submitted to Council on 26 March 2018.

 

28.     Clause 30 – Consideration of Apartment Design Guide

 

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

2E – Building depth

12-18m

 

13.85m

Yes

2G – Street setbacks

Align street setbacks with building use. For example in mixed use buildings a zero street setback is appropriate

The proposal is forward of the existing building alignment of the adjoining properties, at present they are existing housing stock that have not been developed. HDCP suggests a front setback of 6m. The proposal is setback between 5.8m to 6m.

 

Yes; the proposed development will be consistent with other approved and constructed residential flat buildings within the precinct.

3D-Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site.

 

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

-Where developments are unable to achieve the design criteria, such as on small lots, sites within business zones, or in a dense urban area, they should:

• provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room

• provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments

 

 

• demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct

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

Site Area: 1,201.7sqm

 

Required: 300.4sqm.

 

 

Provided: 425sqm and 35.4%.

 

 

 

The subject allotment is not located within a business zone; the proposal is located within an established medium density residential area.

 

A communal rooftop area is provided as open space.

 

 

Large balconies are provided on the southern and eastern facades of the proposed development. 

 

A Public recreational area zoned RE1 is provided directly south of the site; an access gate is provided for residents to access the recreational area on the southern side of the site. No approval has been granted for this access by Council as a result this is to be deleted via a condition.

 

The communal open space is provided in the form of a roof terrace. This space receives good access to sunlight all year round. A shade structure is provided over part of the roof terrace so that it is useable in all weather conditions.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

3E- Deep Soil Zones

 

 

1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum

requirements:

 

 

-Where site area is between 650sqm and 1500sqm = 3m minimum dimension

 

Deep soil = 7%

 

The site area is 1,207.1sqm therefore a deep soil zone equating to 7% of the site area is required.

 

296.71sqm (24.69%) of the site is provided as deep soil landscaped area and the proposed deep soil area will allow for and support healthy plant and tree growth.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

3F- Visual Privacy

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

 

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

 

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

 

Habitable rooms and balconies = 6m

 

(12m separation distance)

 

Non-habitable rooms = 3m

 

(6m separation distance)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side (west)

The proposal has a setback of 4.5m-6m to the western side boundary resulting in variation to the ADG of 1.5m for part of the elevation.

 

Side (east)

The proposal has a 5.64m-6.9m setback for the eastern side boundary with the majority of the side setback 6m and therefore seeks to vary the ADG standard by 0.36m for part of the elevation.

 

Rear (south)

The proposal provides a setback of between 5m-6.2m to the rear boundary and therefore seeks to vary the ADG standard by 1m for part of the elevation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On merit – addressed in detail below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On merit – addressed in detail below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On merit – addressed in detail below.

3H-Vehicle Access

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

The vehicular driveway is located along the western side of the Site. A driveway width of 6m is proposed. The driveway grade is compliant with AS2890.1.

Yes

3J- Access and parking

1. For development in the following locations:

 

On sites that are within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area;

 

 

- The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant Council, whichever is less

 

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

 

 

 

The site is not within 800mm of a train station or light rail stop so Council’s DCP provisions for Car Parking are applicable.

 

A detailed assessment in conjunction with the HDCP is provided below.

 

Twenty-two (22) car parking spaces are required; and the proposed application proposes twenty-two (22) car parking spaces;

 

The proposal is therefore compliant with this control.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

4A- Solar Access

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

 

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

78.5% (11 of the 14) units comply.

Units 1 – 3 on the lower ground floor do not achieve this criterion.

 

 

 

 

 

7% (1 apartment) doesn’t receive the minimum amount of solar access.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4B- Natural Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 out of 14 units (86%) are designed and configured to permit natural cross ventilation. Specifically, window openings are provided on multiple elevations of each apartment to allow for the free movement of air through internal spaces.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4C – Ceiling Heights

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

Habitable rooms  = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m

As per the submitted ‘Section Plans’ the proposed development provides floor to ceiling heights of 2.7m.

Yes

4D-Apartment size and layout

Apartments are required to have the following

minimum internal areas:

 

1 bedroom = 50sqm

2 bedroom = 70sqm

3 bedroom = 90sqm

 

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

 

 

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not

less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 – bed = 50sqm.

2 – bed = 75.08sqm.

3 – bed = 95.60sqm.

All units comply with the minimum internal areas. Where an additional bathroom is proposed an extra 5sqm has been provided to the dwelling.

 

 

Within prescribed range.

 

All windows meet the requirements of the NCC/BCA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4D-Apartment rooms, location and sizes

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and

kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Rooms are appropriately proportioned to comply with the numeric requirements of the ADG and to permit entry of sunlight and natural ventilation throughout habitable spaces.

 

Each apartment has an open plan living, dining and kitchen area and the depth of these spaces is varied.

 

Within prescribed range.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

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

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m

(excluding wardrobe space)

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

-3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom

- 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments

are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts

The proposed room areas comply with the relevant requirements.

 

 

 

 

Each bedroom has a minimum dimension of 3m.

 

 

 

Yes all apartments are compliant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No cross over or cross through apartments are proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4E-Private Open Space and balconies

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

-   1 bedroom = 8sqm/2m depth

 

 

-   2 bedroom = 10sqm/2m depth

 

 

-   3+ bedroom = 12sqm/2.4m depth

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

The courtyard for the 1 bedroom apartment exceeds 2m in depth and 8sqm.

All 2 bedroom apartment balconies exceed 2m in depth and 10sqm.

All 3 bedroom apartment balconies exceed 2m in depth and 12sqm.

 

Noted and used as part of the calculations.

 

 

 

The units provided at ground level have generous terraces and landscaped private open space exceeding the minimum requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

4F-Circulation spaces

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation

core on a single level is eight

A maximum of 5 apartments off a single circulation space is provided.

Yes

 

4G- Storage

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and

bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

 

1 bedroom - 6m³

2 bedroom - 8m³

3 bedroom - 10m³

All units have internal storage solutions in the form of cupboards, WIR and internal laundry’s. The basement also includes allocated self-contained storage cages.

Yes

4K – Apartment Mix

A variety of apartment types is provided

4 x 3 bedroom apartments

(28%)

8 x 2 bedroom apartments

(57%)

2 x 1 bedroom apartments

(14%)

Yes

 

Appropriate mix of unit types is proposed.

4M - Facades

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

The façade is well articulated and varied through the use of different materials and finishes.

Yes

4N- Roof Design

Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street.

 

Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Incorporates sustainability features.

Roof design is appropriate and integrated as part of the design of the development.

 

The provision of a large vergola at the roof level is considered compact and appropriate.

Yes

4O-Landscape Design

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

The amount of landscaped area is considered satisfactory.

Yes

4P-Planting on structures

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

Landscaping of the site which includes planting on structures has been designed by a qualified landscape architect with details provided on species and soil depth.

 

The Landscape Plan details the proposed planting arrangement and includes a series of larger trees and vegetation within the deep soil zones and retains some of the mature trees at the rear.

Yes

4Q-Universal Design

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

Design and mix of apartments allows for different occupants with varying lifestyles from singles to families.

Yes

4R-Adaptive Reuse

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

The proposed layouts and orientation of apartments allow for flexibility and the ability to facilitate a future adapted reuse.

Yes

4U- Energy Efficiency

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

Amended proposal incorporates an amended and compliant BASIX Certificate, with the commitments in the design to provide appropriate energy efficiency features.

Yes

4V-Water Management and Conservation

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

The development relies on an OSD basin/pump out tank with an overflow pit discharging to Lawrence Street.

Yes

4W-Waste Management

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

Waste facilities are provided which are accessible to all residents. The bins are to be stored within a separate bin storage room in the basement adjacent to the meter room.

Yes

4X-Building Maintenance

Building maintenance – building design provides protection form weathering, enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost

The design incorporates a mix of external finishes that require minimal maintenance such as face brick, timber and pre-fabricated coloured panels.

Yes

29.     Justification for Clause 30 – Consideration of Apartment Design Guide in relation to Part 3F- Visual Privacy

 

Comment: The objective of the Design Criteria relating to visual privacy is as follows:

 

“Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy”.

 

30.     In relation to the western side setback, the building length is 25.7m. The setback proposed ranges from a compliant 6m at the front and rear portion of the building (81.32% of elevation) and a non-compliant 4.5m towards the front portion of the elevation (18.68% of elevation). The proposed articulated elevation is depicted in Figure 8, where the non-compliance is highlighted orange.

 

Figure 8: Variation to setback on the western elevation.

 

The non-compliant portion of the building relates to bedrooms with habitable room windows and balconies complying with the setback control. In order to address this non-compliance, the openings to these rooms are highlight windows with sill heights of 2.0m. This prevents the ability to overlook the western allotment which currently contains an attached 2 storey dual occupancy.

 

The allotment to the west is zoned R3 also with a 12m height limit consistent with the subject site. The non-compliant setback has been mitigated though openings will not result in a reduced development potential for the western allotment. It is acknowledged that these bedrooms include an ensuite; as a result there is scope to remove this ensuite and relocate the bedroom further from the western boundary to achieve compliance with the setback control.

 

The setback non-compliance does not result in a significant increase in shadow cast onto the western allotment given the site orientation.

 

31.     In relation to the eastern side setback, the building length is 25.2m and the setback proposed ranges from 5.64m to 6.9m along the length of the elevation. The proposed articulated elevation is depicted in Figure 9, where the non-compliance is highlighted orange.

 

Figure 9: Variation to setback on the eastern elevation.

 

The non-compliance along this elevation is to bedrooms. The encroachment is to part of the wall and is in an area where the site does narrow. The area where the encroachment occurs contains highlight windows to prevent the overlooking of the development site to the east. It is also acknowledged that this bedroom is serviced by an ensuite, if this was to be removed from the proposal the bedroom floor area at leach level could be reoriented with the development to set further from the eastern boundary achieving a compliant side setback.

 

It is further acknowledged the reduced setback will not result in a significant increase in overshadowing therefore not impacting the development potential of the allotment adjoining or adversely impact the amenity of the residential flat building approved in the site via DA2016/0224 on 3 May 2019, see image below.

 

 

Figure 10: Approved street elevation of 65-67 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

 

Of note Council has received DA2019/0340 on 8 August 2019 seeking a new residential flat building design for 65-67 Lawrence Street Peakhurst. Below is the street elevation and montage of the new design.

 

Figure 11: Northern elevation of the new development proposed on 65-67 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

 

Figure 12: Montage of the new development proposed on 65-67 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

 

32.     In relation to the southern rear setback, the building length is 18.7m and the setback proposed ranges from 5m to 6.2m along the length of the elevation. The proposed articulated elevation is depicted in Figure 10 below, where non-compliances are highlighted orange.

 

Figure 13: Variation to setback on the southern elevation.

 

The non-compliances along this elevation are to bedrooms, bathrooms and balconies. The rear boundary of the site adjoins land zoned Public Recreation which sits between the subject site and Forest Road. The non-compliances are minor in the context of the development and not result in any adverse impact onto the allotments adjoining. Given the proposed building orientation and relationship to public land, there will not be any privacy impacts resulting from these specific non-compliances.

 

Despite not achieving strict compliance with the setback requirements to the side boundaries, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of the control (being to maintain privacy whilst not undermining solar access) as detailed below:

 

·     In relation to the side setback non-compliances the windows within the reduced setback are high level windows with a sill height of at least 2m to bedrooms;

 

·     In terms of visual privacy within the site, adequate privacy measures have been incorporated into the detailed design, the layout of the apartments, and dimensions and orientation of the windows and balconies, such that there will be an acceptable level of internal overlooking within the site;

 

·     The proposed development complies with the maximum permitted density at the site and results in building height variation at the centre of the building to the lift overrun and shade structure to the communal open space. The proposal represents an efficient allocation of the permitted density at the site;

 

·     The trafficable area of the communal open space area located on the roof top level is setback significantly as a result of the surrounding planter and increased upper setback; and

 

The commentary from the Panel in relation to reduced setbacks has also raised issues of restricting development on the adjoining allotment and the potential loss of solar access which is directly resulting from the reduced setbacks;

 

The proposal is therefore acceptable as it achieves the objectives of the setback control and provides for good levels of internal and external amenity.

 

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

 

The key objectives of this policy are;

 

(a)  to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and

(b)  to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

 

Comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the application and concurs with the submitted Landscape Plan; prepared by Zenith Landscape Design, the application seeks the removal of four (4) trees, which are located within the middle of the site (the proposed trees set for removal are not considered endangered or native) the proposed application is considered to satisfy the provisions of the policy. A condition of consent will be implemented to ensure that Council’s Street trees located on Lawrence Street and Forest Road will be retained and protected during construction.

 

34.     Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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.

 

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

 

35.     Draft Remediation SEPP

 

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;

 

Comment: The proposal was considered acceptable considering that the site(s) are not identified as contaminated or affected by acid sulphate soils. In this regard, consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP; deeming the application as satisfactory.

 

36.     Development Control Plans

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1. The extent to which the proposed development complies with the provisions of this DCP are outlined in the table below.

 

Development

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.1 Vehicle Access and Parking

DS1.5 Refer to AS 2890.1 2004 and AS2890.2 Part 2 for the design and layout of parking facilities. DS1.6

 

Council does not encourage, but may consider stacked parking for parking spaces in a controlled parking situation which:

a. allows no more than two cars in the stacked parking arrangement;

b. is likely to maintain a very low turnover; or

c. is able to function easily within the management of the site’s future operation

 

A designated car washing area (which may also be a designated visitor car space) is required for service stations and residential developments of four or more dwellings.

Turning and manoeuvring into and out of car spaces and isle widths are in accordance with Australian Standards.

