AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 03 October 2019

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Participants:

Adam Seton (Chairperson)

Juliet Grant (Expert Panel Member)

Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

George Vardas (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

 

(a)  24 Hampden Street Beverly Hills

(b)  15 Wonoona Parade Oatley

(c)  36 Bunyala Street Blakehurst

(d)  506-508 Railway Parade Allawah

 

 

 

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, 3 October  2019

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP038-19        15 Wonoona Parade Oatley - DA2018/0185

(Report by Senior Building Surveyor)

LPP039-19        24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills - DA2017/0530

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP040-19        506 - 508 Railway Parade, Allawah – DA2017/0394

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP041-19        36 Bunyala Street, Blakehurst  - MOD2019/0134

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair

MINUTES: Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - 19 September 2019 (18/653)

 

 


 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 October 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP038-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0185

Site Address & Ward Locality

15 Wonoona Parade Oatley

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing four (4) x two-storey dwellings and eight (8) on grade parking spaces.

Owners

Mr N Ahmad

Applicant

Cornerstone Design

Planner/Architect

Planner: GNA Planning (author of Statement of Environmental Effects); Architect: Cornerstone Design

Date Of Lodgement

11/05/2018

Submissions

Ten (10) submissions to original DA plans, a further six (6) submissions to the amended DA plans for a total of sixteen (16) submissions to this development application. 

Cost of Works

$1,393,426

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Development application is subject to ten (10) or more individual submissions by way of objection.

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land; State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007,

Greater Regional Metropolitan Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment; Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Environment); Draft Remediation State Environmental Planning Policy, Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012; Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

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

Architectural Plans

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Building Surveyor

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

Recommendation

Approval subject to conditions

 

 

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, however the conditions will be available to the applicant to view when the report is published.

 

Figure 1: 15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley – site outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of Development Application (“DA”) for demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing four (4) x two-storey dwellings and eight (8) on grade parking spaces within garages, an access driveway down the eastern side of the site, associated fencing and retaining works.

 

Site and Locality

2.         The property is identified as Lot 11 Section G DP 2150, No 15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley.

 

3.         The site is a parallelogram shaped allotment located on the northern side of Wonoona Parade East, with a 20.115m (southern) front boundary, a 20.115m (northern) rear boundary, a 49.075m (eastern) side boundary and a 49.075m (western) side boundary. The allotment area is 987.29sqm by calculation; however the registered survey shows the allotment area as 976sqm. The difference in the area is directly related to the conversion from imperial to metric as the DP is dated 31st August 1833. The survey of 28 September 2016 nominated the allotment area as 976sqm, this figure is used in the assessment of this application.

 

4.         An existing single storey dwelling with a detached garage and shed are located on the subject property.

 

5.         The locality is characterized by a mix of low to medium density residential developments. The allotments to the east and south of the Site along Wonoona Parade are predominantly detached single dwellings. Immediately to the west and north along Wonoona Parade are multi-dwelling housing developments. Further along Wonoona Parade to the west are various residential flat building developments of two-three storeys in height.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

6.         The subject allotment is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). “Multi dwelling housing” is permitted with consent. “Multi dwelling housing” is defined as: “three (3) or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building. The development satisfies this definition.

 

Submissions

7.         The DA was notified on two (2) separate occasions during the assessment process. The original DA notification resulted in ten (10) submissions all objecting to the development. Amended plans were received which were re-notified to neighbours. Following this re-notification, a further six (6) submissions objecting to the development were received. A total of sixteen (16) submissions were received to the DA.

 

8.         The issues of concern raised in the neighbour’s submissions included:

 

·      The proposal is an over-development of the site;

·      Car parking – the proposed provision of on-site parking is not practical and will result in increased on-street parking;

·      The development will cause reduction in solar access to the both the adjoining town house development (to the west) and to the adjoining dwelling (to the east);

·      The development will cause loss of visual privacy to the eastern and western adjoining properties;

·      The proposal is out of character with the surrounding area;

·      The development has several areas of non-compliance with Kogarah DCP 2013 (Part C2 – Medium Density)

 

9.         The DA is referred to the Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination, as there have been sixteen (16) submissions by way of objection to the application, triggering the referral criterions being ten (10) or more individual submissions by way of objection as referenced in the Ministerial Direction of 23 February 2018.

 

Conclusion

10.      The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

11.      The development proposes the demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing four (4) x two-storey dwellings and eight (8) on grade parking spaces, an access driveway down the eastern side of the site, associated fencing and retaining works.

 

12.      Specifically, the proposal includes the following:

 

·      Demolition of the existing dwelling, detached garage and detached sheds on the site.

 

·      Construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing four (4) x 4-bedroom dwelling. The dwellings are to be constructed as two (2) x two (2) storey buildings, containing units 1 and 2 in the front building, and units 3 and 4 in the rear building.

 

·      Vehicle access is along the eastern side of the site. The driveway accesses four (4) garages containing two (2) stacked spaces, one garage for each dwelling.

 

·      Private open space is provided on the western side of the dwellings, with additional open space to the north for the rear dwelling (number 4).

 

·      Each dwelling contains the living and service areas on the ground floor with the bedrooms and sitting area on the first floor levels, with the exception of dwelling 4 which has its fourth bedroom on the ground level and has been nominated as adaptable.

 

13.      The following is a photomontage of the proposed development, as well as the site (roof) and front elevation of the DA plans as prepared by the applicant.

 

Figure 2: Photomontage of proposed development (provided by the applicant)

 

Figure 3: Site (Roof) Plan (from applicant’s DA plans)

 

Figure 4: Front Elevation drawing (from applicant’s DA plans).

 

Description of the Site and Locality

14.      The property is identified as Lot 11 Section G, DP 2150, and is known as No. 15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley. The site is a parallelogram shaped allotment with a 20.115m (southern) street frontage, a 20.115m rear (northern) boundary width, 49.075m (eastern) side boundary and a 49.075m (western) side boundary. The allotment is 976sqm in area (as verified by the registered survey of 28 September 2016) and is located on the northern side of Wonoona Parade East.

 

15.      The site slopes away from the street frontage as well as having a cross-fall from west to east. In this regard it slopes 1.59m from the south western corner to the north western corner, 1.27m from the south eastern corner to the north eastern corner. The cross-fall measures at 0.58m from the north western corner to the north eastern corner (across the rear boundary) and 0.9m from the south western corner to the south eastern corner (across the front boundary).

 

16.      An existing single storey dwelling with a detached garage and a detached shed are all located on the subject property.

 

17.      The site is located on the northern side of Wonoona Parade east approximately 30m east of the intersection with Rosa Street.

 

18.      The subject property adjoins a 4416sqm site containing a two-storey multi-unit housing development over basement carparking to the west which is bounded by Hurstville Road to the north, Rosa Street to the west and Wonoona Parade East to the south.

 

19.      A one - two storey villa and town house development adjoins the site to the north (No. 1 Ada Street) and one and two storey residential dwellings to the east.

 

20.      Oatley train station is located approximately 440m to the south west, and Oatley shops are located approximately 280m to the south west.

 

21.      The street in front of the subject site is a divided carriageway that has a large median island that is landscaped with large mature trees. The median islands create narrow sections of road that are one way on each side of the median.

 

22.      The following is a selection of photos depicting the subject site and adjoining properties.

 

Figure 5: Onsite photo looking south at rear of existing dwelling

 

Figure 6: Onsite photo looking north-west at adjacent Rosa Street development

 

Figure 7: Onsite photo looking north at adjacent Ada Street development

 

Figure 8: Onsite photo looking east at neighbouring two storey dwelling

 

Background

23.      The subject DA was submitted to Council on 11 May 2018. These were neighbour notified from 1 June 2018 to 18 June 2018. Ten (10) submissions were received.

 

24.      Following meetings/discussions with the objectors and an assessment of the proposal, the applicant was advised of the main concerns with the proposal on 16 November 2018

 

25.      A meeting was held with the applicants and Council staff at Council on 30 November 2018 to discuss the plans and the concerns raised in Councils email sent 16 November 2019.

 

26.      Formal amended plans were submitted on 28 March 2019. These plans were neighbour notified from 3 April 2019 to 17 April 2019. Five (5) submissions were received from previous objectors maintaining their concerns and one (1) submission was received withdrawing their original submission as their concerns had been resolved by the amendments.

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

27.      The subject site has been inspected and the development has been assessed under the relevant Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

State Environmental Planning Policy (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

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

Yes

 

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

29.      A BASIX Certificate has been prepared and issued by: Building & Energy Consultants Australia, certification no: 926715M_02, dated: 06 June 2019, for the proposed development and the commitments required by the BASIX Certificate have been satisfied. (It is noted that this is an amended BASIX certificate as required to accompany the amended DA plans).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007

30.      In accordance with Clauses 101 and 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, the site is not located where it is deemed to be affected by significant noise levels associated with traffic.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

31.      Council records indicate that the subject site has been historically used for residential purposes and is unlikely to be contaminated.  The site adjoins residential uses therefore contamination from adjoining uses is also unlikely. Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP 55, the following shall be addressed:

 

Clause 7 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application

Comment:

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

No report has been submitted in this instance.

(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

Not applicable, as the allotment is not classified in Council’s Mapping System to contain any Acid Sulfate Soils.

(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.

Not applicable, due to the nature of the proposal and the allotment does not contain any Acid Sulfate Soils.

 

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

 

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

 

33.      The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of: 

 

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

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

 

34.      No adverse issues arise in terms of the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP. Council’s Consultant Arborist has undertaken an assessment in terms of the proposed tree removal. Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees:

 

Tree Species

Number of trees

Location

T2 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Along western boundary - front yard.

T3 – Pittosporum undulatum

X1

Along western boundary - front yard.

T5 – Syagrus romanzoffiana

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T7 – Phoenix canariensis

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T9 – Callistemon citrinus

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T10 – Hakea salicifolia

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T11 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T12 – Mangifera indica

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T13 – Camellia sasanqua

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T14 – Prunus persica

X1

Within the backyard of the site.

T15 – Callistemon viminalis

X1

Within the front side yard.

T16 – Banksia Spp

X1

Within the front side yard.

T17 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Within the front side yard.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

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

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zoning and Permissibility

36.      The subject allotment is located within the R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). “Multi dwelling housing” is permitted with consent.  “Multi dwelling housing” is defined as: Three (3) or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

 

37.      The following is an extract of the zoning map under Kogarah Local Environmental Plan indicating the zoning of the subject site and surrounding zonings:

 

Figure 9: Zoning Map – site outlined in blue

 

38.      The objectives for development in 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 provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 

39.      The above Zone Objectives aim to facilitate additional medium density housing forms, as distinct from the R2 Low Density zone which does not permit such medium density housing developments. The proposed development for a medium density (“townhouse”) development is consistent with the above objectives.

 

Compliance Table – Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 Development Controls

 

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

 

Applicable LEP Clause

Objectives/Provisions

Comment

Compliance

Clause 4.1A Minimum Lot Sizes for Multi-Dwelling Housing

Multi dwelling housing in Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential requires a minimum site area of 800sqm.

Total allotment size - 976sqm.

 

 Yes

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the height of buildings on the subject site to 9m.

The proposal has a building height of up to 8.235m.

Yes

Clause 4.4 - Floor space ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the floor space ratio for buildings on the subject site to 0.7:1 (683.2sqm)

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.58:1 (565.8sqm)

Yes

Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

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

(c)  to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The subject site is not identified as a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area, nor is it immediately adjoining a heritage item or heritage conservation area. It also contains no recognised archaeological sites or aboriginal objects.