 

There are no stacked parking spaces proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A car wash bay has been provided, within the proposed basement car parking area – visitor space 4.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Numerical parking controls

Residential Accommodation

Dwelling

(1-2 bedrooms):

1 space per dwelling

Dwelling (3 bedrooms and over):

2 spaces per dwelling Visitor spaces:

1 space per 4 dwellings (or part thereof)

 

Note: Different rates may apply where within 800m of a railway station in accordance with the Apartment Design Guide and the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development (2002)

 

2 x 1 bedroom = 2 spaces

8 x 2 bedroom = 8 spaces

4 x 3 bedroom = 8 spaces

Total required = 18 spaces

Visitor spaces required 14/4 = 3.5 spaces

 

Subtotal required = min 22 spaces (visitor space 4 doubles as a car wash bay)

 

Provided = 22 residential spaces including 4 visitor spaces.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

3.3 Access and Mobility

In developments containing five or more dwellings, a minimum of one adaptable dwelling, designed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards must be provided for every ten dwellings or part thereof.

 

Access for all persons through the principal entrance and access to any common laundry, kitchen, sanitary or other common facilities in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

Apartment Ground 0-05 and First Floor 1-05 are nominated as adaptable apartments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general access through the building for people with a disability has been catered for and lift access has been provided to all levels including the roof communal open space.

Yes

 

 

 

3.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Ensures that the way in which the site, and the buildings within the site, are laid out enhance security and feelings of safety. 

 

Ensures that private and public spaces are clearly delineated

 

Ensures that the design of the development allows for natural surveillance to and from the street and between individual dwellings or commercial units within the site

The design of the building generally complies with the objectives and controls.

Yes

3.5 Landscaping

Site layout and design, including buildings, structures and hardstand, ensures the long term retention and health of existing significant trees and vegetation.

 

Where significant trees or vegetation are required to be removed to allow for site development, they are to be replaced with the same or similar species achieving the same coverage at maturity.

The landscaping arrangement is considered to be satisfactory with a reasonable amount of open space and the provision of deep soil areas, trees, plants and denser vegetation has been catered for and assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer; in which the application was deemed as satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

 

Yes

3.6 Public Domain

Development contributes to the creation of attractive, comfortable and safe streets that comprise consistent and high quality paving, street furniture and street tree plantings.

The front façade and general scale of the building is considered to be an acceptable and reasonable design response for this site.

Yes – will be consistent with the character and form of development in the street.

3.7 Stormwater

A development application is supported by a concept stormwater management plan showing how surface and roof waters are to be discharged by gravity to the street or easement and the size of all pipes.

 

Council’s Engineers have reviewed the proposed drainage and stormwater arrangement and have raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

Yes

4.1 Residential Flat Buildings

 

Site Frontage

 

Isolation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excavation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front Setback

 

 

 

 

Landscaping

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noise

 

 

 

 

 

Streetscape

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fencing

 

 

 

 

Site Facilities

 

 

 

 

Min street frontage 24m

 

Where an application for a residential flat building will result in the creation of an isolated site, the applicant must show that reasonable efforts have been made to amalgamate the site. Where this has not been achieved, it must be shown that the isolated site is capable of accommodating a suitable development in the future.

 

In accordance with Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and 3 storeys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The maximum excavation for any building’s finished ground floor level facing a public street is 0.5m below natural ground level.

 

 

 

 

The minimum setback to a primary or secondary street is 6m.

 

 

Minimum amount of landscaped area of open space is 20% of the Site area

 

Min dimension of landscaped open space is 2m

 

 

Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 June.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Windows of adjacent dwellings are separated by a distance of at least 3m

 

 

Development creates a high quality interface between the public and private domain

 

 

 

 

 

Provides appropriate levels of privacy, security and noise attenuation.

 

Development provides space for the storage of recyclable goods, either in the curtilage of each dwelling or in a central storage area in larger developments.

 

 

 

 

Street frontage 30.48m

 

Adjoining the site to the left (No. 59 and 59A) is a dual-occupancy development and adjoining the site to the right (No.63-65) is an approved 3-4 storey residential flat building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A variation is requested to the 12m height control and Clause 4.6 Statement submitted and assessed above.

 

The building is proposed to be three (3) storeys.

 

Excavation exceeds the minimum controls but this is an anticipated design response given the site and the precedent that has been established for new medium density development in the street and the accommodation of vehicles within a basement.

 

Ground Floor = 5.22m - 6.2m. There is a slight encroachment within the front courtyards.

 

Landscaped open space equates to 24.69% of the site.

The minimum dimensions at the front are 4.8m and rear 6m in width. The rear is not a secondary street as it is separated by RE1 zoned land.

 

Complies.

 

Due to the favourable orientation of the site, the proposal results in only minor shadow impacts as detailed on the shadow diagrams submitted with the application.

 

The submitted architectural plans detail shadows cast by the proposal during mid-winter, 22 March and September and 22 December. The proposal complies with the above DCP requirement as shadows cast at 9.00am are limited to the rear portion of the subject site and the rear portion of the adjoining dwelling to the west and the associated rear yard.

 

By 12 noon, the shadow has moved east and is confined to the subject site, the adjacent public recreation space and the road reserve immediately to the rear of the subject site.

 

At 3pm the shadow again falls within the subject site and partly over the rear yard of the property to the east. The extent of overshadowing is minor and does not impact upon windows of main living areas or adjoining principal private open spaces. The proposal therefore achieves the numerical requirements of the DCP.

 

Complies

 

Windows of adjacent dwellings are separated by a distance of at least 3m.

 

The proposal provides opportunities for passive casual surveillance of the public domain from main living areas and principal private open space through the use of large transparent windows and other openings.

 

Appropriate fencing detail has been provided on the submitted architectural plans.

 

 

The bin storage area accommodates bins for recycling.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes – Applicant has satisfied DCP provisions in relation to site isolation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but the Clause 4.6 variation is considered acceptable and worthy of support.

 

 

Reads as a 3 storey building from the street and rear as it is appropriately stepped down into the site.

 

On merit – addressed in detail below.

 

 

This control is superseded by the SEPP.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

37.     Front Setback Variation

 

PC6 of the DCP requires a 6m front setback and provides the following objectives to the setback control.

 

·     Are compatible with predominant patterns of buildings and gardens that define the existing and desired character of the neighbourhood.

·     Engage with and activate the street.

·     Reduce the appearance of building bulk.

·     Enable adequate solar access to the main living areas and principal private open space.

·     Facilitate penetration of desirable natural breezes.

·     Facilitate view sharing.

·     Minimise noise transmission.

 

As such this variation to the front setback will not be at odds with the streetscape and will maintain consistency with the above stated objectives in that:

 

·     Existing more recently constructed buildings on the southern side of Lawrence Street are constructed with a reduced front setback that typically ranges from 4.5m to 6m. The proposal will therefore be consistent with the emerging street setback;

·     The site frontage will be landscaped and this will assist with softening the appearance of the building within the street and creating a landscaped setting;

·     The proposed front setback will not result in any material adverse impacts on the adjoining properties;

·     The street is activated by the introduction of primary living space with orientation to the Lawrence Street, providing excellent passive surveillance opportunities;

·     The private open space and living areas of all street fronting units will receive uninterrupted solar access. Similarly, all street fronting units are naturally cross ventilated; and

·     The proposed setback encroachment is minor and does not reduce access to views nor will it impact on noise transmission.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

38.     The proposed development is unlikely to generate adverse impacts on the natural environment.

Built Environment

39.     The proposed development is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on the built environment

Social Impact

40.     The proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts given the design and residential use of the site.

Economic Impact

41.     The proposed development is unlikely to generate adverse economic impacts given the residential nature of the development.

Suitability of the site

42.     It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and density that is suitable for the site and is in accordance with the desired future character of development within Lawrence Street and the locality.

Public Interest

43.     The proposal is considered to be in the public interest for the reasons contained within this report.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

44.      The application was notified/advertised to residents/owners on the 06 December 2017 to 05 January 2018. No submissions were received by Council, during the notification/advertising period.

 

Development Contributions

45.      The proposed development is the subject of Contribution(s). Contribution(s) have been levied on the subject development pursuant to the provisions of the Georges River Council - Contributions Plan.

 

Contribution(s) have been levied on the subject development by way of condition of consent, pursuant to the provisions of the Georges River Council - Contributions Plan with a total fee to paid – prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate of $182,409.60.

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

46.     Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection in relation to the stormwater drainage design subject to conditions of consent which are included in the recommended conditions below.

 

47.     Waste Management Officer

Council’s Waste Management Officer examined the application and has raised no objection to the development.

 

48.     Traffic Engineer

Council’s Traffic Engineer has examined the application and has raised no objection to the development.

 

49.     Landscape and Tree Management Officer

Council’s Landscape and Tree Management Officer has raised no objection subject to conditions which are included in the recommended conditions below.

50.     Building Officer

Council’s Surveyor has raised no objection subject to conditions which are included in the recommended conditions below.

 

CONCLUSION

51.     This application has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1)(a) and 4.15(3) 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 seeks consent for lot consolidation, demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction a three (3) storey residential flat building containing fourteen (14) residential apartments and one (1) basement level accommodating twenty-two (22) parking spaces and associated landscaping works.

 

In summary, the development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning instruments and development control plans. Following a detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No DA2017/0584 should be approved subject to the imposition of Conditions.

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS

 

52.     The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·     The proposal results in a built form which is consistent with the envisaged desired character of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone.

·     The proposal adopts a built form which is compatible with the immediate residential character.

·     The proposal adopts a design which provides good levels of occupant amenity.

 

DETERMINATION

 

THAT Pursuant to Section 4.16(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Georges River Local Planning Panel determine DA2017/0584 proposing lot consolidation, demolition of all structures, tree removal and the construction a three (3) storey residential flat building containing fourteen (14) residential apartments and one (1) basement level accommodating twenty-two (22) parking spaces and associated landscaping works on Lot 248, DP 36317, and Lot 249, DP 36317, and known as 61 and 63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst, by way of approval subject to the conditions referenced below.

               

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

 

SCHEDULE A

 

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 Analysis Plan

DA 01

17/10/2017

A

Cornerstone Design

Basement Plan

DA 02

19/08/2019

B

Cornerstone Design

Site / Ground Floor Plan

DA 03

12/03/2018

C

Cornerstone Design

First Floor Plan

DA 04

12/03/2018

C

Cornerstone Design

Second Floor Plan

DA 05

17/10/2017

A

Cornerstone Design

Rooftop Plan & Roof Plan

DA 06

12/03/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Elevation – North and East

DA 07

12/03/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Elevations – West and South

DA 08

12/03/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Sections A-A Streetscape Elevation

DA 09

12/03/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Schedule of Colours and Materials

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cornerstone Design

Drainage Cover Plan

A7231

06/10/2017

B

Alpha Engineering and Development

Sediment and Erosion Control Plan

A7231-SW01

06/10/2017

B

Alpha Engineering and Development

Basement Drainage Plan

A7231-SW02

13/03/2018

C

Alpha Engineering and Development

Ground Floor Drainage Plan

A7231-SW03

13/03/2018

C

Alpha Engineering and Development

OSD Basin Plan

A7231-SW04

13/03/2018

C

Alpha Engineering and Development

Survey Plan

178317

08/06/2017

N/A

S.J. Surveying Services Pty Ltd

Existing Tree Plan

17-3550 LO3

19/03/2018

N/A

Zenith Landscape Designs

Ground Floor Plan

17-3550 LO1

19/03/2018

N/A

Zenith Landscape Designs

Roof Top Plan

17-3550 LO2

19/03/2018

N/A

Zenith Landscape Designs

Waste Management Plan – Construction Stage

N/A

Undated

N/A

Cornerstone Design

Waste Management Plan – Demolition Stage

N/A

Undated

N/A

Cornerstone Design

Waste Management Plan – Ongoing Waste

N/A

Undated

N/A

Cornerstone Design

Statement of Compliance Access for people with a disability report

N/A

27/09/2017

N/A

Accessible Building Solutions

Road Traffic Noise Assessment

N/A

November 2017

N/A

Noise and Sound Services

 

Section B - Separate Approval Required Under Other Legislation

 

2.       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;

c.   Erecting a structure or carrying out work;

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

e.   Pumping concrete from a public road;

f.    Pumping water from the site into the public road;

g.   Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

h.   Establishing a “works zone”;

i.    Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (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.

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 Certifier 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.

 

3.       Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council 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.

 

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

 

The following information is to be submitted with a Hoarding Application under s68 of the Local Government Act and s138 of the Roads Act 1993:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Section C - Requirements of other Government Authorities

 

5.     Sydney Water – Tap in TM - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Tap inTM 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 inTM agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

6.     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.

 

7.     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.

 

Section D      Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

 

8.       Amended Architectural Plans - Amended architectural plans are to be submitted to the PCA, prior to the release of any Construction Certificate, clearly identifying the following:

 

a)   Deletion of the ‘Access Gate(s)’ on the southern side of the allotment; as identified on the approved Landscape and Site Plan; Access cannot be granted to the RE1 - Zoned Land, unless approval from Council’s Property Team has been lodged and approved.

 

9.       Electrical Infrastructure – Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate documentary evidence is to be provided to the PCA demonstrating approval has been granted by the energy provider to the relocation of the electricity power pole to accommodate the proposed driveway. A plan showing the location of the relocated power pole is to be provided. The relocation of this infrastructure is to be at the expense of the developer.

 

10.      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.

 

11.      SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement – A design verification statement, prepared by a qualified designer, shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design quality principles set out under Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

12.      Use of rooftop open space

A Plan of Management (POM) for use of the roof top open space must be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager Development and Building.

The POM must outline the:

(i)   Hours of use of the rooftop deck are not to be used between the hours of 10pm and 8am;

(ii)   Maximum number of users at any one time (suggest 10);

(iii)  Provisions for no amplified music to be played; and

(iv) Identify any other measures to ensure that the amenity of persons within the development and in nearby existing and future developments is maintained.

The approval of the POM shall be incorporated into the Owners Corporation by-laws in any future Strata subdivision.

Written evidence of the approval of the POM by Council’s Manager Development and Building is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

13.      Access for Persons with a Disability - Access for persons with disabilities must be provided throughout the site, including to all common areas, lobby areas and all service areas of the development 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.

 

In regards to the above, pedestrian access throughout basement levels shall be highlighted/line marked and sign posted to safeguard egress.

 

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

 

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

 

15.      Slip Resistance - All pedestrian surfaces in areas such as foyers, public corridors/hallways, stairs and ramps as well as floor surfaces in the wet rooms in any commercial/retail/residential units 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, in wet or dry conditions, 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.

 

16.      Fire and Rescue NSW - Building - Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the applicant may be required, under Clause 144 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation, 2000 to seek written comment from FR NSW about the location of water storage tanks, construction of hydrant/booster pump and valve rooms, and any Fire Engineered Solution developed to meet the performance requirements under the Category 2 Fire Safety Provisions.

 

The applicant is also advised to seek written advice from FR NSW on the location and construction of the proposed Fire Control Centre Facility and location and installation of the sites Fire Indicator / mimic Panels (if required).

 

17.      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).

 

18.      Drainage/Stormwater Design Changes - The following design changes are required and are to be incorporated into the plans to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.

(a) The submitted concept hydraulic plan shall be amended to include the reconstruction of Council’s existing gully pit directly in front of the development site. The reconstructed pit is to conform to Council’s standard drawing for a kerb inlet pit with grates and 2.4m (min.) lintel and will be modified at full cost to the developer.

(b) The invert level of the outlet pipeline from the receiving gully pit is to be confirmed by the Hydraulic Engineer and included in the Ground Floor Drainage Plan Drawing A7231-SW03. REV C of 13/3/’18.

These design changes are to be incorporated into the Detailed Hydraulic Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate Application.

 

19.      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 the upper level of Council’s stormwater pipe located under the kerb and gutter by constructing a gully pit with 2400 mm lintel, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2003 (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.

 

20.      Stormwater Systems with Basement   

(a)  The underground basement car park and all other stormwater must drain by gravity to:

i.  the upper level of the existing gully pit (to be reconstructed) located  directly in front of the development site.

The design of the proposed drainage system must be prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

 

21.      Protection of basement from inundation of stormwater waters

(b) Alignment levels across the site are to be acquired from Council and compared to the ‘water surface level’ (as determined by a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering) in the street gutter during a 1:100yr ARI storm event. A minimum freeboard of 200mm is to exist between the gutter water surface level and corresponding vehicle crossing/internal driveway crest level to provide protection to the underground basement from possible inundation from surface waters.

(c) Driveway retaining walls are to be constructed to levels that provide protection of the underground basement from the inundation of surface waters in a 1:100yr ARI storm event.

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.

22. 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.

 

23.      Detailed Stormwater Drainage Design

 

The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan and drainage calculations (including a Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis) must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

24.      Damage Deposit – Major Works - 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: $1900.00.

 

(b)  Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee (for two inspections) 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.

 

25.      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 S94 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

$1900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$155.00

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 - Residential (Community Facilities)

$22,601.84

 

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 - Residential (Open Space, Recreation, Public Domain)

$159,807.76

Total Contributions

$182,409.60

 

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 94 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 94A contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94A 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 94 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.

 

26.      Acoustic Requirements - The proposed use and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended) and Regulations.

 

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 LAeq, 15 min in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

 

The acoustic report must also ensure 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.”

 

The recommendations suggested in the Acoustic Report submitted with the application shall be included in the Construction Certificate Plans.

 

27.      Landscape Plans - All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by Zenith Landscape Design, reference numbers – 17 – 3550 L01 – L03, dated 22/09/17. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity.

 

28.      General Landscape Requirements

 

a)  The proposed tree and plant species, pot/ bag size and quantities of plants shall be in accordance with the proposed plant schedule upon the landscape plan. If plant species, pot/ bag size and quantities cannot be sourced, Council shall be contacted for alternatives.

 

b)  The eleven (11) Trees proposed upon the approved landscape plan shall comply with NATSPEC Specifying Trees: a guide to assessment of tree quality (2003), and be planted and maintained in accordance with Councils standard specification.

 

29.      Tree Protection and Retention - The following trees shall be retained and protected:

 

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

Fencing distance from trunk

T1 – Lophostemon confertus

Council street tree

7.0 meters radially without blocking footpath

T2 – Lophostemon confertus

Council street tree

7.0 meters radially without blocking footpath

T7 – Tristaniopsis laurina

65 Lawrence St Peakhurst

4 metres radially

T8 – Jacaranda mimosifolia

65 Lawrence St Peakhurst

2.5 metres radially

T9 – Eucalypt Spp

RMS Road frontage, back fence

7.0 metres radially

T10 - Eucalypt Spp

RMS Road frontage, back fence

9.5 metres radially

T11, Eucalypt Spp

RMS Road frontage, back fence

9.5 metres radially

 

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

 

General Tree Protection Measures – the following measures are to be adhered to;

 

(a)  All trees to be retained shall be protected before 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 who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current financial member of Arboriculture  Australia – AA and or Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists – IACA.

(d)  The Project Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of excavation, demolition and construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone of each tree.

(e)  Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, a protective fence consisting of 2.4 x 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence shall be used. 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 and regularly to minimise the effects of construction works.

(g)  No building products/ materials or services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree/s 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 tree to be retained – the following measures are to be adhered to;

a)   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.

 

b)   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.

 

c)   Tree Protection Zone around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes, building product / materials stored 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.

 

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).

 

30.      Tree Removal & Replacement  - Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees as illustrated, using reference locations ONLY

 

Tree Species

Number of trees

Location

T3 – Pittosporum undulatum

X1

Front middle of site

T4 – Tibouchina granulosa

X1

Front middle of site

T5 – Cypress pine

X1

Front middle of site

T6 – Brachychiton acerifolius

X1

Middle of site

As per landscape plan – 17- 3550 L03 (page 3)

 

General Tree Removal Requirements

(a)  All tree removal shall be carried out by a minimum certificate Level 3, Licenced and insured 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.

 

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.

 

31.      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 that shall 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.

 

32.      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).

 

33.      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)

 

(c) All clean water runoff is diverted around cleared or exposed areas

 

(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.

 

34.    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.

(c)  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).

(d) The underground basement car park must pump to and all other stormwater must drain by gravity to the OSD system.

(e) The construction of the building and driveway shall be designed to protect the underground basement from possible inundation by surface waters. The crest of the driveway shall be set least 150 mm above the top of the kerb levels.

(f)  The sub soil drainage for the below ground structures including basement car parks  shall be designed in accordance with the findings and recommendations in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report should assess any possible impact of the proposed development upon existing ground water table and surrounding land and buildings. Should the results of the report indicate that the site is likely to experience issues associated with groundwater management, a fully-tanked dry basement with no sub soil drainage collection or disposal and an allowance made for any hydrostatic pressures.

(g) All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas are to be disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Plan by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2015.

(h) All overflows of roof waters from any rainwater tank 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).

(i)  All other impervious surface water runoff such as driveways and footpaths shall drain by gravity to Council’s kerb and gutter directly in front of the development site.

(j)  All roof waters and all overflows from any rainwater tank shall drain to Council’s kerb and gutter directly in front of the development site by a suitably designed charged system.

All outlets from any charged system must be constructed at 45 degrees to the direction of flow in the street gutter.

The design of this proposed drainage system must be prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

(k) Where the approved concept plan provides an absorption system, the final plan must be accompanied by a report and results of a recognised Falling Head Test or a Constant Head Test. The testing is to be conducted at the proposed location of the absorption system. The On-Site Stormwater Absorption System is to be designed using the hydraulic conductivity of the site and in accordance with Councils Water Management Policy. Note: The factor of safety(s) for the soil infiltration rate may be reduced to one not five as quoted in the Water Management Policy.

(l)   All surface water runoff such as driveway/footpath shall drain to a suitability designed absorption trench in the rear yard. Such trenches must be located at least 3m from any property boundary and be constructed across the contour of the land.

The design of this proposed drainage system must be prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering. Certification of the adequacy of the absorption trench system for the surface area being drained shall also be provided by the hydraulics engineer.

Design details and certification shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

      All stormwater shall drain to Council’s kerb and gutter directly in front of the development site by a suitably designed sump and pump system;

All outlets from any pump system must be constructed at 45 degrees to the direction of flow in the street gutter.

The design of this proposed drainage system must be prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

(m)                   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.

 

35.    Development Engineering - Driveway Construction Plan Details - Engineer's details shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application regarding the proposed construction of the driveway.

 

These details shall show longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, swept paths, type of construction materials and shall be designed in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

The driveway shall be designed with a surface that shall be non-slip.

 

36.    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)   Maximum Site Discharge to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow is to be directed to the site drainage system.

 

(b)   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,

 

(c)   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.

 

37.     Detailed Stormwater Drainage Design - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan and drainage calculations (including a Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis) must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

38.     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.

 

39.      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.

 

40.      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.

 

41.      Waste Storage - The plans shall include details of the waste storage area. The waste storage area shall not be visible from the street. The waste storage area shall be located within the lot/building in accordance with the approved plans.

 

The waste storage area shall be large enough to accommodate the required number of bins for the development and located in an area to suitably facilitate servicing on waste collection day.

 

The path to the bin room is to be at least 1.0 metres wide and kept clear and unobstructed at all times.

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

 

i. waste room floor to be sealed;

ii.        waste room walls and floor surface is flat and even;

iii.       all walls painted with light colour and washable paint;

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

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

vi.       light switch installed at height of 1.6m;

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

viii.     optional automatic odour and pest control system installed to eliminate all pest

ix.       types and assist with odour reduction - this process generally takes place at building handover - building management make the decision to install;

x.        all personnel doors are hinged and self-closing;

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

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

xiii.     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.

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

 

42.      BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. 863388M_02, dated 24 November 2017 must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

43.      Consolidation of Site - The site shall be consolidated into one allotment and by a Plan of Consolidation being prepared by a Registered Surveyor. This Plan shall be registered at the NSW Land and Property Information prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.

 

44.      Allocation of street addresses - In order to comply with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing & the NSW Addressing User Manual (Geographical Names Board of NSW) and Georges River Council’s requirements, the street addresses for the subject development must be allocated as advised by Georges River Council.

       

Details indicating compliance with this condition must be shown on the plans lodged with any Construction Certificate for approval.

 

45.      Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report - Private Land - 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 with a common boundary to the subject site

 

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.

 

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

 

46.      Development Engineering – 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 drainage network in Lawrence Road.

 

Stormwater drainage connection to Council’s infrastructure shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Council’s engineering services unit.

 

47.      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.

 

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

 

49.      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.

 

50.      Structural Engineers Details - Supporting Council road/footway - Prior to the commencement of work in connection with the excavation of the site associated with the basement car park, structural engineer’s details relating to the method of supporting the excavation must be submitted.

 

51.      Stormwater drainage works – Works As Executed - Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, storm water 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; and

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

 

52.   Dilapidation Report on Public Land - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a dilapidation report must be prepared for the Council infrastructure adjoining the development site.  The report must include the following:

 

(a) Existing stormwater drainage pipe

(b) Existing kerb and gutter

(c) Photographs showing the existing condition of the road pavement fronting the site

(d) Photographs showing the existing condition of the kerb and gutter fronting the site

(e) Photographs showing the existing condition of the footpath pavement fronting the site

(f)  Photographs showing the existing condition of any retaining walls within the footway or road,

(g) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

(h) The full name and signature of the structural engineer.

 

The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer.  The report must be provided to the Certifier and a copy provided to the Council.

 

The report is to be supplied in electronic format in Word or PDF.  Photographs are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

 

Note: Council will use this report to determine whether to refund the damage deposit after the completion of works.

 

Section F       During Construction

 

53.      Engineering - Vehicular Crossing & Frontage work – Major Development - The following vehicular crossing and road frontage works will be required to facilitate access to and from the proposed development site:

 

(a)    Construct a 1.50 metre wide x 80mm thick concrete path for the full length of the frontage of the site in Lawrence Street in accordance with Council’s Specifications for footpaths.

 

(b)    Construct a 150mm thick concrete vehicular crossing reinforced with F82 fabric in accordance with Council’s Specifications for vehicular crossings.

 

(c)    Construct a new 150mm high concrete kerb with 450mm wide gutter for the full frontage(s) of the site Lawrence in accordance with Council’s Specifications for kerb and guttering.

 

(d)    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 beneficiary of this consent and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.  The work shall be carried out by a private contractor, subject to Council approval.

 

54.      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.

 

55.      Physical connection to 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 gully pit in Lawrence Street directly in front of the development site. Full cost for the reconstruction of the gully pit to an extended kerb inlet pit with grates is to borne by the developer.

 

56.      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.

 

57.      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.

 

58.      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.

 

59.      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.

 

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

 

Section G      Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

61.      Development Engineering - 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.

 

62.      Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

63.      Maintenance Schedule - On-site Stormwater Management - A Maintenance Schedule for the proposed on-site stormwater management measures is to be prepared and submitted to Council. The Maintenance Schedule shall outline the required maintenance works, how and when these will be done and who will be carrying out these maintenance works.

 

64.      Works as Executed and Certification of Stormwater works - Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the PCA must ensure that the stormwater drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the approved design and relevant Australian Standards. A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be forwarded to the PCA and Council, from a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering.

 

This Plan and Certification shall confirm that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system satisfies the conditions of development consent and the Construction Certificate stormwater design details approved by the PCA.

 

The works-as-executed drainage plan must be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering in conjunction with a Registered Surveyor and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

(a) The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

 

(b) The orifice size/s;

 

(c) Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

 

(d) The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc.) of all stormwater pipes;

 

65.      Vehicular crossing & Frontage work - Major development - The following road frontage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council's Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works together with the Vehicular Crossing Approval issued by Council’s Engineering Services Division:

(a) Construct a 1.5 metre wide footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in Lawrence Street in accordance with Council’s Specifications for footpaths.