 

Yes

Clause 6.1 – Acid sulfate soils

 

 

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

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

N/A

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

The proposal does not involve any excavation or filling for a basement carpark or subfloor area. The amount of excavation and/or fill required over the site is considered satisfactory.

Yes

Clause 6.3 - Flood planning

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

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

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

The subject site is not identified on the Flood Planning Map as being within a Flood Planning Area.

N/A

Clause 6.4 – Limited Development on Foreshore Area

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

The subject site is not located within a Foreshore Area.

N/A

Clause 6.5 – Airspace operations

The objective of this clause is to protect airspace around airports

 

The proposed development will not impact the prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport.

N/A

 

Development Control Plans

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

41.      The provisions of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013) are relevant to the proposed development.

 

Development Control Plan B2 – Tree Management and Greenweb

 

42.      There are no significant trees or vegetation on site that required approval for removal under Council’s Tree Management Policy. It is noted the fruit trees and Cocos palms on site are exempt and do not require approval to be removed under Council’s Tree Management Policy. A detailed landscape plan has been submitted with this application and has been reviewed by Councils Tree Management Officer which has recommended approval subject to suitable conditions of consent.

 

Development Control Plan B4 – Parking and Traffic

 

43.      Council’s Traffic Engineers initially raised concerns regarding the car parking not complying with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 - Off Street Car Parking, the turning circles into the garages did not appear to comply.

 

44.      The amended plans addressed the on-site parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The amendments have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineers, the proposal is now considered acceptable. The tandem parking provided for all four dwellings and access to and from has been designed to comply with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004- Off-street car parking.

 

45.      Part B4 DCP 2013 contains the following car parking requirements for multi-dwelling housing developments:

 

DCP Control

Requirement

Compliance

Parking

Requirements

The car parking rate for development types are outlined in DCP - Table 1 - Parking Requirements.

Multi-dwelling houses:

1.5 spaces/dwelling, plus

1 visitor spaces per 5 dwellings or part thereof.

Complies.

 

4 dwellings x 1.5 = 6

8 car spaces are provided, thereby exceeding the DCP control.

 

1 visitor space is required – 1 provided in an unacceptable location

 

Although a visitor space has been proposed, concern is raised regarding its location within the front setback area, and the resultant adverse streetscape impacts.

The proposal is seeking to accommodate the visitor space adjacent to dwelling 1 and parallel to Wonoona Parade East. The location of this carparking space results in the alienation of the front setback reducing the ability to landscape this area resulting in an unacceptable presentation to the street as only strip landscaping could be provided.

This results in an unacceptable streetscape presentation and urban design outcome. As a result the space is proposed to be deleted.

Whilst the development requires the provision of a visitor space, this cannot be provided on site with the current design and the conversion of a residential carparking space to a visitor cannot be achieved given the parking is provided in a tandem arrangement.

In this regard a review of the road network and available on street parking was considered. It is acknowledged there is a dividing median in this location so a review was undertaken of the side streets. It is considered there is sufficient on street parking available after hours to facilitate visitor parking.

In this regard the deletion of the visitor space will not adversely impact the on street parking.

 

Development Control Plan C2 – Medium Density Housing

 

46.      The key controls concerning multi dwelling housing developments are examined below:

 

 

Control

Proposed

Complies

Minimum Site and Density Requirements

Minimum site area and density requirements have been set out for various forms of medium density development in the R3 – Medium Density Zone.

This site is not identified in Appendix 4 of Kogarah DCP 2013, as it was rezoned as part of KLEP Amendment No. 2, the DCP controls were not updated to align with the LEP, as a result the FSR controls within KLEP 2012 of 0.7:1 prevails (683.2sqm). 

Proposed FSR = 0.58:1 or 562.01sqm.

Yes

Building Height

The maximum building height is in accordance with the table in section 5.1 (1)

Maximum H1 Height

= 7.4m

Maximum H2 Height

= 9.0m

 

Habitable rooms in medium density developments must achieve a minimum floor – to ceiling height of 2.7m.

 

 

 

 

 

H1=6.85m

 

H2=8.235m

 

 

 

 

 

Ground floor = 2.7m

First floor = 2.7m

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Yes

Building Setbacks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) For residential flat development and multi dwelling housing, a maximum of 75% of the width of the building must be setback a minimum of 5m, with the remainder  25% being setback a minimum of 7m

 

Rear setbacks = 3m plus ¼ the amount that the wall height exceeds 3 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side setbacks for dwellings not fronting the street, 3m plus ¼ the amount that the wall height exceeds 3m

75% of dwelling 1 is setback 5.245m and the remaining 25% is setback 10.2m from the front boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 4 is setback a minimum of 3m off the rear boundary at ground floor level and a minimum of 4.804m off the rear boundary at first floor level.

 

All dwellings (including garages) at ground floor level are setback a minimum of 4m off the western side boundary. It is acknowledged there are garage doors on the western side of the development as well as the eastern side.

 

Dwellings 1, 2 & 3 are setback 4.595m off the eastern side boundary with dwelling 4 - 4.046m.

 

At first floor level, all dwellings are setback a minimum of 3.675m off the western side boundary and 4.595m off the eastern side boundary.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open space is to be provided in accordance with below.

 

Private Open Space

 

-     40sqm per dwelling at ground level with minimum dimensions of 4m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 1

53.05sqm

Dwelling 2

48.53sqm

Dwelling 3

48.53sqm

Dwelling 4

60sqm

All of the courtyard areas comply with the 4m minimum dimension.

(the calculation of dwelling 4 does not include the rear that is less than 4m in depth).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Impervious Area of Site (Maximum) = 55% (543sqm)

 

 

 

Proposed impervious areas = 63.98% being 624.5sqm.

(Note: This includes having permeable pavers on the driveway which gives 50% permeability).

No #1

 

Vehicle access, parking and circulation

 

 

 

 

 

Car parking is to be provided in accordance with the requirements in Part B4;

Multi-dwelling housing requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling.

Multi-dwelling housing requires 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings or part thereof.

 

Vehicular access points should be clearly visible from the street with adequate sign posting or design cues to alert drivers to their availability.

 

On corner sites with two frontages vehicular access should be provided to the secondary frontage.

 

Crossings are to be positioned so that on-street parking and landscaping on the site are maximized, and removal or damage to existing street trees is avoided.

 

 

Driveways should be designed to avoid a straight, long 'gun barrel' appearance by using appropriate landscaping and variations in alignment.

 

 

 

 

A minimum of 600mm of landscaping must be provided between a driveway and side boundary.

 

 

Car parking layout and vehicular access requirements and design are to be in accordance with the Australian Standards, in particular AS2890.1-2004.

 

Each on-site parking space must have the following minimum dimensions:

a)   Parking space unenclosed at sides: 2.6m width x 5.5m length.

 

b) Enclosed garage: 3.0m width x 5.5m length.

 

1 visitor space/5 dwellings or part thereof, and 1 designated car wash bay which may also be used as a visitor space

 

-    Designated disabled parking space and space for each adaptable unit: 3.8m width x 6.0m length.

 

In order to allow for a landscaped buffer between shared driveways and the windows of habitable rooms, shared driveways must be set back a minimum of 1.5m from windows of habitable rooms or a minimum of 1 metre where the floor level of the habitable room is at least 1m above the driveway at the window opening.

 

All multi dwelling developments must provide a secure storage space of a minimum floor area of 4m³ per dwelling.

 

Provision is to be made on site so that all vehicles can leave the site in a forward direction.

1.5 car spaces per dwelling equates to 6 parking spaces required and 8 proposed.

 

1 visitors parking space is required

 

 

 

 

The driveway access will be clearly defined and visible from the public domain.

 

 

 

This property is not a corner site.

 

 

 

 

The proposed driveway crossing maintains the same location as the existing driveway crossing to this site, albeit modified to satisfy the development.

 

The driveway extends along the eastern side of the allotment and Is straight in design. There are two landscaping bays 1m wide along the driveway to soften the appearance.

 

Landscaping is not provided the full length of the driveway as required by this clause.

 

Car parking and vehicular access complies with AS2890.1-2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

The visitor parking space is being deleted by condition as it is inappropriately located.

 

Length and width dimensions satisfied.

 

 

 

There is a kitchen and study window to dwelling one and a kitchen window to dwellings two and three that are located 600mm away from the driveway rather than the 1.5 metre setback required.

 

 

 

 

 

4m³ of storage is provided in all dwellings.

 

 

 

 

All vehicles can leave the site in a forward direction.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No – inappropriately located, deleted by condition.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

No (#2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No (#3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Solar Access

Where private open space is proposed on the southern side of the building, the distance from the southern boundary of the open space to the nearest wall to the north must be a minimum of 3m + h, where h is the height of the wall.

 

Where the neighbouring properties are affected by overshadowing, at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am-3pm on the winter solstice (21 June)

 

Shadow diagrams are to be submitted for the winter solstice (21 June) and the spring equinox (22 September)

No Private Open Space is located on the southern side of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The submitted shadow diagrams show hourly shadows on the 21st of June.

 

The adjoining properties maintain 3 hours of sunlight to at least 50% of the primary open space and habitable rooms during mid-winter.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards – Variations

47.      An assessment of the proposed variations to Council's DCP is provided below;

 

(#1) Impervious Area

 

48.      The proposed impervious area is 63.98%, or 624.5sqm. The control imposes a maximum of 55%, in this instance being 543sqm. This results in a non-compliance of 10% or 106.5sqm.

 

49.      The design of the proposed townhouses with attached garages rather than basement car parking has resulted in the provision of more landscaped areas than required under Councils DCP (15% of site area), and more private open space than required. It is also compliant in terms of site coverage and floor space ratio. It is considered the development type and design is considered suitable for the site in terms of achieving a good impervious/pervious balance.

 

50.      It is worth noting the objective of the control is focused on reducing stormwater runoff and the potential for local flooding. Adequate arrangements have been made with the concept stormwater system to retain any additional water via the OSD and rainwater tanks so as not to have any further impacts on neighbouring properties or on Councils street stormwater disposal system.

 

51.      The proposed variation to the impervious area clause is not considered to be excessive, while still being able to meet the objectives of the control.

 

52.      (#2) Parking and Location of Visitors Parking Space

 

53.      DCP 2013 requires 1 visitor space per 5 units (or part thereof). The proposed development of 4 dwellings requires one (1) visitor parking space.

 

54.      A visitor space has been proposed within the front setback of the site. The location of the space is considered to be an inappropriate location and detracts from the streetscape amenity and does not result in an acceptable urban design outcome. Whilst landscaping could be provided, it is considered there is insufficient in depth and area to make this an acceptable trade off.

 

55.      As a result a condition is recommended to delete this space and replace the parking space with soft landscaping.

 

56.      A review of the locality has revealed there is capacity in the street network for visitors to the site to be able to park. In this regard the streetscape presentation is considered acceptable with the deletion of the visitor space and is considered not to result in an unacceptable impact on the available on street parking.

 

(#3) Privacy to habitable room windows from the shared driveway

 

57.      The intent of this requirement is to maintain a degree of privacy to the rooms with windows facing the shared driveway. All four windows facing the driveway are setback 600mm off the drive and have a landscaped garden bed between the driveway and the window. Three of the windows are kitchen windows with high sill heights that vary from 1.150m to 1.63m above the driveway level. The privacy impact on these kitchen windows when considering the use of a kitchen is not unreasonable. The study window has a bottom sill height of 1.825 metres above the driveway level and therefore has no impact on the privacy of this study. Given the above information this minor variation is considered acceptable.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

 

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

 

59.      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.

 

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

 

Draft Environment SEPP

 

61.      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.

 

62.      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.

 

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

 

Section 7.11 Contributions

 

64.      The proposed development requires payment of $45,537.92 of Section 7.11 (Former Section 94) Contributions based on the provisions of Kogarah Contributions Plan Nos. 1, 5 and 9. (Calculated 25 September 2019.)

 

Contribution Plan

Description

Section 94 contributions assessed

No. of existing lots (credit)

Section 94 contributions payable

Plan No. 1

Road and traffic management - residential

               3,011.52 

                 (853.26)

               2,158.26 

Plan No. 5

Open Space - 2006

             59,832.08 

            (18,335.61)

             41,496.47 

Plan No. 9

Kogarah libraries - buildings component

               1,465.80 

                 (366.45)

               1,099.35 

Plan No. 9

Kogarah libraries - books component

               1,045.12 

                 (261.28)

                  783.84 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Section 94 Contributions Currently Payable

 

 

             45,537.92 

 

Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts

 

65.      The proposal is not considered to generate unreasonable environmental, social and/or economic impacts upon the locality. The proposal will provide the provision of additional housing.

 

Suitability of the site

 

66.      It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is suitable for the site, notwithstanding the non-compliances which have been addressed throughout this report, having regard to its size and shape, its topography, vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

 

Submissions

67.      The DA was notified on two (2) separate occasions due to amendments to the architectural plans.

 

68.      The original DA was notified for a period from 1 June to 18 June 2018, and ten (10) submissions were received.

 

69.      When amended plans were received, these were re-notified for a period from 3 April to 17 April 2019. No submissions were received in response to the amended plans re-notification process. One (1) neighbour confirmed in writing that their original concerns they had raised had been satisfied by the amended plans. Five (5) of the original submitters lodged further correspondence confirming their original concerns.

 

70.      Accordingly a total of sixteen (16) submissions were received with one (1) of these submissions being withdrawn.

 

71.      The concerns raised in these submissions are discussed as follows:

 

72.      Solar Access: Many of the neighbour’s concerns related to the issue of adverse solar access. In particular, many of the owners/occupiers of the adjoining townhouse development to the west have raised concern that the development will adversely impact their solar access – stating that their own development limits the amount of solar access available, and the proposed development will cause such solar access to be unreasonably reduced.

 

73.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: The subject site is orientated north/south and therefore the western neighbours will receive shadow impacts in the morning and the eastern side neighbours in the afternoon. The western side neighbours also have the problem that their own building overshadows their own courtyard backyards in the afternoon.

 

74.      The controls in Kogarah DCP 2013 for medium density housing state that “where the neighbouring properties are affected by overshadowing, at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice (21 June)”.

 

75.      The shadow diagrams provided indicate that all neighbouring properties will receive the minimum requirement of at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on the winter solstice (21 June). Hourly shadow diagrams between 9am and 3pm (on June 21) have been provided to demonstrate compliance with the solar access controls.

 

76.      In terms of the impacts on the townhouse development to the west, the shadow diagrams show that by 10am, shadows from the development affect less than 50% of the courtyards of the townhouses, and the shadows from the proposed development move away from those courtyards after this time. The shadows from the adjoining townhouses themselves would only begin to impact on the courtyards of the townhouses after 1pm – meaning the courtyards of the townhouses would be able to receive 3 hours of sunlight at the winter solstice.

 

77.      It should be noted that the neighbour’s submissions have also suggested that the development should be mirror-reversed to place the driveway of this development adjacent to the adjoining townhouse development so as to improve solar access for the townhouses. The development is compliant with respect to height and setbacks, as a result a redesign of this scale is not considered necessary given the solar access afforded by this development complies with the controls.

 

78.      In terms of impacts on the adjoining development to the east (No 11A Wonoona) – this property contains a single dwelling with a swimming pool within the rear yard. The shadow diagrams show that shadows from the proposed development only begin to affect this adjoining property to the east after 2pm. Therefore, the proposal facilitates the required 3 hours during midwinter and therefore complies with the Kogarah DCP 2013 requirements.

 

79.      The above assessment has demonstrated the requirements of the DCP controls are satisfied and there is no unreasonable impact on the allotments adjoining.

 

80.      The following are the shadow diagrams of the proposed development to support the above assessment.

 

Figure 10 – Shadow diagrams of proposed development (9am, 10am, 11am and 12noon), from applicant’s DA plans

 

Figure 11: Shadow diagrams of proposed development (1pm, 2pm and 3pm, plus elevational shadow diagrams), from applicant’s DA plans

 

81.      Drainage: Concern has been raised that the applicant for the proposed development has sought an easement to drain stormwater over the adjoining property (No 1-5 Ada Street) – and also that any re-development of the subject property will have adverse impacts in terms of stormwater runoff.

 

82.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: The subject site has a slope towards the rear (north-east) corner of the site, the revised stormwater plans indicate that all stormwater from roof and hardstand areas be collected and disposed to the rear (north-east) corner in accordance with the site gradient. The stormwater will discharge into a drainage easement that extends through the rear property known as 1-5 Ada Street Oatley connecting into Council’s infrastructure to Ada Street. Council’s Stormwater Engineers have reviewed the proposed stormwater system and are satisfied with the proposal subject to suitable conditions of consent. These include Deferred Commencement conditions that require an easement to be obtained and registered.

 

83.      Over Development and Out of Character: Concern is raised that the development involves demolition of a single dwelling and replacement with a medium density housing development of 4 units – which will result in an over-development of the site and which is out of character with the existing residential environment.

 

84.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: It is noted that the development is for a new medium density housing (townhouse) development, involving the demolition of a single detached dwelling on an allotment of land of 976sqm.

 

85.      The subject site has been “up-zoned” from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential under Kogarah LEP 2012, in May 2017, as part of the “New City Plan”. The current development proposal is considered to be consistent with the intended outcome and character of the gazetted New City Plan, which is to increase building heights and development density in the Kogarah area.

 

86.      It is also noted that the site directly adjoins two other medium density (townhouse) developments to the west and to the north, and therefore the proposal is consistent with both the existing and desired future character of this particular residential location.

 

87.      The proposal complies with the development controls relating to density, namely side setbacks, site coverage, floor space ratio and landscaped area requirements.

 

88.      It is acknowledged there are non-compliances with controls, however there has been assessed and considered acceptable. The proposal is not considered to be an over-development of the site, having regard to the existing and desired future character of residential development in this location.

 

89.      Compliance with Development Control Plan 2013: Concern is raised that the development has numerous areas of non-compliance with Kogarah DCP 2013.

 

90.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: An assessment of compliance has been undertaken in terms of the controls in Kogarah DCP 2013, earlier in this report. This assessment has indicated that the proposal is generally satisfactory, with minor areas of non-compliance with impervious area and the provision of visitor parking. These areas of non-compliance have been assessed as acceptable as assessed earlier in this report.

 

91.      Noise: Concern is raised that the development will produce excessive noise (compared to the existing situation of a single dwelling), and that there are excessive hard-paved areas which will inhibit the ability to absorb noise.

 

92.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: The proposal is for a residential development within a suitably-zoned residential allotment within Oatley. There is no reason to believe that the development would produce excessive noise beyond what would be reasonably expected within an urban environment.

 

93.      Particular concern has been raised in relation to matters such as air conditioning units and the like. In this regard, such air conditioning installation will need to comply with applicable legislative requirements.

 

94.      Parking: Concern is raised that the development will cause on-street parking – in particular that the car parking design (“stacked”/tandem garage parking) is not suitable and will be difficult to use, and occupants will simply park on the street instead.

 

95.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: The car parking requirements under Kogarah DCP 2013 require 1.5 spaces per dwelling plus one visitor’s space. For a development of four (4) units, a total of six (6) parking spaces are required. This proposal provides two (2) spaces per dwelling (i.e. eight (8) spaces total) in the form of “stacked”/tandem garage spaces. Tandem parking is permitted under Kogarah DCP 2013 and is a common method of providing of on-site parking.

 

96.      The development proposes one visitor space within the front setback. This raises concern regarding excessive hard-paved area within the front of the site, which is considered to be undesirable from a streetscape and urban design perspective. As discussed throughout this report, it is considered preferable from a streetscape perspective to delete this visitor parking space and replace it with additional landscaping as it is considered this shortfall will not adversely impact the on street parking arrangements. This is covered by a condition of consent.

 

97.      Privacy: Concern is raised that the development will adversely impact on neighbours’ privacy – particularly upon the townhouse development to the west. Also upon the adjoining detached dwelling to the east, which has a swimming pool within the rear yard.

 

98.      Assessment Officer’s Comment: The development has been designed to provide living areas at the ground floor, including rooms with sliding glass doors to the dining/living rooms which face towards the neighbouring properties. There is no significant increase in level (generally less than 300mm increase) of the finished floor level above existing ground level, it is considered that potential privacy impacts would be adequately resolved via (1.8m high) boundary fencing.

 

99.      The development generally provides bedrooms at the first floor level, however there is a small sitting room in each unit (on the western side). It is considered that such room could normally cause some privacy impacts – however it is noted that the DA plans show that the sitting room windows will be provided with frosted glass, which will resolve potential privacy impacts upon properties to the west in this instance.

 

100.    It is considered that the proposal does not result in unreasonable privacy impacts.

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

 

101.    Landscaping – No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

 

102.    Stormwater – No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

 

103.    Property Information - No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

 

104.    Traffic Engineers - The amended plans comply with the swept path diagrams for B99 vehicles in accordance with AS2890.1-2004.

 

External Referrals

 

105.    No external referrals were required with this application.

 

Discussions with Neighbours

 

106.    Onsite meetings were held with residents that raised concerns with the proposed works. There concerns were discussed and are covered in the body of this report.

 

(e)       The public interest.

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

108.    Development consent is sought for the demolition of all structures and the construction of a multi dwelling housing development consisting of four (4) dwellings with tandem parking for eight (8) vehicles site and landscape works on the subject site.

 

109.    The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for consideration under Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Kogarah Development Control Plan. The proposed development achieves an acceptable level of compliance with those requirements and does not cause any unreasonable impacts upon neighbouring properties and or the public domain.

 

Determination and Statement of Reasons

 

110.    Statement of Reasons

·      The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the site and the character of the locality.

·      The proposed development, subject to the recommended conditions, will have no unreasonable impacts upon the natural or built environments.

·      In consideration of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed development is a suitable and planned use of the site and its approval is in the public interest.

 

111.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Georges River Local Planning Panel grant deferred commencement consent to Development Application DA2018/0185 for demolition of all existing structures onsite and the construction of a multi dwelling housing development consisting of four (4) dwellings, eight parking spaces, site and landscape works on Lot 11, Section G, DP: 2150, No 15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley, subject to the following conditions of consent:

 

112.    Deferred Commencement Conditions - This Development Application is a Deferred Commencement Consent under Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (as amended) 1979. Strict compliance is required with all conditions appearing in Section A within three (3) years from the Determination Date of this consent. Upon confirmation in writing from Georges River Council that the Section A Conditions have been satisfied, the consent shall commence to operate as a Development Consent for a period of five (5) years from the Determination Date of this consent.

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this consent will not operate until the following requirements are satisfied:

 

SECTION A – DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

1.         Deferred Commencement - Drainage

Pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this consent will not operate until such time as the following requirements are met to the satisfaction in writing of the Manager Development and Building.