(b) Construct the vehicular crossing in accordance with Council’s Specifications for vehicular crossings.

(c) 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. 

A private contractor shall carry out the above work, at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

 

The driveway and road frontage works are to be completed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

66.      Stormwater drainage works - Works As Executed – Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, storm water 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’s Engineering Services section must advise in writing that they are satisfied with the connection to Council’s modified kerb inlet pit prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

67.      Requirements prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate - The following shall be completed and or submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

 

(a) All the stormwater/drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

(b) Work as Executed Plans prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer or a Registered Surveyor when all the site engineering works are complete shall be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

(c) The internal driveway construction works, together with the provision for all services (conduits and pipes laid) shall be completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

(d) Construct any new vehicle crossings required.

 

(e) Replace all redundant vehicle crossing laybacks with kerb and guttering, and replace redundant concrete with turf.

 

(f)  A Section 73 (Sydney Water) Compliance Certificate for the Subdivision shall be issued and submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

(g) The reconstruction of the gully pit in Lawrence Street to an extended kerb inlet pit with grates shall be completed in accordance with the conditions and specifications of the Section 68 Activity Approval.

 

68.      Dilapidation Report on Public Land for Major Development Only - Upon completion of works, a follow up dilapidation report must be prepared for the items of Council infrastructure adjoining the development site including:

 

The dilapidation report must be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in structural engineering, and include: 

 

(a) Photographs showing the condition of the road pavement fronting the site

 

(b) Photographs showing the condition of the kerb and gutter fronting the site

 

(c) Photographs showing the condition of the footway including footpath pavement fronting the site

 

(d) Photographs showing the condition of retaining walls within the footway or road

 

(e) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

 

(f)  The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

 

The report must be provided to the PCA and a copy provided to the Council. The reports are to be supplied in electronic format in Word or PDF. Photographs are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

 

NOTE: Council will use this report to determine whether or not to refund the damage deposit.

 

Council’s Engineering Services Division must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

69.    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 the following 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.

 

70.    Completion of Major Works - Prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, the following works must be completed at the applicant’s expense to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Services section:

(a) Stormwater pipes, pits and connections to public stormwater systems within the road related area;

(b) Driveways and vehicular crossings within the road related area;

(c) Removal of redundant driveways and vehicular crossings;

(d) New footpaths within the road related area;

(e) Relocation of existing power/light pole

(f)  New footway verges, where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the footpath and the kerb or site boundary over the full frontage of the proposed development must be turfed.  The grass verge must be constructed to contain a uniform minimum 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of turf predominant within the street.

(g) New or reinstated kerb and guttering within the road related area.

Council’s Engineering Services Section must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. [Note: The damage deposit paid to Council will not be released until the works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction.

71.    Allocation of street addresses - Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate, All house numbering are to be allocated in accordance with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing & the NSW Addressing User Manual (Geographical Names Board of NSW) and Georges River Council’s requirements. Council must be contacted in relation to all specific requirements for street numbering.

 

72.    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.

 

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

 

74.      Slip Resistance - At completion of work an in-situ (on-site) test, in wet and dry conditions, must be carried out on the pedestrian floor surfaces used in the foyers, public corridors/hallways, stairs and ramps as well as the floor surfaces in wet rooms in any residential units to ascertain the actual slip resistance of such surfaces taking into consideration the effects of grout, the gradients of the surface and changes from one material to another.  The in-situ test must be carried out in accordance with AS/NZS 4663:2002. Proof of compliance must be submitted with the application for the Occupation Certificate for approval.

 

75.      BASIX Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate in the plans approved with the Development Consent, must be implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

76.      Electricity Supply - Evidence shall be provided demonstrating that the development has been connected to the Ausgrid, if required.

 

77.      Completion of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate in accordance with approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by Zenith Landscape Design, reference numbers – 17 – 3550 L01 – L03, dated 22/09/17. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity.

 

78.      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.

 

Section H      Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

 

79.      No openable structures – No accessible structures or gate(s) are to be installed or provided along the southern boundary of the site; – unless approval has been granted from Council’s Property Department.

 

80.      Activities and storage of goods outside buildings - There shall be no activities including storing or depositing of any goods or maintenance to any machinery external to the building with the exception of waste receptacles.

 

81.      Compliance with Plan of Management for use of rooftop open space

The approved Plan of Management for use of the roof top open space shall be enforced by the Owners Corporation or building owner.

 

82.      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).

 

83.      Operation of Air Handling Systems - The occupier must operate air handling systems in compliance with Part 2 of the Public Health Regulation 2012 (as amended).

 

Where there is any change in the air handling system the occupier must register the changes in the regulated systems with Council.

 

Water cooling systems must be certified annually by a competent person as being an effective process of disinfection under the range of operating conditions that could ordinarily be expected.

 

84.      Outdoor Lighting - To avoid annoyance to the occupants of adjoining premises or glare to motorist on nearby roads, outdoor lighting must comply with AS 4282-1997: Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

85.      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.

 

86.      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.

 

87.      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. The maintenance schedule shown on the approved landscape plan is to be undertaken in accordance with the details of that schedule. On the completion of the 12 month maintenance period, the landscape works shall be inspected and at the satisfaction of the landscape architect (PDS Paterson Design Studio), the responsibility will be signed over to the client.

 

88.      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.

 

89.      Activities and storage of goods outside buildings - There shall be no activities including storing or depositing of any goods or maintenance to any machinery external to the building with the exception of waste receptacles.

 

90.      Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier.

 

An application form for a Construction Certificate is attached for your convenience.

 

Section I  Operational Requirements Under The Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979

 

91.      Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority - The erection of a building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent has:

 

(a) appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for the building work; and

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

 

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner-Builder, then the beneficiary of the consent must:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

92.      Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2) days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

 

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

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

 

93.      Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent must give at least two (2) days notice to the Council and the PCA of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

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

 

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

 

Where Georges River Council has been appointed PCA, forty eight (48) hours notice in writing, or alternatively twenty four (24) hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given to when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

 

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

 

Only the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

Section J       Prescribed Conditions

 

97.      Clause 97A – BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

 

98.      Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.  In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

 

99.      Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.  The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the Principal Contractor.

 

100.    Clause 98B – Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council.  The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

101.    Clause 98E – Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

 

END CONDITIONS

 

NOTES/ADVICES

 

102.    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.

 

103.    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.

 

104.    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.

 

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

 

106.    Principal Certifier - Should the Council be appointed as the Principal Certifier in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA.  However, if an alternative solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation.  In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

 

107.    Energy Efficiency Provisions - Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the Principal Certifier, 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 Principal Certifier.

 

108.    Compliance with Access, Mobility and AS4299 - Adaptable Housing - Should the Council be appointment as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by detailed working plans and a report or a Certificate of Compliance from an Accredited Access Consultant certifying that the building design and access to the adaptable units complies with Council’s DCP and AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

 

109.    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).

 

110.    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)

 

(c)    NSW Industrial Noise Policy - Office of Environment & Heritage (www.environment.nsw.gov.au)

 

111.    Strata Subdivisions

(a)    Council will check the consent conditions on the relevant Strata Subdivision consent. Failure to submit the required information will delay endorsement of the plan of subdivision.

(b)    Council will undertake the required inspections to satisfy the requirements of the Strata Schemes Development Regulation 2016 to determine the Strata Certificate.

(c)    Strata Plans, Administration Sheets, 88B Instruments and copies must not be folded.

(d)    All Strata Plans, Strata Plan Administration Sheets and 88B Instruments shall be submitted to Council enclosed in a protective cardboard tube (to prevent damage during transfer).

 

112.    Sydney Water Section 73 Certificates - The Section 73 Certificate must be a separate certificate that relates specifically to this development consent. For example, if the development consent relates to the subdivision of the land, a Section 73 Certificate for the construction of the building that is subject to a different development consent will not suffice.

 

113.    Electricity Supply - This development may need a connection to the Ausgrid network which may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. You are advised to contact Ausgrid on 13 13 65 or www.ausgrid.com.au (Business and Commercial Services) for further details and information on lodging your application to connect to the network.

 

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

 

115.    Council as PCA - Total Conformity with BCA - Accompanying Information - Should the Council be appointed as the Principal Certifier, 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)   Mechanical ventilation to bathroom, laundry and basement areas not afforded natural ventilation.

b)   Fire-fighting services and equipment including hydrant systems and booster assembly location, sprinkler and valve room systems, hose reels, portable fire extinguishers, smoke hazard management systems, sound and warning systems.

c)   Emergency lighting and exit signs throughout, including communal open space areas, lobby/foyer and basement areas.

d)   Construction of all fire doors including warning and operational signage to required exit and exit door areas.

e)   Egress travel distances to exits and the discharge from fire isolated exits including the swing of exit doors.

f)    The spandrel protection of openings in external walls

g)   The protection of paths of travel from a fire isolated exit when passing within 6m of an opening within the external wall of the building.  

h)   Fire compartmentation and fire wall separation details including all stairway, lift and service shaft areas.

i)    The location and construction of an electricity substation, including the location and smoke separation of electrical distribution boards.

j)    Sound transmission and insulation details.

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

 

In this regard, detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements of the BCA must be submitted to the Principal Certifier 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 Principal Certifier prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

117.    Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

 

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

 

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year.  Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

 

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

 

118.    Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

 

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

 

119.    Stormwater & Ancillary Works - Applications under Section 138 Roads Act and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 - To apply for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993:

 

(i)   Complete the Driveway Crossing on Council Road Reserve Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s Website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

(ii)  In the Application Form, quote the Development Consent No. (eg. DA2018/0580)

(iii)  Lodge the application form, together with the associated fees at Council’s Customer Service Centre, during business hours.  Refer to Council’s adopted Fees and Charges for the administrative and inspection charges associated with Vehicular Crossing applications.

An approval for a new vehicular 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 by a private contractor in accordance with Council’s specifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The developer must meet all costs of the extension, relocation or reconstruction of any part of Council’s drainage system (including design drawings and easements) required to carry out the approved development.

The preparation of all engineering drawings (site layout plans, cross sections, longitudinal sections, elevation views together with a hydraulic grade analysis) and specifications for the new storm water drainage system to be arranged by the applicant.  The design plans must be lodged and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Note: A minimum of four weeks should be allowed for assessment.

120.    Council as PCA - Compliance with the BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA.  However, if an alternative solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation.  In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

 

121.    Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, 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 Principal Certifying Authority.

 

122.    Compliance with Access, Mobility and AS4299 - Adaptable Housing - Should the Council be appointment as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by detailed working plans and a report or a Certificate of Compliance from an Accredited Access Consultant certifying that the building design and access to the adaptable units complies with Council’s DCP and AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

03 Site-Ground Floor Plan - Issue C - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Redacted - Reduced

Attachment 2

07 Elevations - Issue B - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Reduced

Attachment 3

08 Elevations - Issue B - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Reduced

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 September 2019

LPP035-19               61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

[Appendix 1]             03 Site-Ground Floor Plan - Issue C - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Redacted - Reduced

 

 

Page 85

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 September 2019

LPP035-19               61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

[Appendix 2]             07 Elevations - Issue B - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Reduced

 

 

Page 86

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 September 2019

LPP035-19               61-63 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst

[Appendix 3]             08 Elevations - Issue B - 61-63 Lawrence St Peakhurst - Reduced

 

 

Page 87

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 19 September  2019

Page 134

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 September 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP036-19

Development Application No

DA2017/0627

Site Address & Ward Locality

16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building with basement parking

Owners

Mr J Staninovski, Mrs S Staninovski, Mr Z Kevilovski

Applicant

Cornerstone Design

Planner/Architect

Planner: Planning Ingenuity, Architect: Cornerstone Design

Date Of Lodgement

13/12/2017

Submissions

Four (unique submissions)

Cost of Works

$1,782,715.55

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The proposed development is for a residential flat building in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 and a breach of a development standard exceeding 10%

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 Envrionmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Planning Policy No 2- Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

Draft Environment State Envrionmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy

 

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

Statement of Environmental Effects

Landscape Plans

Architectural Plans

 

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?

 

Yes  - Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, the application is recommended for refusal. The refusal reasons can be viewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Subject site outlined in red

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.       The development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building over a level of basement parking, comprising six (6) units (3 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units) and eleven (11) car parking spaces within a semi-basement.

Figure 1: Photomontage of the proposed development

 

Site and Locality

2.       The application applies to land known as No. 16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst, and is legally described as Lot 292 in DP 36537.

 

3.       The site has a boundary to Peake Parade of 15.85m, side boundary lengths of 40.845m and 43.54m, and a rear boundary length of 10.64m and 6.4m combined, giving a site area of 677.9sqm.

 

4.       The land falls by 4.25m from the street to the rear boundary.

 

5.       The site is located within an R3 Medium Density Residential precinct. A number of properties in the locality have been redeveloped from single dwelling houses to residential flat buildings and dual occupancies.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

6.       The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HELP 2012). The proposal is for a residential flat building which is permissible with consent in the zone.

Submissions

7.       The DA was notified to adjoining properties in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1) for a statutory notification period of 14 days between:

 

·     Round 1: 23 January 2018 – 6 February 2018: Two submissions

·     Round 2: 21 June 2018 – 5 July 2018: One submission

·     Round 3: 24 August 2018 – 7 September 2018: Two submissions (one a copy of the submission in the first round)

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

8.       This application is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination, as the proposal relates to a residential flat building subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The proposed development also exceeds the height control development standard by more than 10%.

 

9.       A Clause 4.6 statement has been submitted with the application seeking a variation to the height control (Clause 4.3) in accordance with the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to justify and support the non-compliance.

 

Planning and Design Issues

10.     The proposal fails to comply with the building height development standard of 12m that applies to the site under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. The lift overrun, communal WC and awning over the rooftop communal open space area exceed the height limit, with the top of the lift overrun having a height of 14.47m (20.5% variation). A variation request to the building height development standard has been submitted pursuant to clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012; however it has been assessed as being not-well founded, as discussed in this report.

 

11.     The proposal fails to achieve the required setbacks pursuant to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and the design treatment of the side elevations will result in poor internal amenity for many of the units.

 

12.     The proposal does not provide sufficiently dimensioned deep soil zones along any boundaries, which precludes 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.

 

13.     Insufficient communal open space is provided, and there is insufficient information provided to enable a proper assessment of the solar access and natural ventilation available to the proposed units.

 

14.     The subject site is 15.85m wide and does not comply with the minimum 24m site width control in the Hurstville Development Control Plan (DCP), resulting in an unacceptable design outcome for the site. The justification for the proposed residential flat building on an under-width lot relies on the site being an isolated lot; this justification is not accepted by Council Assessment Staff.

 

Conclusion

15.     The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plans. 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 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65. The Clause 4.6 Objection in relation to the building height development standard is considered to not be well-founded. As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

Description of the Proposal

16.     The DA seeks consent for the demolition of one detached dwelling house and the construction of a three (3) storey Residential Flat Building containing 6 residential apartments. Car parking is contained within a semi-basement level containing 11 car parking spaces for residents and visitors.

 

17.     A mix of apartments is proposed, consisting of three (3) x two (2) bedroom and three (3) x three (3) bedroom apartments. One apartment is nominated as adaptable.

 

18.     Further details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Semi-basement

-     Nine (9) residential car parking spaces (of which one is an accessible parking space) and two (2) visitor car parking spaces;

-     Residential storage allocated to individual apartments;

-     Bicycle parking for two (2) bikes;

-     Service areas;

-     Egress stairs; and

-     Lift access to the upper levels.

 

Ground Floor

-     Two (2) apartments (1 x 2B and 1 x 3B) of which one (1) is adaptable.

-     Shared communal pedestrian access from the street is proposed along the south-western side boundary.

-     Dual width driveway access from Peake Parade is located in the south-eastern corner of the site adjacent to No. 14A Peake Parade, with a nil side boundary setback for the first 6m of the driveway within the site.

-     Bin store area adjacent to the entry foyer (western side).

-     The service and circulation spaces of the building are centrally located, with the lift being to the eastern side of the building and the circulation stair to the western side.

 

First and Second Floors

-     Two (2) apartments (1 x 2B and 1 x 3B)

-     The service and circulation spaces of the building are centrally located, with the lift being to the eastern side of the building and the circulation stair to the western side.

 

Rooftop

-     Rooftop area of communal open space (94.41sqm) with a shading device over the northern section, common WC, an enclosed kitchen and an enclosed BBQ area.

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

 

19.     The proposal involves the removal of five (5) trees/shrubs from within the site.

 

The Site and Locality

20.     The subject site is known as No. 16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst and is legally described as Lot 292 in DP36537. The site has a frontage to Peake Parade of 15.85m and a site area of 677.9sqm. The property shares a rear boundary with Peake Avenue Reserve, and the site has a fall of 4.25m from the street to the rear.

Figure 3: The site as viewed from Peake Parade

 

21.     The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and scattered vegetation, none of which is significant.

 

22.     The site is located in a residential neighbourhood characterised by recently constructed residential flat buildings and dual occupancy developments. The property to the east is occupied by a two storey attached dual occupancy development (Figure 4). The property to the west is currently occupied by dwelling houses, however approval has been granted for a three storey residential flat building on the corner of Peake Parade and Pearce Avenue (DA2016/0366) (Figure 5).

 

Figure 4: Dual occupancy at No. 14A and 14B Peake Parade (east of the site)

 

Figure 5: Approved residential flat building at Nos. 18-20 Peake Parade (west of the site)

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

23.     Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies is summarised in the following table and discussed in further detail below it.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

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

Yes

 

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

 

No – Non-compliance with respect to Design Quality Principles 1 and 2. Refer to State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 section below.

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy

Yes

Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy

Yes

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

24.     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,

 

25.     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 deferred commencement conditions (for an easement to drain water from the site to the open drain in council’s reserve to the north of the site) if consent was to be granted.

 

26.     In summary, the proposal contravenes 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

27.     BASIX Certificate No. 879258M 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.

 

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

28.     State Environmental Planning Policy 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.

 

29.     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. 

 

30.     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 is likely to be suitable for residential development in its current state for the development proposed with respect to contamination.

 

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

31.     The Vegetation State Environmental Planning Policy 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.

 

32.     The Vegetation State Environment Planning Policy 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 (Development Control Plan). 

 

33.     The Vegetation State Environmental Planning Policy 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 development control plan (Development Control Plan).

 

34.     The proposal involves the removal of five (5) trees from the site. Council’s Consultant Arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal and raised no objection to the removal of the five (5) trees subject to appropriate replacement tree planting both on site and within the public domain should the application be supported. The recommended conditions provided by the arborist require one additional tree to be planted within deep soil areas of the site in addition to those shown on the submitted landscape plans, and one street tree to be planted within the road frontage.

 

35.     On this basis, the proposal, should it be supported, is consistent with relevant provisions of the Vegetation State Environmental Planning Policy.

 

Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy

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

 

37.     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.

 

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

 

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy

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

 

40.     Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing State Environmental Planning Policies:

·     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.

 

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

 

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

42.     State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (State Environmental Planning Policy 65) was gazetted on 26 July 2002 and applies to the assessment of DAs for residential flat developments of three or more storeys in height and containing at least four dwellings. Amendment 3 to State Environmental Planning Policy 65 commenced on 17 July 2015 and implemented various changes including the introduction of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to replace the Residential Flat Design Code. Given the nature of the development proposed, State Environmental Planning Policy 65 applies.

 

43.     Clause 28(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 requires that the consent authority take into consideration the following as part of the determination of DAs to which State Environmental Planning Policy 65 applies:

 

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.  

 

44.     On 1 March 2018 the proposal was referred to the Georges River Design Review Panel. The Panel considered the development against each of the nine (9) Design Quality Principles (refer to Table 1) and also considered the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which are summarised and addressed in Table 2 below.

 

45.     As detailed within the table earlier in this report, 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.

 

46.     The Tables below provide a comprehensive assessment against the principles, objectives and controls of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 and the ADG.

 

Table 1: Application of State Environmental Planning Policy 65

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3 - Definitions

Complies with definition of “Residential Apartment Development” (RAD) Section 4 (1) (Application of Policy) of the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 states that the policy “applies to development for the purpose of a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation component if:

(a)  the development consists of any of the following:

 

(i)  the erection of a new building,

(ii)  the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building,

(iii) the conversion of an existing building, and

 

(b)  the building concerned is at least 3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level (existing) or levels that are less than 1.2 metres above ground level (existing) that provide for car parking), and

 

(c)  the building concerned contains at least 4 or more dwellings.”

The proposal is for a three storey flat building with basement parking and rooftop communal open space

Yes.

4 - Application of Policy

Development involves the erection of a new RFB, substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of a RFB or conversion of an existing building into a RFB. The definition of an RFB in the State Environmental Planning Policy includes mixed use developments.

This application is for the erection of an RFB which satisfies the State Environmental Planning Policy’s definition.

Yes

50 – Development Applications

Design verification statement provided by qualified designer

Registered Architect Name and Registration No.

Design Verification Statement provided by Registered Architect: N Lycenko (Registration No.3010)

Yes

 

Table 2: Part 2 Design Quality Principles under the SEPP

 SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 

DRP Comment

General comment

Context and Neighbouring 

Character 

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

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

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

The site is in a context which is rapidly evolving and increasing in density. It is an isolated site located on the low side of the street between a recently approved RFB containing twenty five (25) units, and a dual occupancy development. On the opposite side of the road there are a number of recently completed RFBs extending almost for the full length of the block. In some cases, such as in the block immediately opposite, the street frontage is dominated by ramps, stairs, and associated building infrastructure, compromising the quality of the streetscape.

 

The site has a fall of approximately 4m down to the public reserve at the rear. The applicant advised that access to the reserve is permitted.

 

To the rear is an attractive public reserve to which access for the residents is possible and desirable. It would also be desirable for the proponent to produce fence forms to the reserve compatible with adjacent properties facing the reserve.

A review of the proposal has identified that the site is not in fact an isolated site, as the form of development on the site to the east is substantially below the density and scale permitted in the zone as it is a dual occupancy development.

The proposal fails to comply with a number of ADG controls (detailed later in this report) and it is considered given the present dimensions of the property, this allotment unconsolidated is more suited to a dual occupancy development.

Built Form and Scale 

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

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

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

The form is constrained by the narrow site and the existing and approved developments to the west and east adjoining sites. The height is compliant with the LEP height control with the exception of minor intrusion by the lift overrun and communal facilities, which is considered to be acceptable.

 

The plan form has been articulated along the side boundaries with splayed walls which generally appear to resolve privacy issues in relation to the adjoining properties.

 

Setback from the front boundary complies with the planning controls and is marginally non-compliant to the rear because of the balconies on the north façade, but this minor non-compliance is also considered to be acceptable.

The proposal fails to comply with the minimum separation distances for habitable areas, building height and deep soil area.

It is not considered that the scale of development is appropriate for the site given its present width.

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.

Compliant and acceptable.

The Panel did not raise an issue with the overall bulk, scale and density of the development; however the site is constrained by its site width which imposes unreasonable compromises on the amenity within the development and to adjoining sites.

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.

It is desirable that the stormwater regime be clearly articulated and not compete with deep soil areas.

The development fails to provide the required amount of deep soil landscaped area, and fails to demonstrate compliance with the required solar access and cross ventilation standards.

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. 

·   Poor interface to adjoining site (west) – planting should be provided

·   A functional, secure and engaging play area for children should be provided

·   Provide an all-weather surface to entry point rather than lawn

·   Need to further develop the design of the fence treatment facing the reserve at the rear. The Applicant should review other treatments so that some consistency can be achieved.

·   Provide access from communal open space to public reserve at the rear

·   The ground floor communal open space should be designed to meet the play needs of children

·   There is the opportunity to enclose some area of communal open space, either at ground level (under the first level balcony) and on rooftop for amenities

·   The planter boxes on the rooftop communal open space could be enlarged by extending them to the edges of the roof

·   Rainwater storage should be provided for water collection and reuse in irrigation of soft landscape areas

The narrow width of the site results in limited separation between the site and its neighbours, and the required basement layout leaves little opportunity for high quality deep soil landscaping of the perimeter of the site. Accordingly, the proposal is not able to provide landscaping compatible with that delivered by comparable surrounding development.

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. 

Generally of good standard and accepted.

 

There is potential to enclose the area under the balcony on the ground level as a communal room with seating and WC.

 

The communal open space at rooftop should also be provided with an enclosed area.

 

There is no bin storage provided in the basement and very limited bin storage provided adjacent to the front entry with a long and winding ramp to the street.

 

Clear glass balustrades on first level balconies should be redesigned to provide adequate screening.

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

The kitchen and BBQ area are enclosed.

 

A bin room has been provided in the semi-basement.

 

 

 

 

A mix of solid, glass and semi-translucent balustrades are proposed.

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.

Enabling access to the reserve at the rear will assist with safety and security of both the development and the reserve by increasing the level of surveillance.

Access to the reserve is provided via the rear boundary fence/gate.

 

It is noted that direct access from private properties into reserves is generally not supported by Council’s open space section, and to this end, would be unlikely to be supported. A condition would be imposed to address this in the event the application was to be approved.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction 

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

 

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

 

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

Acceptable

Complies

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. 

The colour of brickwork should be reviewed to ensure that it complements existing and future adjoining properties.

The schedule of colours was amended and a range of grey, white and sandstone materials and finishes are proposed.

 

47.     Having regard to the above, the Panel considers that the proposal generally satisfies the Design Principles of the ADG.

 

48.     Clause 28 of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. The Table below assesses the proposal against these provisions, with relevant assessment comments provided where non-compliances are proposed.

 

Table 3: Part 3 and Part 4 – Consideration of Apartment Design Guide

 

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)

13.7% (93sqm).

 

 

COS located on roof level.

 

 

Complies for the COS provided, however the COS provide is substantially less than the COS required.

No

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Comment on Communal Open Space

The proposal does not provide the communal open space specified by the Apartment Design Guide. It is noted that the narrowness of the site and the scale of the building mean that there is little opportunity for the provision of compliant and quality areas of communal open space on the site.

 

The units in the proposal do not benefit from larger balconies to compensate for the deficient COS, and the ground floor is heavily disrupted by the protruding basement and service/circulation areas, meaning there is no alternative location for additional open space.

 

It is considered the failure to provide compliant deep soil area on the site is unacceptable and is a symptom of the inappropriateness of a site proposing this form and scale of development on a site with a narrow width such as this site.

3E – Deep Soil Zones

Site area is 650sqm - 1,500sqm = 3m min dimensions

 

 

Min deep soil area of 7% (47sqm)

 

 

 

 

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 achieves the minimum 3m dimensions.

 

0% due to minimum dimensions not being met

[35sqm (5%) 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

 

 

 

No (100%)

 

 

 

 

No

Comment on Deep Soil Zones

The building fails to provide sufficient deep soil zones with minimum dimensions of 3m and a minimum total area of 7% of the site area, as required by the ADG for a site of this size. The total deep soil area provided is 5% of the site area, proposed in small, irregular pockets within the site, with these areas not meeting the minimum dimensions nominated by the ADG.

 

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.