 

1.    The applicant must submit adequate written documents and plans to address the following issues effectively to the satisfaction of Council’s development engineer:

i.     legal permission:  The applicant must acquire an Easement to Drain Water of 1 metre (minimum) width or submit a legal document to prove a registered easement over the existing easement to drain water have been created in favour of this proposed development to use and connect into the existing drainage easement running through No. 1 Ada Street East Oatley, servicing the existing site No. 150 Hurstville Road Oatley (Lot CP, SP78444).

ii.    The applicant shall also submit a detailed longitudinal section with levels of the existing pipe within the existing easement to drain water supported by a ‘Work as Executed’ plan or a survey plan prepared by a registered surveyor showing the existing pipe location, size, respective levels and grade.

iii.   Submission of engineering analysis for the total discharge flow into the easement’s pipe as a proof of capacity for the existing pipe and whether an upgrading would be required from the point of connection. The detailed longitudinal section of the existing stormwater pipe within the easement with engineering calculations of the capacity of the pipe shall be prepared by a practicing drainage engineer and submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s development engineering section.

iv.     The new amended drainage plan shall show the method proposed to collect and dispose the runoff from the private courtyards without any blockage to the surface flow order to avoid ponding within the private courtyards.

v.      The new amended drainage plan shall show the provision of a junction pit for the connection into the easement’s pipe.

vi.     The drainage plan shall demonstrate that o overland flow from the site is diverted onto the downstream private courtyard for up to 1:100 year event.

 

Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within three (3) years of the granting of this deferred commencement consent.

 

Commencement of the consent cannot occur until written approval of the submitted information has been given to Council.

 

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

 

SECTION B – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Development Details

 

2.         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

Survey Plan

204651-2

28/9/2016

NA

W.Buxton PTY LTD Registered Surveyors

Site Analysis Plan

DA 01

 

 

Cornerstone Design

Site Ground Floor Plan

DA 02

5/6/2019

C

Cornerstone Design

First Floor Plan

DA 03

4/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Roof Plan

DA 04

4/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Elevations

DA 05

1/04/2019

C

Cornerstone Design

Section A-A and Streetscape Elevation

DA 06

4/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Shadow Diagrams

DA 07

5/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Shadow Diagrams

DA 08

5/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Shadow Diagrams

DA 09

5/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Shadow Diagrams

DA 10

5/12/2018

B

Cornerstone Design

Landscape Plans

1C/1

Feb’19

C

Belinda Pekert

Stormwater Concept Plan

6154-C01

13/06/19

 

Global Project Engineers P/L

Stormwater Concept Plan

6154-C02

13/06/19

 

Global Project Engineers P/L

Basix Certificate

926715M_02

06 June 2019

NA

Building & Energy Consultants Australia

Accessibility Report

Job No.218133

21/5/2019

A

Accessible Building Solutions

Permeable Paving detail

NA

NA

NA

HydroSTON from HydroCon

 

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Placing or storing materials or equipment;

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

(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; and

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

 

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

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

 

4.         Vehicular Crossing – 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 1.2 metre wide footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications applying at the time construction approval is sought.

(b)   The thickness and design of the driveway shall be in accordance with Council’s Specifications applying at the time construction approval is sought.

(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.  The work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s specification, applying at the time construction approval is sought. Any rectification works carried out to the brick kerb will be done in brickwork to match the existing brick kerb.

 

Constructing a vehicular crossing and/or footpath requires separate approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, prior to the commencement of those works. 

 

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

 

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

6.         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.

 

7.         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 <http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/> 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 <http://www.sydneywater.com.au> then refer to ‘Providers’ under ‘Developing’ or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

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

 

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

 

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

8.         Front Fence- The proposed front fence on the western side behind the low dwarf wall shall not exceed 1.8metres in height and shall be setback 1.2metres from the front boundary. Landscape screen planting shall be planted in front of this section of high front fence.

This shall all be clearly depicted upon the Construction Certificate plans.

 

9.         Visitors Parking Space - The visitors parking space located in front of dwelling one within the front setback of the development shall be deleted and removed from the plans and this area shall be landscaped with soft landscaping in the form of turf, shrubs, trees etc.

 

This shall all be clearly depicted on the Construction Certificate plans and documents.

 

10.      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.

 

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.

 

11.      Construction Traffic Management Plan - A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing:

(a)     construction vehicle routes;

(b)     anticipated number of trucks per day;

(c)     hours of construction;

(d)     Access arrangements; and

(e)     Proposed traffic measures to minimise impacts of construction vehicles

 

must be submitted for the approval of Council’s Engineers. Council’s Engineers must specify in writing that they are satisfied with the Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service Corporation.  See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/

Builders Damage Deposit

$1,900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$155.00

Driveway and Restoration Works Design  Inspection Fee (Multi-unit Development)

$ 820.00

 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

[KOGARAH]

Kogarah Section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan No.1 - Roads and Traffic Management - Residential

$ 2158.26

Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.5 - Open Space 2007

$ 41496.47

Kogarah Section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Buildings

$ 1099.35

Kogarah Section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Books

$783.84

Total Contributions

$45,537.92 

 

General Fees

 

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

 

Development Contributions

 

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

 

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

 

Indexation

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

 

Timing of Payment

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

 

Further Information

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

14.      Site Management Plan - A Site Management Plan detailing all weather access control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

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.

 

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

 

(a)       A 1.8m high privacy screen shall be provided to the western side of the first floor front balcony of the front dwelling. This privacy screen shall run between the western brick pier at the front of the balcony back to the western side wall of the sitting room.

(b)       All sitting room windows at first floor level shall be awning windows with the lower level window(s) being frosted glass to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours. These frosted glass awning windows shall be fitted with a device to ensure that they can only open out a maximum distance of 125mm to protect neighbours privacy.

(c)        A vehicle crash barrier shall be provided along the eastern side boundary in the second manoeuvring area (where the landscaping is not located adjacent to the side fence) opposite the garages to dwellings 3 and 4.This crash barrier is required because of the differences in levels between top of driveway down to swimming pool level in the adjoining neighbour’s property. This crash barrier will run in between the two adjacent garden beds and shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004 part 2.4.5.3. This shall be certified as structurally adequate by a suitably qualified Engineer upon completion of the works.

(d)       The visitor parking space being deleted from the proposed development, and replaced with soft landscaping including the use of turf, shrubs, trees etc.

 

16.      Adaptable Housing - Dwelling four (4) shall be an adaptable unit in compliance with the Accessibility report prepared by Accessible Building Solutions and AS4299-1995 and the Building Code of Australia. All relevant details are to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

17.      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.

 

18.      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 existing easement to drain water, subject to the proven capacity of the existing pipe to drain all the calculated flows, to Council’s satisfaction in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

 

19.      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.

(c)        The proposed arrangement of the OSD system shall discharge by gravity using the minimum allowable size of an orifice plate Ø25mm to the existing easement to drain water.

(d)       Provide at least one grated access and sufficient ventilation to the OSD tank.

(e)       Provide at least two sealed access on the opposite ends of the OSD tank.

(f)        Provide a silt trap in a boundary pit prior to discharge the flow into existing easement to drain water.

 

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

 

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

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

(c)     A longitudinal driveway sections are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer and be submitted for to and approved by the Certifying Authority. These profiles are to be at 1:100 scale along both edges of the proposed driveway, starting from the centreline of the frontage street carriageway to the proposed garage/parking level. The civil/traffic engineer shall provide specific written certification on the plans that:

i.     Vehicular access can be obtained using grades of 25% (1 in 4) maximum and

ii.    All changes in grade (transitions) comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) – “Off-street car parking” to prevent the scraping of the underside of the vehicles.

(d)     The internal driveway shall be constructed using permeable paving (Boral 'Hydroston” or equivalent). The permeable paving is to be installed as per the manufacturer’s specifications. The certifying hydraulic Engineer is to lodge evidence and certification that the permeable pavement has been installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and will not increase or concentrate the stormwater runoff into adjacent properties from the pre-existing conditions on site prior to the development works. This certification is to be lodged with Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The hydraulic Engineer shall certify that sufficient subsoil and surface drainage has been installed to collect and drain the driveway and that a maintenance schedule is provided in accordance with the manufacturer’s guideline and adhered to, to allow for the infiltration capacity of the paving to be retained.

 

21.      Structural details - Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns & other structural members, including all proposed retaining walls. 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.

 

22.      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).

 

23.      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.

 

24.      Landscape Plans - All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by Belinda Pekert Landscape Designs, Dwg No 1C/1and dated 28TH February 2019. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity, subject to the following:

 

a)    The front planter box located in front of the proposed visitor’s parking space shall be heavily landscaped with suitable species of planting to ensure that any vehicles parked in this visitor parking space is obscured from view when looking from the street directly in front of the site. All landscaping in this front planter box shall be mature at the time of  planting.

b)    An additional two (2) trees shall be planted within deep soil zones and species selection from Hurstville DCP, Appendix 1, 5 Recommended species for Landscaping, Indigenous trees, all wards and be of minimum 45 litre pot/ bag size and be able to reach a height at maturity of eight (8) metres.

c)    The proposed trees 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.

d)    All trees proposed upon the approved landscape plan shall comply with AS 2303 – 2018, Tree Stock for Landscape use and NATSPEC Specifying Trees: a guide to assessment of tree quality (2003), and be planted and maintained in accordance with Councils standard specification.

e)    If the planted three (3) trees and plants are found to be faulty, damaged, dying or dead within twelve (12) months of planting then they must be replaced with the same species. If the trees are found dead before they reach a height where they are protected by Councils Tree Management Controls, they must be replaced with the same species and pot/bag size.

f)     A certificate of compliance for the planting of all three (3) trees and shrubs proposed for the site. An AQF 5 Horticulturist shall be engaged and in writing certify that all trees have been planted as per landscape plan and specifications and forwarded to the PCA – Principal Certifying Authority.

 

25.      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 – Callistemon viminalis

Councils street tree

5.0 metres radially from its trunk without blocking pedestrian walkway

T4 – Syzigium Spp

Side eastern fence line of 150 Rosa St

3.0 metres away from trunks of trees

T6 – Olea europaea

Side eastern fence line of 150 Rosa St

3.0 metres away from trunks of trees

T8 – Syzigium Spp

Side eastern fence line of 150 Rosa St

3.0 metres away from trunks of trees

Quercus robur

Within backyard of 11a Woonona Pde

8.0 metres radially out from its trunk

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

-      The client shall engage a qualified Arborist who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current practicing, insured and financial member of an affiliated tree and Arboricultural association.

-      A certificate of compliance for tree protection measures shall be completed and forwarded to the PCA – Principal Certifying Authority, before works, during works and once all building works have been completed, that tree protection measures have been installed and maintained during the building process.

 

General Tree Protection Measures

 

(a)   All trees on Council property, subject site and adjacent sites, 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, a practicing, insured and financial member of a tree and Arboricultural Affiliation and Association.

(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

 

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

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

(j)    Tree Protection Zone around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes, 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.

 

            Tree Removal & Replacement - Tree removal

 

Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees:

Tree Species

Number of trees

Location

T2 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Along west boundary front yard

T3 – Pittosporum undulatum

X1

Along west boundary front yard

T5 – Syagrus romanzoffiana

X1

Within backyard of site

T7 – Phoenix canariensis

X1

Within backyard of site

T9 – Callistemon citrinus

X1

Within backyard of site

T10 – Hakea salicifolia

X1

Within backyard of site

T11 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Within backyard of site

T12 – Mangifera indica

X1

Within backyard of site

T13 – Camellia sasanqua

X1

Within backyard of site

T14 – Prunus persica

X1

Within backyard of site

T15 – Callistemon viminalis

X1

Within front side yard

T16 – Banksia Spp

X1

Within front side yard

T17 – Lagerstroemia indica

X1

Within front side yard

 

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.