 

Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate why compliance with this ADG design criteria is not achievable on the site, however the lack of deep soil area appears to be a result of the extensive area occupied by the semi-basement footprint beneath relative to the width of the site. Accordingly, the inability to deliver appropriate landscaping indicates that the development proposed is not suitable for the subject 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 – 2

 

NE Elevation:

·    Min. 3m to habitable/balcony

 

SW Elevation:

·    Min. 3m to habitable rooms

 

 

 

 

No (50%)

 

 

 

No (however highlight window proposed)

Comment on Visual Privacy

The proposed development fails to achieve the required separation distances to adjoining properties, and seeks to use ungainly angled windows to manage privacy impacts.

 

The inadequate separations will impose unreasonable impacts on the developments either side of the site, and accordingly will form part of the reasons for refusal.

 

It is noted that the failure to provide separation is a result of the narrow width of the site in its present form.

3G – Pedestrian Access and Entries

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

 

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

One entry provided (western side) with access from Peake Parade.

 

One communal entry (western side) and one entry to Unit G.01 via a terrace.

Yes

 

 

 

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 south eastern boundary for a length of 6m, insufficient landscaping between the driveway and the boundary shared with 14A Peake Parade, will be visually dominant in the streetscape relative to the development.

No – see comment below

Comment on Vehicle Access:

The proposed driveway off Peake Parade has a nil setback from the south-eastern boundary and occupies 34% of the site frontage thereby forming a dominant feature with respect to the streetscape character of the development.

 

The failure to provide a strip of landscaping (e.g. 1.5m) to enable a softening of the harshness and sterile nature of the driveway, and the dominance of the driveway with respect to the site width both indicate that the proposed driveway design will not deliver a sufficiently high quality streetscape.

 

As the driveway is not able to be reduced for reasons of satisfying Australian Standards of design, this indicates that the site is not wide enough to accommodate the development as proposed, and forms part of the refusal reasons.

 

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 Riverwood Station and therefore the Development Control Plan (DCP) rates apply to the proposal.

 

Required:

1 space/1B or 2B = 3 spaces

2 spaces/3B= 6 spaces

1 visitor space/4 units =  2 spaces

 

Proposed:

9 resident spaces

2 visitor spaces

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

4A – Solar and Daylight Access

Living rooms and private open space receive 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter for 70% of apartments

 

 

 

 

 

Max. 15% of apartments receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter

Inadequate information provided to confirm compliance – unlikely to achieve solar penetration into living rooms of street facing units given this is the southern side of the development.

 

3 / 6 apartments = 50%

No – see comment below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

Comment on Solar and Daylight Access

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application fail to provide solar access diagrams for the proposed units and do not show the penetration of direct sunlight into the units. It is likely that the living rooms of the street facing units will not receive 2 hours of sunlight in winter as required by the ADG, particularly if the site to the east is developed in a similar manner into the future. On this basis, compliance with the Solar and Daylight Access design criteria has not been demonstrated and the proposal is deemed unacceptable.

 

It is noted that although the ADG requires provision of separation distances primarily for reasons of privacy in Part 3, Part 2F (which relates to preparation of building controls) notes that separation is also important to assist in providing residential amenity with respect to sunlight and daylight access. Given the proposal is on a site that is below the required site width, it is relevant to note that the inability to deliver solar access to the required number of units is a direct symptom of the inadequate width of the site.

 

This matter forms part of the reasons for refusal.

4B – Natural Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

The building should include dual aspect apartments, cross through apartments and corner apartments and limit apartment depths

Inadequate information provided to make a proper assessment.

 

13m max.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achieved

The proposal appears to comply, however further information is required to confirm this criterion given the insufficient setbacks.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

Comment on natural ventilation

The SEE submitted with the application states all units are designed and configured to permit natural cross ventilation, and the layout of the units appear to comply, however no ventilation diagrams were provided with the architectural plans to demonstrate compliance with the control, given the compromised design to address the inadequate setbacks provided.

 

This forms part of the reasons for refusal.

4C – Ceiling Heights

Minimum ceiling heights measured from FFL to finished ceiling level:

Habitable rooms  = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m

All rooms have 2.7m internal ceiling height.

Yes

4D – Apartment Size and Layout

Minimum internal areas:

1br: 50sqm

2br: 70sqm

3br: 90sqm

 

(Add 5sqm if second bathroom proposed)

 

Each habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of at least 10% of the floor area of the room.

All apartments meet minimum internal sizes

 

 

 

Calculated accordingly

 

 

Each habitable room has a suitably sized window.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

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

 

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

All rooms compliant.

 

 

Street facing units measure depth from balcony door to “front” of kitchen (7.4m) while rear facing units are measured to the rear wall of the kitchen (8m).

Yes

 

 

Yes

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

 

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

 

 

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

- 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom

- 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

Internal width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m

All bedrooms meet minimum internal sizes (excluding wardrobe space).

 

All bedrooms meet minimum dimensions excluding wardrobe space as specified.

 

All living rooms comply.

 

 

 

 

 

All such apartments meet the minimum width requirement.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Comment on Apartment Size and Layout

To overcome the width of the site being 37% below the required 24m site frontage for RFBs under the Hurstville Development Control Plan (DCP), and the inability of the proposed building to achieve the required setbacks to the side boundaries for visual privacy, the design treatment of the side elevations of the building includes ‘hooded’ windows facing the rear of the site. This results in poor internal amenity for most bedrooms, and the living and dining rooms of the street-facing units, in terms of solar access, ventilation and outlook.

 

This will form part of the reasons for refusal.

 

4E – Private Open Space and Balconies

Minimum primary balcony sizes:

1br: 8sqm area, 2m depth

2br: 10sqm area, 2m depth

3+br: 12sqm area, 2.4m depth

 

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

 

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

 

All 1br units compliant

All 2br units compliant

All 3br units compliant

 

Calculated accordingly

 

 

 

G.01 complies

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

4F – Common Circulation Areas

Maximum 8 apartments off a circulation core on a single level

2 units per level

Yes

4G – Storage

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

1br: 6m³

2br: 8m³

3+br: 10m³

 

At least 50% of storage is located within the apartment

 

 

 

All units comply

 

 

 

All units comply

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

4H – Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Window and door openings are generally orientated away from noise sources

 

 

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

 

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

Refer to 3F – Visual Privacy.

 

 

 

 

Bedrooms generally oriented away from the street.

 

 

Achieved

 

 

 

 

 

Generally achieved where practicable.

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4J – Noise and Pollution

To minimise impacts the following design solutions may be used:

 

·    physical separation between buildings and the noise or pollution source

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

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

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

The site is not located in close proximity to any noise or pollution sources.

Yes

4K – Apartment Mix

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

 

The apartment mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building.

Each floor contains 1 x 2B and 1 x 3B unit.

Yes

4L – Ground Floor Apartments

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located

 

Design of ground floor apartments delivers amenity and safety for residents

Unit G.01 has direct access from Peake Parade however the courtyard is almost 1m below the street level on the southern side of the building, and is located between the driveway and communal pedestrian access for the building.

 

Accordingly it is considered this is a poor design outcome and is not appropriate and this forms part of the reasons for refusal.

No

4M – Facades

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

The bulk of the building is too large for a site having a width of 15.85m, and the inability to achieve suitable setbacks to the side boundaries further exacerbates the scale of the building being out of character for the site and locality.

 

This forms part of the refusal reasons for the application.

No

4N – Roof Design

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

Incorporates sustainability features

Clean, simple roof form, lift overruns centralised over the building, open space on rooftop achieved.

 

Acceptable shading to apartment openings.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

4O – Landscape Design

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

Insufficient room for canopy trees along the perimeter of the site.

 

No – see comment below

Comment on Landscape Design

As stated under State Environmental Planning Policy Principle 5 – Landscape, above, the proposal does not meet the deep soil zone requirements of the ADG. This provides limited opportunities 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.

4P – Planting on Structures

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

Planter boxes would need to be of appropriate depth by condition of consent if approved

Achievable by a condition of consent if approved.

4Q – Universal Design

Universal design – design of apartments allow for flexible housing, adaptable designs, accommodate a range of lifestyle needs. Benchmark of 20% liveable dwellings.

No liveable dwellings proposed.

No

4R – Adaptive Reuse

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

N/A – not an adaptive re-reuse as the building is new.

N/A

4U – Energy Efficiency

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

Appropriate building orientation, natural ventilation, passive solar design, exceeds BASIX target for energy efficiency.

Yes

4V – Water Management and Conservation

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

Suitable.

Yes

4W – Waste Management

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

Can be addressed through conditions of consent if approved.

Achievable

4X – Building Maintenance

Building design provides protection form weathering

 

Enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost

Suitable.

Yes

 

The proposal therefore is unsatisfactory with regards building separation, solar access, site landscaping, provision of communal open space, driveway dominance and other amenity matters.

 

The majority of these issues are driven by the narrow width of the site. In the context that the site fails to achieve an acceptable level of design with regards to the matters identified in Apartment Design Guide for a site that is not isolated. Accordingly the design issues outlined above will form part of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Zoning

 

49.     The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012) (See zoning map below). The proposed development is for a residential flat building which is a permissible land use in the zone.

 

Figure 4: Zoning map – the site is outlined in red

     

50.     The objectives of the zone are as follows:

•   To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

•   To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

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

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

 

51.     The proposal does not contravene the objectives of the R3 zone as it would provide for a variety of residential apartments in a medium density residential environment. However, the proposal’s built form and envelope is not as envisioned by the New City Plan and is not supported for reasons as detailed within other relevant parts of this report.

 

52.     The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Table 4: HLEP2012 Compliance Table

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

R3 Medium Density Residential

The proposal is defined as a residential flat building which is a permissible use within the zone.

Yes

 2.3

Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

Consistent with zone objectives

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

12m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The building exceeds the 12m height limit and proposes an overall height at the highest point of 14.47m.

No – see discussion below regarding Clause 4.6 Statement which has been submitted.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

The proposed FSR is 0.94:1.

 

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The GFA calculations provided by the Applicant have been verified and are considered satisfactory.

Yes

6.2 Earthworks

To ensure that earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land

Excavation for the semi-basement parking level is proposed. Suitable conditions of consent could be imposed to protect neighbouring properties during construction should the application be approved.

 

Yes

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

53.     The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to height (Clause 4.3). The Local Environmental Plan identifies a maximum height of 12m for the Site (refer to Figure 5 below) and the proposed development will exceed the height by 2.47m which comprises of the lift overrun, fire stairs and the pergola over the rooftop communal open space area. This is a 20.6% variation above the control. Any variation to the height can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

54.     Clause 4.6(1) outlines the objectives of the standard which are to “provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development” and “to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances”.

 

55.     Is the planning control in question a development standard?

The Height of Buildings control under Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environment Plan 2012 is a development standard.

 

Figure 5: Extract from the HLEP (Height Map_005) designated as “M” which notes a 12m height limit

 

56.     Clause 4.6(3) states that:

“Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

-     that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

-     that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard”

 

57.     To support the non-compliance, the applicant has provided a request for a variation to Clause 4.3 in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. The Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed as follows:

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

58.     The objectives of Height of Buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 are:

 (a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes,

(c)  to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage items,

(d)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity,

(e)  to establish maximum building heights that achieve appropriate urban form consistent with the major centre status of the Hurstville City Centre,

(f)    to facilitate an appropriate transition between the existing character of areas or localities that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation,

(g)  to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

Compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3)(a))

59.     There have been several Court cases that have established provisions in which to assess Clause 4.6 statements to ensure they are well founded and address the provisions of Clause 4.6.

 

60.     In Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ sets out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This list is not exhaustive. It states, inter alia:

“An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.”

The judgement goes on to state that:

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

Preston CJ in the judgement then expressed the view that there are 5 different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy, as follows (with emphasis placed on number 1 for the purposes of this Clause 4.6 variation):

1.   The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

2.  The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3.   The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4.  The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5.  The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard that would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone.”

The statement was prepared in consideration of the recent court cases and their judgements.

 

Applicants comment:

“Returning to Clause 4.6(3)(a) in Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ sets out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. It states, inter alia:

"An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard."

The judgement goes on to state that:

“The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served) "

However, in Four2Five v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 the Land and Environment Court said that whether something was ‘unreasonable or unnecessary' is now addressed specifically in Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), with separate attention required to the question of whether compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary, Accordingly, while the objectives of the standard are achieved despite non-compliance with the standard, this request goes further. It seeks to demonstrate that requiring strict adherence to the standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary’ for reasons that are additional to mere consistency with the development standard.

Preston CJ in the judgement then expressed the view that there are 5 different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy, as follows (with emphasis placed on number 1 for the purposes of this Clause 4.6 variation [our underline]):

1.   The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

2.   The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3.   The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance v/as required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4.   The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5.   The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard that would be unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the particular zone

Additionally, in an analogous context, in Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp [2011] NSWCA 308 Court of Appeal said that a requirement may be unreasonable when 'the severity of the burden placed on the applicant is disproportionate to the consequences attributable to the proposed development'. In support of this point

•    The proposed height variation will be visually imperceptible when viewed from the adjoining properties and public domain:

•    The proposed development meets the objectives of the height control and strict compliance with the height control would undermine or thwart its objectives, or the zone’s objectives (or both); and

•    The burden placed on future residents (by relocating the communal open space area to ground level adjacent to private open space) would be disproportionate to any consequences that may arise from the proposed noncompliance with the height control.

Given that compliance with the zone and development standard objectives is achieved and that the building complies with the overall height limit, particularly at the street frontage, insistence on strict compliance with the building height control is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

The proposal is compliant with the relevant objectives and will have no adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The proposal is therefore justified on environmental planning grounds. For the reasons above, the proposed building height variation is consistent with the requirements of Cause 4 6(3) of the LEP.”

 

61.     Officer Comment: The proposed development is seeking approval for a residential flat building on a site that is 15.85m wide, considerably below the minimum 24m site width nominated within the Hurstville Development Control Plan (DCP). The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and the design does not respond appropriately to the topography of the land and the slope of the site to the rear, resulting in the non-compliance with the 12m height limit.