 

26.      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 follows:

 

Primary Address

·      15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley NSW 2223

 

Unit Addresses

 

Dwelling description on DA plan

Proposed street address to comply with AS/NZS 4819:2011 and  NSW Addressing Manual

Dwelling 1

1/15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley NSW 2223

Dwelling 2

2/15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley NSW 2223

Dwelling 3

3/15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley NSW 2223

Dwelling 4

4/15 Wonoona Parade East, Oatley NSW 2223

 

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

 

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

 

27.      Dilapidation Report on Public Land - Major Development Only - 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)     Photographs showing the existing condition of the road pavement fronting the site,

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

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

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

(e)   The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer.  The report must be provided to the PCA and a copy provided to the Council. 

 

The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a professional engineer. The report must be provided to the PCA 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

a)      Floor slabs or footings, before pouring concrete and inspection by PCA, detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent boundaries and floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved plans. This includes all proposed retaining wall and front fence footings.

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

c)      Completion of all Work - Detailing the location of all structures (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. All proposed works are to be located entirely within the bounds of the subject property.

 

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

 

During Construction

 

34.      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 subject of this consent to the drainage easement pipe running behind the subject site.

 

35.      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.

 

36.      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.

 

37.      Ground levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment boundary, except where indicated on approved plans or approved by Council. All approved retaining walls shall be designed by a suitably qualified structural Engineer.

 

38.      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.

 

39.      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.

 

40.      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.

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

41.      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 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.

 

42.      Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 <http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/> must be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation/Subdivision Certificate.

 

43.      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.

 

44.      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.

 

45.      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.

 

46.      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)     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.

(c)     Construct any new vehicle crossings required.

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

(e)     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.

(f)      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.

 

47.      Completion of Major WorksPrior 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)     If applicable 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 if applicable

Relocation/provision of street signs(g)       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.

(h)    New or reinstated kerb and guttering within the road related area and new or reinstated road surface pavement within the road where it is applicable.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

49.      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.

 

50.      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.

 

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

 

52.      BASIX Compliance Certificate - A Compliance Certificate must be provided to the PCA regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate before any Occupation Certificate is issued.

 

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

 

Operational Conditions (On-Going)

 

54.      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.

 

55.      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.

 

56.      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.

 

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

Prescribed Conditions

 

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

 

65.      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.

 

66.      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 PCA and the Principal Contractor.

 

67.      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.

 

68.      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.

 

69.      Clause 98E - Site Excavation - Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans.  All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advice

 

1.      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.

 

2.         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.

 

3.         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.

 

4.         Access to NSW Legislations (Acts, Regulations and Planning Instruments) – NSW

            legislation can be accessed free of charge at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au

 

5.         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.

 

6.         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.

 

7.         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 and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993:

 

(a)     Complete the Stormwater Drainage Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

 

(b)     In the Application Form, quote the Development Consent No. (eg. DA2018/0185) and reference this condition number (e.g. Condition 23)

 

(c)     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 stormwater applications.

 

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 stormwater 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.

 

8.         Council as PCA - Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA.  However, if an alternative fire 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.

 

9.         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).

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Roof Plan - Issue B - 15 Wonoona Pde East Oatley

Attachment 2

Elevations - Issue C - 15 Wonoona Pde East Oatley

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 October 2019

LPP038-19              15 Wonoona Parade Oatley

[Appendix 1]          Roof Plan - Issue B - 15 Wonoona Pde East Oatley

 

 

Page 53

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 October 2019

LPP038-19              15 Wonoona Parade Oatley

[Appendix 2]          Elevations - Issue C - 15 Wonoona Pde East Oatley

 

 

Page 54

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 October  2019

Page 93

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 October 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP039-19

Development Application No

DA2017/0530

Site Address & Ward Locality

24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills

Hurstville Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a residential flat building over basement parking including site and landscaping works.

Owners

Mr X Lui and Mrs Q Lui

Applicant

Mr H Yan

Planner/Architect

Planner: DDC Urban Planning; Architect – Arc Homes

Date Of Lodgement

1/11/2017

Submissions

Five (5) (based on original plans submitted with the DA)

Cost of Works

$2,041,473

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Construction of a residential flat building where the provisions of SEPP 65 apply.

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, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment,

State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure 2007,  Draft Environment SEPP, Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, Hurstville LEP 2012, Hurstville DCP No. 1, Georges River Development Control Plan - Interim Policy.

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

Plans, Reports, Submissions

Statement of Environmental Effects

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused for the reasons stated within the report.

 

 

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, the application is recommended for refusal and the refusal reasons will be available when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Subject site outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         The development application (DA) seeks consent for demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building over a level of semi-basement parking, comprising six (6) units (4 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units) and ten(10) car parking spaces, site and landscape works.

                 

Figure 1: Applicants Photomontage of the proposed development (Trim Ref: D19/214354)

 

Site and Locality

 

2.         The application applies to two allotments known as No. 24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills, and is legally described as Lots 84 and 85 in DP 3315.

 

3.         The site has a combined boundary to Hampden Street of 12.19m, side boundary lengths of 45.72m, and a boundary length of 12.19m to an unnamed laneway, giving a site area of 556.4sqm.

 

4.         The land is relatively flat with no significant on site vegetation.

 

5.         The site is located within an R3 Medium Density Residential precinct located just west of the Beverley Hills Town Centre.

 

6.         A number of properties in the locality have been redeveloped from single dwelling houses to residential flat buildings, including the property north of the subject site. However a number of similarly sized allotments to the subject site remain as dwelling house lots within the immediate area including its southern neighbour, and the properties directly across Hampden Street from the site.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

 

7.         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

 

8.         The DA was notified to adjoining properties in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP No. 1) for a statutory notification period of 14 days between 15 November and 1 December 2017. Six (6) submissions were received.

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

9.         This application is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for 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.

 

Planning and Design Issues

 

10.      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 adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

11.      Poor quality communal open space is provided due to its location within the setbacks to Hampden Street and the rear laneway.

 

12.      The subject site is 12.19m 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.

 

13.      Given this, and as there are a large number of similarly sized allotments with similar zoning, heights, and floor space in the locality, the proposed development, would, if supported, set an undesirable precedent likely to be repeated therefore serving to undermine orderly and economic development of the precinct in accordance with the applicable planning controls.

 

Conclusion

 

14.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental 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 SEPP 65, and would, if approved, set a precedent likely to undermine the orderly economic development of the locality. As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

Description of the Proposal

 

15.      The DA seeks consent for the demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building over a level of semi-basement parking, comprising six (6) units (4 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units) and ten(10) carparking spaces, site and landscape works.

 

16.      A mix of apartments is proposed, consisting of four (4) x two (2) bedroom and two (2) x three (3) bedroom apartments.

 

17.      Further details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Semi-basement

-      Eight (8) residential car parking spaces and two (2) visitor car parking spaces (of which one is an accessible parking space).

-      Service areas.

-      Egress stairs, and

-      Lift access to the upper levels.

 

Ground Floor

-      Driveway from the rear laneway to a car lift to provide access to the basement level below.

-      Two (2) apartments (1 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom), and

-      Shared communal pedestrian access from Hampden Street is proposed along the northern side boundary.

 

First Floor

-      Two (2) apartments (1 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom).

 

Second Floor

-      Two (2) apartments (2 x 2 bedroom).

 

18.      The proposal involves the removal of one small tree from within the site.

 

The Site and Locality

 

19.      The subject site is two combined allotments known as No. 24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills and is legally described as Lots 84 and 85 in DP 3315. The site has a frontage to Hampden Street of 12.19m and a site area of 577.4sqm. The property has a secondary frontage to an unnamed laneway. The site is relatively flat with no significant vegetation.

Figure 3: The site as viewed from Hampden Street (subject site is on the left)(council photo dated 16 September 2019)

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

 

21.      The site is located in a residential neighbourhood characterised by residential flat buildings, dual occupancies and single dwelling houses on the south-western side of the laneway, and retail and commercial development on King Georges Road, on the north-eastern side of the laneway.

 

22.      The property to the north-west, known as Nos. 26-28 Hampden Street is occupied by a three storey residential flat building over basement parking (Figure 4). The property to the south-east. Known as No. 22 Hampden Street is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house (Figure 5).

 

Figure 4: Residential flat building to the north-west of the site at No. 26-28 Hampden Street (council photo dated 16 September 2019)

 

Figure 5: No. 22 Hampden Street (south-east of the site) (council photo dated 16 September 2019)

 

In addition to the lot to the south it is noted that similarly zoned and sized allotments containing dwelling houses exist directly opposite the site. These are at 27, 29, and 31 Hampden Street, and elsewhere in the locality at 30, 32, and 42 Hampden Road, and 1, 3 and 5 Edgbaston Road.

 

A three storey boarding house is under construction at 33 Hampden Road.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

 

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

 

SEPP Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

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 a number of Design Quality Principles and ADG requirements. Refer to SEPP 65 section below.

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy

Yes

Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy

Yes

 

Further consideration of the above listed policies is provided as follows:

 

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 conditions of consent should the application be approved.

 

26.      In summary, the proposal would not 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. 866455M 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 (SEPP 55)

 

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

 

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.      A Preliminary Investigation Assessment report was not submitted with the DA. Pursuant to Clause 7(2) of the SEPP, council cannot determine the application without consideration of a preliminary report. This forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007

 

31.      In accordance with Clauses 101 and 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, the site is not located where it is deemed to be affected by significant noise levels associated with traffic.

 

32.      A referral was forwarded to Ausgrid for consideration, no comments were received.

 

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

 

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

 

34.      The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

 

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

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

 

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

 

36.      The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant trees from the site. Council’s Consultant Arborist has reviewed the proposal and advised a street tree and a tree on a neighbouring property require protection, and conditions of consent could be imposed should the application be approved.

 

37.      On this basis, the proposal, should it be supported, is consistent with relevant provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

 

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

 

39.      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.

 

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

 

Draft Environment SEPP

 

41.      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.

 

42.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

45.      Clause 28(2) of SEPP65 requires that the consent authority take into consideration the following as part of the determination of DAs to which SEPP 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.  

46.      On 18 December 2017 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.

 

47.      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. The proposal also fails to meet various design criteria of the ADG with respect to residential amenity of the apartments.

 

48.      The Tables below provide a comprehensive assessment against the principles, objectives and controls of SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

Table 1: Application of SEPP 65

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3 - Definitions

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

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

 

(i)   the erection of a new building,

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

(iii) the conversion of an existing building, and

 

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

 

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

The proposal is for a three storey flat building with basement parking and ground level 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 SEPP includes mixed use developments.

This application is for the erection of an RFB which satisfies the SEPP’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: Li Tang (Registration No.9895)

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. 

This proposal fits into an evolving three (3) storey residential flat framework. It is compromised somewhat by flood control levels which influence the floor levels of the car park and entry level and eventually the whole building.

 

Generally surrounding buildings are of brick and tile construction, and generally three (3) storeys with basement parking. Adjoining to the north is a three (3) storey unit building with varying setbacks to the boundary including a significant balcony area located approximately in the middle of the site with a small setback to the common boundary. A very significant Eucalypt tree is located adjacent to this boundary towards the rear of the site.