 

62.     The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the development standard as follows:

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

Officer Comment: The proposal is not compatible with the height, bulk or scale of the desired future character of the locality. The adjoining buildings (existing and approved) comply with the height limit and are a suitable response to their respective sites. The site fails to achieve the minimum site width required for residential flat buildings, as such the development proposed is constrained when attempting to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 65/ADG results in a compromised built form providing reduced amenity to the future occupants and an undesirable built form outcome presenting to the street. The proposal is not suitable for the site.

(b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes

Officer Comment: This objective relates to the amenity impacts generated by the exceedance in the height control. The non-compliance will not result in any adverse overlooking, overshadowing (lift core is centralised so the lift overrun will overshadow the building itself), view loss or outlook generated by the variation and it will not adversely affect the public domain.

(c)  to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage items,

Officer Comment: The site is not located within proximity of any heritage items so this objective is not considered to be applicable in this case.

 (d)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity,

 

Officer Comment: Objective (d) is aimed at establishing a maximum height for buildings so that within a given zone there is consistency in the scale and built form of the building. It is accepted that the exceedance at its worst point is centrally located within the roof form however the design of the building fails to respond appropriately to the slope of the site to the rear and is an overdevelopment on an undersized (narrow) allotment, rendering it unsuitable for the proposed development.

 

The non-compliance is not considered minor as it relies on the roof level area for its only area of communal open space as this is the only area for passive recreation for the development. The building envelope and built form, as proposed, is non-compliant with the ADG separation distances and therefore the additional scale and height is not considered to reflect the desired future planning and design outcome that is sought/envisaged for this precinct.

 (e) to establish maximum building heights that achieve appropriate urban form consistent with the major centre status of the Hurstville City Centre,

Officer Comment: The site is not located within the Hurstville City Centre so this objective is not considered to be applicable in this case.

(f)   to facilitate an appropriate transition between the existing character of areas or localities that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation,

Officer Comment: Given the non-compliant width of the site, the proposed development does not provide an appropriate transition between the approved residential flat building to the west (which complies with the height control) and the existing two storey dual occupancy to the east. A more appropriate development for the site would be a dual occupancy as a compliant built form could be achieved and the amenity afforded to the future occupant’s would greatly improve.

(g)  to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

Officer Comment: The non-compliance will not result in any adverse overlooking, overshadowing (lift core is centralised so the lift overrun will overshadow the building itself), view loss or loss of outlook generated by the variation and it will not adversely affect the public domain.

Clause 4.6(3)(b) are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard

63.     Having regard to Clause 4.6(3)(b) and the need to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, It is considered that the Clause 4.6 Statement lodged with the application addresses all the information required pursuant to Clause 4.6 and the statement is considered to be well founded and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that in this case the proposal satisfies the objectives of the height control.

 

64.     Clause 4.6(4) states that:

“Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(i)   the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and”

 

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out,

 

65.     Applicant’s comment:

“Additionally, in an analogous context, in Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp [2011] NSWCA 308 Court of Appeal said that a requirement may be unreasonable when 'the severity of the burden placed on the applicant is disproportionate to the consequences attributable to the proposed development'. In support of this point

•     The proposed height variation will be visually imperceptible when viewed from the adjoining properties and public domain:

•     The proposed development meets the objectives of the height control and strict compliance with the height control would undermine or thwart its objectives, or the zone’s objectives (or both); and

•     The burden placed on future residents (by relocating the communal open space area to ground level adjacent to private open space) would be disproportionate to any consequences that may arise from the proposed noncompliance with the height control.

Given that compliance with the zone and development standard objectives is achieved and that the building complies with the overall height limit, particularly at the street frontage, insistence on strict compliance with the building height control is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

The proposal is compliant with the relevant objectives and will have no adverse environmental or amenity impacts The proposal is therefore justified on environmental planning grounds. For the reasons above, the proposed building height variation is consistent with the requirements of Cause 4 6(3) of the LEP.

On this basis, the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) are satisfied.

The proposal provides a residential development with superior amenity and streetscape presentation, while also dealing with the complexities of site isolation. This is achieved by well-planned and functional built form The non-compliance relates essentially to the provision of communal open space on the roof level. This will provide significant high quality amenity (views and solar access) to the future occupants of the building with minimal impact on surrounding development. There would be no broader environmental planning benefit achieved in requiring compliance.”

66.     Officers comment: The objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone are:

•    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

•    To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

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

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

 

67.     The height non-compliance does not undermine the objectives of the zone. The development on an undersized allotment is the reason for the poor amenity outcomes and the compromised built form which results in the development not satisfying the residential amenity objective of the zone.

 

68.     The proposal however fails to satisfy the “public interest” test as the exceedance of the control does not meet the objectives of the zone which include the following:

 

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

Officer Comment: The redevelopment of this site would contribute to the housing needs of the community. However it is the scale, form and density of the development proposed that is unsuitable for the site. The compromised built form directly results from the narrow width of the allotment with the built form attempting to ameliorate the non-compliances of the design having regard to State Environmental Planning Policy 65/ADG compliance. It is considered the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

·     To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

Officer Comment: The development incorporates two and three bedroom apartments.

 

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

The development is residential in nature and does not include any additional land uses. This objective is offering some greater flexibility in the provision of land uses within this zone and is not a mandatory requirement.

 

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

Officer Comment: The development fails to demonstrate compliance with a number of State Environmental Planning Policy 65/ADG controls, including solar access and natural ventilation, resulting in poor internal amenity for future occupants.

 

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

Officer Comment: This development does not include any additional business activities or land uses. Again this objective is not considered to be a mandatory requirement.

 

69.     It is considered that the Clause 4.6 Statement lodged with the application addresses all the information required pursuant to Clause 4.6. If the development was of a scale, form, density that was able to be supported, the clause 4.6 is considered acceptable.

 

70.     However, the proposal fails to achieve the minimum site width required for residential flat buildings. The undersized allotment therefore fails to comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy 65/ADG criterion in relation to communal open space, deep soil provision, building separation, solar access or internal apartment amenity. In addition, the proposal fails to meet a number of Development Control Plan controls, including landscaped area, streetscape presentation, built form and scale.

 

Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning (Clause 4.6(5)(a))

71.     Contravention of the maximum height development standard proposed by this application does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

The public benefit in maintaining the development standard (Clause 4.6(5)(b))

72.     It is noted that in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ clarified what items a Clause 4.6 does and does not need to satisfy. Importantly, there does not need to be a "better" planning outcome resulting from the non-compliance.

 

73.     Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly establish a test that the non-compliant development should have a neutral or beneficial effect relative to a compliant development.

 

74.     The second matter was in cl 4.6(3)(b), where the Commissioner applied the wrong test in considering this matter by requiring that the development result in a "better environmental planning outcome for the site" relative to a compliant development. Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly establish this test. The requirement in cl 4.6(3)(b) is that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, not that the development that contravenes the development standard have a better environmental planning outcome than a development that complies with the development standard.

 

75.     The proposal generates adverse bulk, scale and streetscape impacts and fails to satisfy the objectives of the zone and a number of SEPP65/ADG and Development Control Plan controls.

 

Development Control Plans

HURSTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 1 (HDCP)

76.     The proposal is subject to the provision of Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.1. These provisions are addressed in more detail below.

 

Development

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.1 Vehicle Access and Parking

DS1.5 Refer to AS 2890.1 2004 and AS2890.2 Part 2 for the design and layout of parking facilities. DS1.6

 

Council does not encourage, but may consider stacked parking for parking spaces in a controlled parking situation which:

a. allows no more than two cars in the stacked parking arrangement;

b. is likely to maintain a very low turnover; or

c. is able to function easily within the management of the site’s future operation

 

A designated car washing area (which may also be a designated visitor car space) is required for service stations and residential developments of four or more dwellings.

Turning and manoeuvring into and out of car spaces and isle widths are in accordance with Australian Standards

 

The proposal includes 6 car parking spaces, which are in the form of 3 staked spaces (residents) and five single spaces (three resident and two visitor spaces).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A car wash bay has not been provided.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – could be conditioned if the proposal was to be supported as a visitor space can double as a car wash bay.

Numerical parking controls

Residential Accommodation

Dwelling (1-2 bedrooms):

1 space per dwelling

Dwelling (3 bedrooms and over):

2 spaces per dwelling Visitor spaces:

1 space per 4 dwellings (or part thereof)

 

 

3 x 2B = 3 spaces

3 x 3B = 6 spaces

2 visitors spaces

 

11 spaces required

 

11 spaces proposed

 

 

Yes

3.3 Access and Mobility

In developments containing five or more dwellings, a minimum of one adaptable dwelling, designed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards must be provided for every ten dwellings or part thereof.

 

Access for all persons through the principal entrance and access to any common laundry, kitchen, sanitary or other common facilities in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

Unit G-02 is nominated as an adaptable apartment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, access through the building for people with a disability has been catered for and lift access has been provided to all levels including the roof communal open space.

Yes (pre and post development plans not provided and were not pursued given the application was being recommended for refusal).

 

 

 

3.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Ensures that the way in which the site, and the buildings within the site, are laid out enhance security and feelings of safety. 

 

Ensures that private and public spaces are clearly delineated

 

Ensures that the design of the development allows for natural surveillance to and from the street and between individual dwellings or commercial units within the site

The design of the building generally complies with the objectives and controls.

Yes

3.5 Landscaping

Site layout and design, including buildings, structures and hardstand, ensures the long term retention and health of existing significant trees and vegetation.

 

Where significant trees or vegetation are required to be removed to allow for site development, they are to be replaced with the same or similar species achieving the same coverage at maturity.

 

5% of the site is deep soil area and is located in small, irregular pockets along the site boundaries resulting in an inability to appropriately landscape the site.

 

No

3.6 Public Domain

Development contributes to the creation of attractive, comfortable and safe streets that comprise consistent and high quality paving, street furniture and street tree plantings.

The front setback is predominantly hard surface area with the small pocket of deep soil area unable to support significant landscaping to soften the built form of the building.

No – forms part of reasons for refusal.

3.7 Stormwater

A development application is supported by a concept stormwater management plan showing how surface and roof waters are to be discharged by gravity to the street or easement and the size of all pipes.

Council’s Engineers have reviewed the proposed drainage and stormwater arrangement and have raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Yes

4.1 Residential Flat Buildings

 

Site Frontage

 

Isolation

 

Min street frontage 24m

 

Where an application for a residential flat building will result in the creation of an isolated site, the applicant must show that reasonable efforts have been made to amalgamate the site. Where this has not been achieved, it must be shown that the isolated site is capable of accommodating a suitable development in the future.

 

In order to satisfy this requirement the applicant must provide:

a. evidence of offers made to acquire the site to be isolated (e.g. correspondence including responses to offers) based on at least two independent valuations. These valuations must be based on the site to be isolated forming part of the development site.

b.  a schematic design which demonstrates how the isolated site may be developed.

Street frontage 15.85m

 

The Applicant has not provided documentation relating to offers presented to the neighbours and claims the site is isolated due to the approval for an RFB to the west and an existing dual occupancy to the east.

 

No

 

No – council officers are not satisfied that the site is isolated. The assessment of the adjoining RFB DA2016/0366 states that the subject site is not in fact isolated as consolidation with No. 14A and 14B remains possible in order for the sites to achieve their highest and best use development potential.

 

The site width of the subject allotment is substantially below the 24m width required under the Development Control Plan applying to the site.

 

The site does not meet the minimum site frontage nominated in the Development Control Plan, the lack of width leads to issues with the character of the locality (given the inadequate space provided between buildings), amenity, privacy, a compromised basement arrangement, a lack of communal open space and a lack of deep soil area for planting, as such there are no grounds under which a variation to the frontage required could be supported.

 

The non-compliance with site frontage therefore forms part of the reasons of refusal.

 

In addition, the Interim Georges River Development Control Plan came into effect in July 2019. The Interim Policy is a public policy that is to be used as a guide to set a consistent approach for the assessment of residential development within the LGA. It is a supplementary document, meaning that current Development Control Plan controls will prevail if they are considered best practice. The Interim Development Control Plan still requires a 24m site frontage for residential flat buildings and notes that the control will not be varied unless the development site is an isolated site.

Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excavation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front Setback

 

 

Landscaping

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noise

 

 

 

 

Streetscape

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fencing

 

 

 

 

Site Facilities

In accordance with HLEP 2012 and 3 storeys.

 

 

 

 

 

The maximum excavation for any building’s finished ground floor level facing a public street is 0.5m below natural ground level.

 

 

 

 

 

The minimum setback to a primary or secondary street is 6m.

 

Minimum amount of landscaped area of open space is 20% of the Site area

 

Min dimension of landscaped open space is 2m

 

Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 June.

 

Windows of adjacent dwellings are separated by a distance of at least 3m

 

Development creates a high quality interface between the public and private domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provides appropriate levels of privacy, security and noise attenuation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development provides space for the storage of recyclable goods, either in the curtilage of each dwelling or in a central storage area in larger developments.

A variation is requested to the 12m height control and is not supported (see Clause 4.6 assessment in this report)

 

The building is 4 storeys.

 

Excavation exceeds the minimum controls but this is an anticipated design response given the site and the precedent that has been established for new medium density development in the street and the accommodation of vehicles within a basement.

 

6m to building façade.

 

5.2m to balcony edge.

 

5% of the site is deep soil area and is located in small, irregular pockets along the site boundaries resulting in an inability to appropriately landscape the site.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

The building is generally well articulated however is an overdevelopment of the site as it is unable to achieve the required setbacks and deep soil areas due to its width.

 

The narrow width of the site imposes a relatively tall and narrow building that will be out of character with regards the prevailing streetscape.

 

 

 

Front fencing between 1m and 1.8m is proposed.

 

 

 

Storage is provided within the units and in the basement.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

Acceptable on merit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No – forms part of reasons for refusal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No – forms reasons for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes compliant with ADG provisions

 

 

Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

77.     Council at its Environment and Planning Committee Meeting dated Council at its Environment and Planning Committee Meeting dated 24 June 2019 resolved to adopt the Georges River Interim Policy Development Control Plan which became effective on 22 July 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Site Frontage

24m

 

Peake Parade – 15.24m

No – see Hurstville Development Control Plan compliance table above for discussion.

 

Building Height

The relevant LEP controls relating to building height will prevail over Development Control Plan controls that relate to height in storeys

The proposal has been assessed against the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 height standard. The proposal does not currently comply.

No – See Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 Compliance Table above for further details.

Private Open Space

The ADG requirements prevail over the Development Control Plan controls for private open space

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

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

Yes

Communal Open Space

The ADG requirements prevail over the Development Control Plan controls for COS under the Interim Policy

No – the proposal is substantially short of providing the required COS.

No – forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

Parking

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

Environment):

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

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

·    If located outside of 800m of a Railway, the relevant Development Control Plan applies.

The site is located more than 800m away from a railway station and is not within a strategic centre.

The proposal has been assessed against the Development Control Plan controls and is fully compliant. Refer to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 compliance table above.

N/A

Solar Access

The ADG requirements prevail over the Development Control Plan controls for solar access under the Development Control Plan

 

The proposal is deemed to be non-compliant with the solar access provisions of the ADG.

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

No – see ADG compliance table for discussion.

 

Developer Contributions

80.     The proposed development if approved would require the payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is increasing the density of the locality by the construction of six new apartments. If the development was to be approved a condition outlining the required contributions will be imposed.

 

Impacts

Natural Environment

81.     The proposed tree removal has been assessed by Council’s Consultant Arborist as being acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent requiring replacement tree planting both within the site and in the public domain adjacent to the site. However, the absence of ADG compliant deep soil zones with minimum 6m dimensions and insufficient building setbacks precludes the planting of significant canopy trees within the site itself to ameliorate the scale of the building and reduce its visual impact.

 

Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Built Environment

82.     The proposal exceeds the building height development standard of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. A Clause 4.6 Objection has been submitted in support of the non-compliance.

 

83.     The exceedance of this standard is unreasonable and unacceptable in the site’s context and the neighbourhood’s character. The proposal is inconsistent with various State Environmental Planning Policy 65 Design Quality Principles (as detailed above) and does not reflect the desired future planning and design outcome for the site. The bulk of the building, its inadequate setbacks, deep soil areas and communal open space area result in an unacceptable outcome for the site and will set an undesirable precedent.

 

It is further noted that the narrow, tall form of the building provides proportions that are not anticipated by the Development Control Plan that applies to the locality, and accordingly the proposal is inconsistent with the existing and future desired character of the precinct and is thus recommended for refusal.

 

Social Impact

84.     No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment. The provision of additional dwellings would in principle provide for additional housing in close proximity to a local centre for a cross-section of the community. However, the built form is not an appropriate outcome for the site.

 

Economic Impact

85.     The proposed development has no apparent adverse economic impact. There may be a small positive economic impact as a result of the construction of the development.

 

Suitability of the site

86.     The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible land use within the zone, subject to development consent.

 

87.     The subject site in isolation is not suitable for the construction of an RFB within a medium density environment as the site does not meet the minimum site width control and therefore cannot achieve suitable setbacks to neighbouring properties.

 

88.     This RFB has not been sensitively designed to respond to the constraints of the site, in particular the land’s dimensions, area and context, as evidenced by its various non-compliances with relevant building envelope controls as detailed previously within this report.

 

Submissions and the Public Interest

89.     The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville Development Control Plan on three occasions between January 2018 and September 2018, in response to amended plans submitted by the applicant. Four (4) submissions were received over the course of the three periods (two duplicate submissions) however the issues remained the same in each submission.

 

90.     The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows, with a response provided to each.

 

91.     Non-compliance with the building height

Concern is raised with the non-compliance with the building height.

 

Planner’s Comment: The proposal does not comply with the maximum building height standard of the LEP and the request to vary the control is considered acceptable should the development be supported. However for a number of other non-compliances with the relevant planning controls, the application is not supported.

 

92.     Overdevelopment in the area

Concern was raised with regard to the number of residential flat buildings in Peake Parade and the wider locality in general.

 

Planner’s Comment: The site is located within a Zone R3 Medium Density Residential area that has received an uplift with respect to FSR and building heights under the Hurstville LEP 2012. As such, the area is likely to undergo a transition over time in the form of additional residential flat buildings. However, this particular proposal represents a poor outcome for the site as the site does not meet the minimum 24m site width control and as such cannot achieve compliance with a number of other controls including setbacks deep soil. The proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

93.     Noise Pollution

Concern is raised that the proposal will increase noise pollution in the area.

 

Planner’s Comment: If it were approved, the proposal would be unlikely to create excessive noise. A condition would be imposed to control the hours of use and noise emitted from the roof top communal open space.

 

94.     Parking Impacts

Concern is raised that the proposal will exacerbate the already crowded street with regard to cars parked on the street.

 

Planner’s Comment: The proposal fully complies with relevant off street car parking requirements of the Development Control Plan. This does not constitute a reason for refusal in this instance.

 

95.     Privacy Impacts

The proposed development will have adverse privacy impacts on neighbours.

 

Planner’s Comment: The proposal fails to meet the required setbacks to the side boundaries and council considers the privacy of neighbouring properties will be adversely impacted. The application is recommended for refusal.

 

96.     Overshadowing

Concern is raised that the proposal will unreasonably overshadow nearby properties.

 

Planner’s Comment: The shadow diagrams submitted with the DA have been assessed as being reliable for the purposes of assessment and the proposal complies with the Development Control Plan control that requires development to ensure neighbouring properties will continue to receive 3 hours of sunlight to the windows of the main living areas and private open space of adjoining dwellings during midwinter.

 

Referrals

Council Referrals

 

Development Engineer

97.     Council’s Development Engineer reviewed the proposal. No objection was raised with respect to the proposed stormwater drainage design, subject to conditions of consent being imposed. Deferred commencement conditions were recommended in relation to the applicant obtaining an easement to drain water into the open drain in the council reserve at the rear of the subject site.

 

Traffic Engineer

98.     The DA was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer. No objection was raised to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions of consent if approved.

 

Consultant Arborist

99.     Council’s Consultant Arborist reviewed existing tree conditions and raised no objection to the removal of the existing trees subject to conditions of consent if approval is granted. Those conditions require replacement tree planting on site and within the street to offset the loss of existing trees.

 

Waste Officer

100.    The DA was referred to Council’s Waste Officer for review. The Waste Officer advised that the proposal would require 4 x 240L waste bins (2 x waste and 2 x recycling), all collected twice a week. A bin store area is located adjacent to the walkway from the street and the common building entry foyer. A garbage store room is also indicated in the basement. Council’s waste officer requires a dedicated bin store room to meet certain design and operational criteria. Conditions of consent could be included should the application be approved to delete the ground level bin store room and include the design requirements for the basement bin store room.

 

Building Surveyor

101.    Council’s Building Surveyor raised no objection subject to conditions of consent if approval is granted.

 

External Referrals

Ausgrid

102.    The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing, no response has been received. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to significant built form issues.

 

CONCLUSION

103.    The proposal has been assessed using the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The proposal is found to be an unreasonable overdevelopment of the site, with excessive visual bulk and unmitigated scale, inadequately proportioned deep soil zones and communal open space areas and encroachment on required setbacks (from adjoining properties). As such, it represents an unacceptable planning and design outcome for this site and would adversely affect both the character of development in the street and the immediate locality and the residential amenity of the area.

 

104.    The proposal is inconsistent with various design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 including context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, landscape, amenity and aesthetics.

 

105.    The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of both Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1. The proposal exceeds the building height development standard of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. The Clause 4.6 Objection submitted in support of this variation is not supported as the development is recommended for refusal.

 

106.    The proposal also fails to comply with various built form controls of Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 including the site frontage and landscaped area controls.

 

107.    For the above reasons, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

108.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·     The proposal also fails to meet the maximum building height permitted on the site pursuant to Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 Objection submitted is not supported.

·     The proposal does not achieve the minimum side and rear setbacks required by the ADG and would encroach unacceptably on the adjoining properties.

·     The proposal fails to achieve the minimum deep soil and communal open space requirements of the ADG.

·     The development is also found to be deficient with a number of residential amenity requirements of the ADG and is deemed to fail to meet the ADG’s solar access and cross ventilation criteria on the basis that insufficient information has been received to confirm compliance.

·     The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and would establish an undesirable precedent in the area. Its approval is not in the public interest.

 

Determination

109.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse development consent to Development Application DA2017/0627  for demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building with basement parking at Lot 292 in DP36537 known as 16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

(a) The proposal fails to satisfy Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as it is inconsistent with various design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 with respect to its response to the site’s context and neighbourhood character and its built form and scale, density, landscape and aesthetics, and fails to comply with the corresponding design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide. The proposal does not achieve an acceptable built form with insufficient setbacks and separation to minimise the visual dominance of the building when viewed from both the public domain and adjoining properties. In addition, the proposal fails to provide any 6m wide deep soil landscaped area on the site.

 

(b) The proposal fails to satisfy Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development on the basis that it fails to either achieve or adequately demonstrate compliance with the design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide with respect to internal solar access, cross ventilation and the minimum area of communal open space.

 

2.       Refusal Reason - Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1, Chapter 4.1 Residential Flat Buildings, Section DS2.1 Site Frontage or Section DS3.1 Isolated Sites. The site has a frontage of 15.8m, which fails to comply with the minimum 24m required by the Development Control Plan. The site is not deemed to be an isolated site and no evidence has been provided from the applicant to indicate attempts have been made to purchase adjoining sites for amalgamation with the subject site. Together these non-compliances result in the site being unsuitable for the proposed development and it having unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

(a) Natural environment – The proposal does not meet the deep soil zones design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide nor provide sufficient front or side setbacks which precludes the planting of canopy trees around the perimeter of the site to provide a landscaped setting for the proposal and ameliorate the scale of the building. Furthermore, no landscaped boundary setback is provided on the north eastern side of the vehicle driveway.

 

(b) Built environment – The proposal does not respond to the context of the site nor the neighbourhood’s character on the basis that it exceeds the maximum building height that applies to the site, encroaches on the minimum required side and rear setbacks expected on the site, and fails to demonstrate a suitable level of internal amenity for the proposed apartments.

 

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

 

(a) The site cannot adequately accommodate the proposed built form without significant adverse impacts on the amenity of adjacent and nearby properties with respect to built form, visual dominance, bulk and scale.

 

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

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

02 Basement Plan and Ground Floor Plan - Issue D - 16 Peake Pde Peakhurst_Redacted - Reduced

Attachment 2

Revised Elevations - Issue D - 16 Peake Pde Peakhurst - Reduced

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 September 2019

LPP036-19               16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst

[Appendix 1]             02 Basement Plan and Ground Floor Plan - Issue D - 16 Peake Pde Peakhurst_Redacted - Reduced

 

 

Page 135

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 September 2019

LPP036-19               16 Peake Parade, Peakhurst

[Appendix 2]             Revised Elevations - Issue D - 16 Peake Pde Peakhurst - Reduced

 

 

Page 136

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 19 September  2019

Page 278

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 September 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP037-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0513

Site Address & Ward Locality

186-190 Princes Highway and 2-6 Lacey Street, Kogarah Bay

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of the existing structures and outbuildings and the construction of a seven (7) storey Residential Flat Building containing fifty (50) apartments, two (2) levels of basement parking, the retention and conservation of the existing Heritage Item (McWilliam House also known as Sunnyside) and associated landscaping and site works

Owners

Mr.G.W Evans, Ms.R.M.Smith, Mr and Mrs Vais, Mr.P.A. Andrews and Ms.J.A.Brown, Mr and Mrs Darwiche

Applicant

Truland Developments Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

PBD Architects – Architects and Planning Ingenuity – Town Planners

Date Of Lodgement

28/11/2018

Submissions

Fourteen (14) written submissions

Cost of Works

$17,550,000

Local Planning Panel Criteria

New RFB where the provisions of SEPP 65 are applicable and the height of the proposal exceeds 10% and a Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted in support of the non-compliance and over 10 unique submissions were received and the application involves demolition works associated with a heritage item.

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, Draft Evironmental State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy – Remediation of Land, Kogarah Local Envirnmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

 

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

Statement of Environmental Effects – Planning Ingenuity

Traffic and parking Assessment – Varga Traffic Planning

Noise Impact Assessment – Rodney Stevens Acoustics

BCA Report – AED Group

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

Approval

 

 

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Yes- Clause 4.6 Statement submitted in respect to non-compliance with the height control.

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, standard conditions have been attached with some design changes, which can be reviewed when the report is published. 

 

Site Plan

Site outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.       The development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures across five (5) sites, lot consolidation and the construction of a seven (7) storey Residential Flat Building (RFB) comprising of a total of fifty (50) apartments including two (2) levels of basement car parking catering for a total of ninety-three (93) car parking spaces. The proposal also includes alterations and restoration works to the existing Heritage Item to retain a two storey dwelling and convert the rear of the ground floor spaces into communal areas in association with the development. The proposal includes extensive landscaping and site works.

 

2.       The proposal was the subject of a formal Pre-lodgement Application (PRE2018/0020) for a scheme that was significantly larger than what has been proposed as part of this DA. The issues raised in the pre-lodgement advice included the overall height and scale, setback and visual relationship of the proposed building to the heritage item and the height of the building and its interface to the residential properties to the rear located along Wyuna Street. The proposal was modified to address these issues.

 

3.       The proposed development works include alterations and renovations to the existing heritage item by retaining a substantial curtilage around this building to allow for the visual appearance and integrity of this property to be maintained. The new