 

To the south is a single storey red texture brick dwelling and then an access lane. Desirably the subject site should be amalgamated with this site to the south.  Apparently negotiations to this end have not been successful with a result that the 12m width of the subject site is well short of the 24m required by the planning control.

The proposal is not in keeping with the desired future character for the locality as the site is 12m wide and fails to meet the 24m site width control for RFBs.

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 building form is constrained by site width along with the flood level ground floor requirements, minimum floor to floor heights, and maximum LEP height control of 12m.

 

This proposal has a variety of problems which require careful review:

 

·    Inadequate floor to floor heights. The 2900mm indicated is below that which is normally required to accommodate structure and services.

·    The side setbacks are inadequate on both sides and well below ADG requirements, resulting in unacceptable privacy impacts

·    The location of the car park at ground level with resulting inactive street frontage

·    Poor south facing communal open space

·    Adverse impact on important eucalypt. See ‘Landscape’ comment below.

 

The proposal fails to comply with visual privacy controls and does not provide high quality communal open space design which result from the constrained site width which imposes unreasonable compromises on the amenity within the development and to adjoining sites.

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.

Complying and acceptable, however the current building configuration is highly problematic.

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR of 1:1 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.

No comment at this stage.

The development is BASIX compliant.

Landscape 

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

 

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

 

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

There is a very large gum tree within the adjacent lot on the north western boundary. This tree is a local landmark and should be protected. The application should provide further details on tree protection zones and adhere to arborist’s advice.

 

The communal open space is south facing and located on Level 3 in the middle of the building. It would have very poor amenity and could impact on the privacy of the adjacent property. It is recommended that an alternative solution be developed to providing communal open space in accordance with the ADG requirements.

 

Large trees should be provided in the gardens to maximise tree shade and contribute to neighbourhood landscape amenity.

 

This tree is protected in light of the amendment to the basement design submitted to council after the DRP meeting.

 

 

 

Communal open space is now located in the front and laneway setbacks which results in poor amenity and forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

Canopy trees are capable of being accommodated in the front setback.

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. 

The amenity of the units would generally be acceptable except for the inadequate separation between the adjoining properties and consequential privacy impacts.

 

The main entrance at ground level opens immediately to the car park. This would be unattractive.

 

The amenity of the main entrance could be considerably enhanced by providing a small seat adjacent to the letter box and perhaps a canopy above the entry.

 

Clear glass balustrades to balconies are undesirable in this context, they should be either screened and/or replaced with solid balustrades.

 

The site is constrained by its site width which imposes unreasonable compromises on the amenity within the development and to adjoining sites in relation to visual privacy, bulk and scale.

Safety 

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

 

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

 

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

The on-grade car park would need security and access control. The side access path would also need security.

Basement parking is proposed. No issues relating to safety have been identified with the proposal. The proposal orients apartments to the street and laneway to enable casual surveillance and pedestrian and vehicular access points are well defined and meet CPTED principles.

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. 

Satisfactory in relation to the units proposed. See comments above under landscape in relation to communal open space.

A mix of 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units are proposed which will contribute to additional housing to meet the needs of the community, however due to the 12m width of the site, the proposal is unable to achieve a suitable quality of communal open space, results in excessive bulk and scale and will have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

 

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. 

Acceptable

The site is constrained by its site width which imposes unreasonable compromises on the bulk and scale of the building in relation to its context and results in adverse impacts on the streetscape.

 

49.      Having regard to the above, the Panel considers the design cannot be supported in its present form particularly because of the non-compliance with site width and consequently privacy impacts.

 

50.      Clause 28 of SEPP65 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

3A - Site Analysis

 

 

Development proposals need to illustrate that design decisions are based on careful analysis of the site conditions and relationship to the surrounding context

 

A suitable site analysis has been submitted with the application.

Yes

3B – Orientation

 

 

Building types and layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development

 

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid winter

Due to the narrow width of the site the proposal results in excessive bulk and scale impacts on the streetscape.

 

The proposal complies with the solar access DCP controls for neighbouring properties.

 

No – refer to comments below.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Comments on streetscape impacts

Given the 12m width of the site, the proposed built form of the building results in an adverse impact on the streetscape on terms of bulk and scale and will set an undesirable precedent in the locality.

 

3C – Public domain interface

 

 

Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security

 

Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced

The proposal does not result in any adverse impacts on the public domain with respect to safety or security.

The amenity of the public domain is compromised by the bulk and scale of the building due to the 12m width of the site.

 

Yes

 

 

 

No

3D – Communal Open Space (COS)

Provide COS at least 25% of the site area (556.4sqm x 0.25=139.1sqm)

 

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)

25% (138.8sqm).

 

 

COS located in the setbacks to the street and laneway.

 

Appears to comply for the rear area of COS, however refer to comments below on the poor quality of the COS areas.

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes – refer to comments below

Comment on Communal Open Space

While the proposal provides the numerical area of communal open space specified by the Apartment Design Guide, the location and quality of the spaces is poor. Two areas of COS are provided, one in the setback to Hampden Street and one in the setback to

the laneway. Neither space is appropriate for the provision of seating or BBQ facilities due to their exposed locations to the street and laneway frontages.

 

The units in the proposal do not benefit from larger balconies to compensate for the poor quality areas of 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. The site is also not in close proximity to any public reserves that might reduce demand for onsite COS.

 

It is considered the failure to provide quality areas of COS will significantly diminish the amenity of future occupants, and is thus considered unacceptable. It is acknowledged that the constraints of the site make provision of an appropriate area difficult however this serves to demonstrate the inappropriateness the narrow site for the form of development proposed.

3E – Deep Soil Zones

Site area is < 650sqm = No min dimensions

 

 

Min deep soil area of 7% (39sqm)

 

 

 

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)

 

Dimensions range between 0.6m and 9m.

 

 

23% (excludes area with 0.6m dimension).

 

 

The minimum deep soil area is provided.

 

No minimum dimension required.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

3F – Visual Privacy

Minimum separation to side and rear boundaries:

 

Up to 12m (4 storeys):

3m non-habitable rooms

6m habitable rooms & balconies

North elevation: 1m (screened/open stairwell) to 2.54m

 

South elevation: 1.5m

No

 

 

 

No

 

Refer to comments below

Comment on Visual Privacy

The proposed development fails to achieve the required separation distances to adjoining properties, and seeks to use highlight windows and privacy screens to balconies and the open communal stairwell to manage privacy impacts.

 

The inadequate separation 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 communal entry provided (northern side) with access from Hampden Street.

No direct entry provided to ground floor units.

Yes

 

 

 

No

3H – Vehicle Access

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

Driveway access to the car lift that provides access to the basement parking level is from the laneway. Pedestrian access is provided from Hampden Street.

Yes

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)

 

1 space/unit (6 spaces)

+ 1 space/5x2B units (1 space)

+ 1 space/2x3B units (1 space)

+ 1 visitor space/5 units (1.2 spaces)

 

Total required: 9.2 spaces

The site is located 3250m from Beverly Hills Station.

 

Proposed parking:

 

8 resident

2 visitor

 

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

4 of the 6 units will receive a minimum of 2 hours sunlight during midwinter.

 

 

0%

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

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

All units are cross ventilated.

 

 

16m max.

 

 

 

 

All units have a triple aspect.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

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.

 

 

All units comply.

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

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

 

NA

All 2br units compliant

All 3br units compliant

 

Calculated accordingly

 

 

 

Dwellings 1 and 2 are elevated above ground level and have courtyards measuring 33sqm and 42sqm.

 

NA

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.

The proposal contains 4 x 2B units and 2 x 3B units.

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

Dwelling 1 does not have direct access from the street due to the basement level protruding above natural ground level and the ‘ground floor’ being elevated, however large living room doors are oriented to the street and activate the frontage to Hampden Street.

Yes

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 12.19m, 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 resulting in the development being disproportionate and lacking human scale.

 

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 overrun is 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, however can be accommodated in the front and rear setbacks.

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

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 dwellings proposed that meet ‘Liveable Housing Guidelines’.

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, quality of communal open space 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

 

51.      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 blue

      

52.      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.

 

53.      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 LEP and is not supported for reasons as detailed within other relevant parts of this report.

 

54.      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 has a maximum height of 10.6m.

Yes

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

The proposed FSR is 0.99:1.

 

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The 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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP)

 

55.      The proposal is subject to the provision of HDCP 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 8 resident parking spaces and 2 visitor spaces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A car wash bay has not been provided, however one of the visitor spaces could be conditioned as a car wash bay if the application is approved.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – could be conditioned.

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)

4 x 2 bedroom units = 4 spaces

2 x 3 bedroom units = 4 spaces

2 visitors spaces

 

10 spaces required

 

10 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.

None of the units have been 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.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 design of the building ensures retention of a significant tree on the adjacent site.

 

 

 

 

 

There are no significant trees proposed for removal.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

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 deep soil area and is able to support significant landscaping to soften the built form of the building.

Yes

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 12.19m

 

 

The subject site is not isolated, however approval of the proposal will have the effect of isolating the allotment to the south of the site which has a width of less than 24m.

 

The Applicant has provided documentation relating to offers presented to the neighbours,

 

An indicative layout plan of a three storey RFB has been provided (refer to comments below).

No – See Below

 

Refer to comments below.

 

Site Width of the subject allotment

The site width of the subject allotment is half the 24m width required under the DCP applying to the site. The purpose of this control as outlined in the DCP is to ensure appropriate:

a. siting of a building and structures

b. provision of adequate setbacks

c. provision of adequate landscaped open space

d. efficient vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring e. creation of high quality built

 

The site not meeting the minimum site frontage leads to issues with respect to the consistency of the proposal with the character of the locality (given the inadequate space and setbacks provided between buildings), amenity, privacy, and a lack of quality communal open space. All these issues come about because the site is too narrow to accommodate the development proposed, and 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.

 

It is noted that a number of similarly dimensioned allotments with similar zoning, height and floor space exist in the locality. Accordingly, approval of the proposal would not only result in an undesirable outcome on the site, but may also serve to set an undesirable precedent that would act against the orderly economic development of the precinct.

Isolation of the adjoining allotment

The proposal will isolate the site adjoining to the south, which contains a residential dwelling and has a width substantially less than the 24m required under the DCP. The adjoin site is situated between the subject site and a public laneway.

 

The application was accompanied by a document prepared by a registered valuer, however this appears to take the form of a market appraisal rather than a valuation as it gives limited consideration to site specific factors including zoning, affectations on the property and the existing condition of the property. The document states it applied for 3 months only. It is noted that at the time of lodgement, the document was older than 3 months.

 

Nevertheless, documentation has been provided demonstrating that offers in line with that document were made to the owners of the adjoining site, and that that owner rejected the offers on at least 2 occasions, indicating they were not interested in selling.

 

Although offers to purchase No. 22 Hampden Street have been made and rejected, it is not clear on the available evidence that a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase the isolated site. Specifically, two independent valuations (undertaken within 3 months of the DA lodgement) have not been submitted).

 

The indicative plans indicate a development form that appears to have many of the attendant problems of the present proposal, with a narrow setback to the north, privacy and solar access issues.

 

The site does not meet the 24m site width control (the site is 12m in width) which is insufficient to accommodate a residential flat building that is consistent with the desired future character. The residual lot size results in a building that does not afford adequate amenity to the future occupants.

 

The planning principles as laid down in Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004 NSWLEC 251] at 17-19 are not achieved by the development.

 

Accordingly, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that the adjoining site can be developed in an isolated state and achieve a reasonable development outcome.

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.

The building height complies with the LEP.

 

The building is 4 storeys as the basement roof extends more than 1m above natural ground.

 

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

 

 

 

 

23% of the site is deep soil area that meets the min. width requirement of 2m.

 

 

 

 

The adjacent properties will continue to receive a minimum of 3 hours to living areas and private open space areas.

 

 

 

 

Min. 2.4m

 

 

 

 

 

The building is generally well articulated however is an overdevelopment of the site as it is unable to achieve the required setbacks 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 of 1.2m is proposed.

 

 

 

Storage is provided within the units.

Yes

 

 

 

No, however meets the LEP height limit.

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptable on merit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – separation forms part of reasons for refusal.

 

 

 

 

No – forms reasons for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes compliant with ADG provisions

 

 

Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

 

56.      Council at its Environment and Planning Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2019 resolved to adopt the Georges River Interim Policy DCP.

 

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

 

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

 

Interim Policy – Georges River DCP 2020

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Site Frontage

20m

 

Hampden Street – 12.19m

No – see HDCP compliance table above for discussion.

Building Height

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

The proposal has been assessed against the HLEP 2012 height standard. The proposal complies.

Yes

Private Open Space

The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP 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 DCP controls for COS under the Interim Policy.

The numerical area of COS complies with the ADG however the quality of the spaces are poor due to their location within the street and laneway setbacks.

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 DCP applies.

The site is located less than 800m away (450m) from Beverly Hills railway station.

The proposal has been assessed against the RMS controls and is fully compliant:

 

1 space / unit = 6 spaces

+

1 space / each 5 x 2B = 1 space

+

1 space / each 2 x 3B = 1 space

+

1 visitor/5 units = 2 spaces

 

Total required: 8 residential spaces and 2 visitor spaces

 

Total proposed: 8 residential and 2 visitor spaces.

Yes

Solar Access

The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for solar access under the DCP

 

The proposal is deemed to be compliant with the solar access provisions of the ADG.

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

Yes

 

Developer Contributions

 

59.      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 is approved a condition outlining the required contributions will be imposed.

 

Impacts

 

Natural Environment

60.      The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Consultant Arborist as being acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent, should the application be approved, requiring protection of significant trees on the adjacent site and in the public domain adjacent to the site. The setback to Hampden Street is sufficient to accommodate canopy tree planting to soften the built form of the building.

 

Built Environment

61.      The proposal complies with the building height development standard of HLEP 2012 however the basement roof is out of ground by more than a metre resulting in additional bulk at the base of the building and having an unreasonable and unacceptable outcome in the site’s context and the neighbourhood’s character.

 

62.      The proposal is inconsistent with various SEPP 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, and poor quality communal open space areas result in an unacceptable outcome for the site and will set an undesirable precedent.

 

63.      It is further noted that the narrow, tall form of the building provides proportions that are not anticipated by the DCP 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.

 

64.      A number of similarly sized allotments exist in the precinct and as such approval of a development of this kind would set an undesirable precedent that would serve to undermine the integrity of the planning controls preventing the orderly development of the precinct.

 

Social Impact

65.      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

66.      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

67.      The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible land use within the zone, subject to development consent.

 

68.      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.

 

69.      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

 

70.      The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville DCP in November 2017. Five (5) submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows, with a response provided to each. It is noted that the amended plans received by council in 2018 were not notified as the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

71.      Increased pressure on street parking and traffic

Planner’s Comment: The proposal fully complies with relevant off street car parking requirements of the DCP. This does not constitute a reason for refusal in this instance.

 

72.      The 4 storey height of the building is higher than others in the street

 

Planner’s Comment: Amended plans were submitted in 2018 that comply with the maximum 12m building height in accordance with the LEP.

 

73.      The site is too small and the building will tower over the neighbouring house

Planner’s Comment: The application is recommended for refusal and site width forms one of the reasons for refusal.

 

74.      The site is too narrow for a flat building

Planner’s Comment: The application is recommended for refusal and site width forms one of the reasons for refusal.

 

75.      Overshadowing of No. 22 Hampden Street

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 DCP control for solar access to neighbouring properties (minimum 3 hours to living areas and private open space during midwinter.)

 

76.      Breach of the height limit

Planner’s Comment: Amended plans were submitted in 2018 that comply with the maximum 12m building height in accordance with the LEP.

 

77.      Impacts on infrastructure (electricity and sewage)

Planner’s Comment: The electricity and sewage network would be capable of the accommodating the additional residents should the application be approved.

 

Referrals

Council Referrals

 

Development Engineer

78.      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 should the application be approved.

 

Traffic Engineer

79.      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

80.      Council’s Consultant Arborist reviewed existing tree conditions and raised no objection to the removal of the existing trees subject to conditions of consent for the protection of a tree on an adjacent site and a street tree if approval is granted.

 

Waste Officer

81.      The DA was referred to Council’s Waste Officer. No objection was raised to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions of consent if approved.

 

Building Surveyor

82.      Council’s Building Surveyor raised no objection subject to conditions of consent if approval is granted.

 

External Referrals

 

Ausgrid

83.      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

 

84.      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, poor quality 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.

 

85.      The proposal is inconsistent with various design quality principles of SEPP 65 including context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, amenity and aesthetics.

 

86.      The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of both HLEP 2012 and HDCP No. 1. The proposal also fails to comply with various built form controls of HDCP No. 1 including the site frontage and streetscape controls.

 

87.      For the above reasons, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

 

Statement of Reasons

88.      The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·      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 provide high quality communal open space areas required by the ADG.

·      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

89.      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 DA2017/0530  for demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building with basement parking at Lots 84 and 85 in DP 3315 known as 24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills, 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 SEPP 65 with respect to its response to the site’s context and neighbourhood character and its built form and scale, density 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 adjoining properties.

 

(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 the quality of communal open space areas, visual privacy, facades and universal design.

 

(c)     The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 7(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land as a Preliminary Investigation Report was not submitted with the application.

 

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. The site has a frontage of 12.19m, which fails to comply with the minimum 24m required by the DCP and will isolate an adjoining site. This non-compliance results in the site being unsuitable for the proposed development, it having unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, and unreasonably limiting development outcomes on the adjoining property by its isolation.

 

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 built environment. The proposal does not respond to the context of the site nor the neighbourhood’s character on the basis that it encroaches on the minimum required side and rear setbacks expected on the site.

 

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 – Undesirable precedent – Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the proposal would set an undesirable precedent that would undermine orderly economic development and use of land in the locality given the narrow width of the site.

 

6.      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 and will isolate No. 22 Hampden Street.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan

Attachment 2

Elevations

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 October 2019

LPP039-19              24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills

[Appendix 1]          Site Plan

 

 

Page 94

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 October 2019

LPP039-19              24 Hampden Street, Beverly Hills

[Appendix 2]          Elevations

 

 

Page 98

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 October  2019

Page 186

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 October 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP040-19

Development Application No

DA2017/0394

Site Address & Ward Locality

506 - 508 Railway Parade, Allawah

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition, lot consolidation, tree removal and construction of a 6 storey residential flat building containing 19 units over 2 levels of basement parking.

Owners

Jomand Group

Applicant

AB Works

Planner/Architect

Architect: Architecture and Building Works; Planner: Andrew Robinson Planning Services Pty Ltd

Date Of Lodgement

7/09/2017

Submissions

Three (3)

Cost of Works

$5,464,272

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The application relates to development to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies

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, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

Statement of Environmental Effects

Clause 4.6 Variation

Architectural Plans

Landscape Plans

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the conditions included in the report.

 

 

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Yes – Clause 4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size

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, standard conditions have been attached with no design changes. The conditions can be viewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Description: Aerial_506RailwayPd

Site outlined in yellow

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         This development application (DA) seeks consent to construct a 6 – 8 storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 18 apartments. The building is primarily 6 storeys in height, but is 8 storeys at the rear where the “Basement 1” level protrudes above the existing ground level by more than 1m and where there sits an enclosed lobby at rooftop level that provides access to an area of rooftop communal open space.

 

2.         The proposal has two (2) car parking levels (of which only one [1] is a true basement for its entirety) with 25 residential car parking spaces and four (4) residential visitor spaces. Vehicle access is provided via a new single lane driveway from Railway Parade in the western corner of the site.

 

3.         Rooftop communal open space is provided.

 

Figure 1: Street elevation (northern) of the proposal

 

Figure 2: South-western elevation of the proposal

 

Site and Locality

4.         The development site is located on the southern side of Railway Parade, approximately 18m west of its intersection with Noble Street and 53m east of its intersection with Woids Avenue. It consists of two (2) existing allotments known as 506 and 508 Railway Parade, Allawah. These sites are legally identified as Lots B and C in DP323018.

 

5.         The site is generally triangular in shape, though its front boundary along Railway Parade is slightly curved. It has a total frontage to Railway Parade of 61.67m. The south-western boundary length is 46.47m and the south-eastern corner is 39.63m. The total site area is 963.7sqm.

 

6.         The land falls from Railway Parade to its rear (southern) corner by approximately 3m. There is a level difference of approximately 1.4m along the street frontage, with the eastern corner sitting higher than the western corner.

 

7.         Presently situated on the site are two (2) dwelling houses, a detached garage, a detached shed and an in-ground swimming pool.

 

8.         The site is situated amongst residential flat buildings (RFBs) of various sizes, heights and ages. Immediately to the west is a 2 storey RFB built prior to 1961. Immediately to the south-east is a 2 - 3 storey RFB constructed in the late 1990s. Beyond to the south and south-west are 4 storey RFBs that were constructed in the late 1960s to 1970s.

 

9.         The site is located within an area that has been up-zoned under the Kogarah “New City Plan”. The area is presently characterised by 2 – 4 storey RFBs of varying ages, the desired future character of the locality resulting from the up-zoning is 6 – 7 storey RFBs.

 

10.      To the north on the opposite side of the railway corridor is B4 Mixed Use land known as “East Quarter” with buildings ranging in height from 13 to 20 storeys

 

Zoning and Permissibility

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

 

Submissions

12.      The DA was publicly notified to neighbours for a period of fourteen (14) days in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013). The amended DA was renotified to the same neighbours for a further period of fourteen (14) days. One (1) submission (co-signed by 15 individuals) was received during the original notification period and two (2) further submissions were received during the re-notification period. The submissions raised concern in relation to height, overshadowing, privacy, traffic and parking and impact on property values.

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

13.      This DA is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for determination on the basis that the proposal relates to “sensitive development”, being a residential flat building to which State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies and the application is seeking a variation of a development standard (height) which exceeds 10%.

 

Planning and Design Issues

14.      The proposal is generally an appropriate response to the site when considered against the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. Its bulk and scale is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

15.      The proposal involves some minor Apartment Design Guide (ADG) building separation “design criteria” non-compliances at the uppermost level. These are detailed within the ADG Compliance Table within this report. The variations are acceptable on merit on the basis that privacy impacts can be mitigated to an appropriate degree and therefore the proposal meets the objectives of the design criteria.

 

16.      The proposal is 503sqm below the maximum gross floor area (GFA) permitted by the 2:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard that applies to the site under KLEP 2012.

 

17.      The site does not meet the minimum 1,000sqm lot size that is required under KLEP 2012 for the construction of an RFB in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The site has an area of 963.7sqm and is therefore 36.3sqm less than the required minimum size. This represents a variation of 3.63% to the development standard. The applicant has lodged a written Clause 4.6 objection to the lot size development standard of KLEP 2012. This proposed variation is assessed in further detail within this assessment report.

 

18.      The proposal exceeds the maximum 21m building height development standard that applies to the site under KLEP 2012. The proposal has a maximum height of 24.44m to the top of the lift overrun, which is a 16.4% (3.44m) variation to the development standard. The applicant has lodged a written Clause 4.6 objection to the building height development standard of KLEP 2012. This proposed variation is assessed in further detail within this assessment report.

 

Conclusion

19.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The proposal is an appropriate response to the “up-zoning” of the land in an area that is undergoing a transition to medium density housing including RFBs. Bulk and scale of the building has satisfactorily been resolved via good articulation, appropriate building setbacks and a mix of materiality and textures. As a result the application is recommended for approval subject to suitable conditions and the issuing of a Deferred Commencement consent relating to stormwater drainage.

 

Report in Full

PROPOSAL 

20.      The DA seeks consent for the construction of a 6 storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 18 apartments. The building is modern in appearance and has been designed to work within the constraints that the development site offers in terms of topography and shape. The building sits on 2 basement car parking levels, with ramp access in the western corner of the site’s frontage to Railway Parade. Refer to Figure 3 below for an artistic impression of the proposal.

 

 

Figure 3: Artist’s impression of the proposal

 

21.      Further details of the proposal are as follows;

  

Basement 2 Plan

-      Nineteen (19) residential car parking spaces including two (2) accessible spaces. Fourteen (14) of those 19 spaces are achieved by the provision of seven (7) double car stackers.

-      Five (5) bicycle parking spaces.

-      Services and storage areas.

-      Single lift core and two (2) egress staircases.

 

Basement 1 Plan

-      Six (6) residential car parking spaces and four (4) visitor car parking spaces, of which one doubles as a car wash bay with an increased width.

-      Three (3) motorcycle parking spaces.

-      Five (5) bicycle parking spaces.

-      Pump room and service/store room.

-      Single lift core and two (2) egress staircases.

 

Ground Floor

-      Three (3) apartments (2 x 2 beds and 1 study) with north-facing terraces at ground level, each with individual street access.

-      Central residential access point and lobby.

-      Driveway access ramp along the south-western boundary.

-      Rear deep soil zone and OSD basin.

-      Garbage room with path access (which also serves as a fire egress path of travel) along the south-eastern side of the building.

-      Perimeter planting along the south-eastern boundary.

 

Levels 1 – 5

-      Three (3) residential apartments per level (1br, 2br and 2br + study) including one (1) adaptable 1br apartment on Levels 1 and 2.

 

Level 6 (rooftop)

-      Rooftop communal open space with an area of 230sqm, tables and seating, barbecue facilities, pergola and perimeter planting.

 

22.      The building is of a contemporary design. It has a variety of external finishes including metal cladding (timber finish), concrete with applied finish, anodised aluminium louvres, sandstone, painted cement render and clear glass balustrades.

 

23.      Natural ground levels will be retained within the south-eastern side setback and in the deep soil OSD basin area in the rear (southern) corner of the site, as shown in Figure 4 below. Generous landscaping will be provided in these areas, including two (2) new large Eucalyptus trees in the rear corner.

 

Description: View 01

Photo 1: 3D view of the rear of the proposal

 

24.      The proposal involves the removal of the following eleven (11) trees from the site, of which three (3) are an exempt species and may be removed without consent:

 

·      3 x Ligustrum lucidum – Broad-leaf Privet (exempt species)

·      2 x Tibouchina Spp – Tibouchina

·      2 x Lagerstroemia indica – Crepe Myrtle

·      1 x Cinnamomum camphora – Camphor Laurel

·      1 x Hibiscus sinensis – Hibiscus

·      1 x Ficus benjamina – Weeping Fig

·      1 x Plumeria rubra – Red Frangipani

 

25.      The Landscape Plan shows nineteen (19) new trees to be planted around the perimeter of the site. Replacement tree species include Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), Dwarf Magnolia, Crepe Myrtle and Weeping Lilly Pilly.

 

26.      There are no street trees existing in front of the site, and no new street trees are proposed on the Landscape Plans. A condition has been recommended requiring three (3) street trees to be planted in front of the site, of species to be determined by Council who are responsible for planting trees on public land at the applicant’s cost.

 

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

27.      The subject site consists of two (2) lots with the following legal descriptions;

 

·      Lot B DP323018 (506 Railway Parade)

·      Lot C DP323018 (508 Railway Parade)

 

28.      The subject site is located on the southern side of Railway Parade and is relatively close to the half way point between Allawah and Hurstville railway stations.

 

29.      The site sits about 18m west of its intersection with Noble Street and 53m east of its intersection with Woids Avenue.

 

30.      The site is generally triangular in shape, though its front boundary along Railway Parade is slightly curved. It has a total frontage width to Railway Parade of 61.67m. The south-western boundary length is 46.47m and the south-eastern corner is 39.63m. The total site area is 963.7sqm.

 

31.      The land falls from Railway Parade to its rear (southern) corner by about 3m. There is a level difference of about 1.4m along the street frontage, with the eastern corner sitting higher than the western corner.

 

32.      506 Railway Parade is currently occupied by a single storey brick and tile dwelling house constructed prior to 1961. There is a detached garage in the backyard of the property.

 

33.      508 Railway Parade is currently occupied by a 2-storey brick and tile dwelling house, also constructed prior to 1961 but renovated to include a second storey addition and the installation of an in-ground swimming pool. Refer to Photo 1 below.

 

Photo 1: The subject site with existing dwelling houses

 

34.      Immediately adjoining the site to the south-east is a 2 – 3 storey Residential Flat Building (RFB) (i.e. 2 storeys at street level and 3 storeys at its rear) known as 504 Railway Parade. The top 2 storeys contain 10 apartments (5 per level, of which 3 face the subject site). The lowest storey contains car parking. The building has courtyards on its northern side adjacent to the subject site, elevated above natural ground level by up to 1.7m at its highest point towards the rear of the site due to the car parking level protruding above ground.

 

35.      Immediately adjoining the site to the south-west are two (2) properties known as 510 Railway Parade and 6-8 Woids Avenue. The former is occupied by a 2 storey RFB that was constructed prior to 1961, whilst the latter is occupied by a 3 – 4 storey RFB (i.e. 4 storeys at street level and 3 storeys at its rear) constructed in the 1960s – 1970s.

 

36.      The site is situated at the northern edge of an extensive corridor of R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land that stretches from Hurstville station in the west to St George Hospital in Kogarah to the east. This area has been up-zoned under the Kogarah “New City Plan”. It is presently characterised by 2 – 4 storey RFBs of varying ages, however the up-zoning has a desired future character of 6 – 7 storey RFBs. The majority of this R3 zone has height and FSR limits of 15m (4-5 storeys) and 1.5:1, except along the railway corridor where the height and FSR limits increase to  21m (6-7 storeys) and 2:1. The subject site is subject to the latter.

 

37.      To the north on the opposite side of the railway corridor is B4 Mixed Use land known as “East Quarter” with buildings ranging in height from 13 to 20 storeys.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

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

 

SEPP Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

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

Yes

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

39.      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

 

40.      The DA includes a concept stormwater design prepared by United Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. The building and surface run-off is proposed to be diverted to an OSD basin in the rear (southern) corner of the site and then into a drainage easement that extends along the north-western boundary of 6-8 Woids Avenue, within an existing landscaped strip adjacent to the fence line.

 

41.      There is no local statutory requirement for water quality treatment devices in an RFB on a site of this size. Surface run-off diverted from the landscaped areas of the site to the OSD basin and easement does not require water quality treatment. The proposal includes multi-purpose (Lysaght Maximesh Type RH3030) screens to filter rubbish.

 

42.      In summary, the proposal will not contravene the aims, objectives or purpose of the Regional Plan subject to the imposition of those conditions recommended by the Development Engineer.

 

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

43.      BASIX Certificate No. 822722M_02 dated 16 September 2019 has been issued for the proposal and demonstrates that it meets the provisions and minimum requirements of BASIX in terms of water, thermal comfort and Energy efficiency. The architectural plans include the commitments that are required to be shown at DA stage. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the BASIX SEPP.

 

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

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

 

45.      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. 

 

46.      A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes since at least 1943. Residential usage is not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of land.

 

47.      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 in its current state for the development proposed with respect to contamination. In the abundance of caution, a “precautionary” condition has been recommended that specifies appropriate actions to be taken in the event that any unexpected contamination finds are made during demolition, excavation and/or construction.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

50.      An Acoustic Assessment was submitted with the DA, dated 6 June 2017 and prepared by Koikas Acoustics Pty Ltd. The report addresses the provisions of the Policy with respect to achieving acoustic compliance in the context of traffic noise from both Railway Parade and the adjacent railway line. The report recommends specific construction specifications to provide appropriate levels of internal amenity for the future occupants.

 

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

 

52.      The DA was also referred to Ausgrid on 4 September 2019 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing this report, no response had been received. The DA may be determined in the event that no response has been received from Ausgrid within twenty one (21) days, i.e. 25 September 2019.

 

53.      In summary, the proposal if approved would be capable of achieving compliance with the Infrastructure SEPP subject to appropriate conditions relating to mechanical ventilation and compliance with the Traffic Noise Intrusion Assessment report, and no objection being received from Ausgrid.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

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

 

56.      Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings in relation to contamination at the site.

 

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

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

 

58.      The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

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

 

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

 

60.      The proposal involves the removal of six (6) trees from the site. Council’s consultant arborist has approved their removal, along with the removal of a further five (5) trees, of which three (3) are exempt from the tree protection provisions within Part B2 of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. The remaining eight (8) trees non-exempt trees are affected by the DCP provisions. The majority of them are non-natives. This DA constitutes an application for their removal as part of the proposed development works. Council’s Tree Policy stipulates replacement tree planting at a rate of 2:1 for every non-exempt tree that is removed. As such, the policy requires sixteen (16) new replacement trees to offset the loss of the eight (8) trees.

 

61.      The submitted landscape plan shows nineteen (19) new trees to be planted on site. A condition has been recommended requiring three (3) new street trees to be planted within the footpath adjacent to the site. These new trees will satisfactorily offset the loss of the existing trees with quality native replacement plantings.

 

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

 

Draft Environment SEPP

63.      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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

67.      The proposal involves the erection of a new 6 – 7 storey RFB (excluding basement car parking) containing 18 apartments and is therefore affected by the SEPP.

 

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

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

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

c)      the Apartment Design Guide.  

 

69.      The current proposal was considered by the Georges River Design Review Panel (DRP) at a Pre-DA meeting on 1 September 2016 and during assessment of the current DA on 2 November 2017. The DRP assessed the merits of the development against each of the nine (9) Design Quality Principles and the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The DRP’s comments from both meetings are included below, along with further comment from Council’s Planner.

 

70.      In addition to satisfying the Design Quality Principles, the proposal generally satisfies relevant requirements of the ADG pertaining to design quality and amenity of the apartments.

 

SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles

Principle 1 – Context and neighbourhood character

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

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

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

 

71.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal):The site is located on a busy road with RFB’s on adjacent sites to the east and west. These have been built in accordance with former planning controls and are generally on 2-3 storeys in height. The railway line runs parallel with the site frontage and creates impacts. The site is triangular shaped and falls to the rear and there are a number of substantial trees located along the south western boundary. These trees are proposed to be removed in the current proposal.

 

The planning controls have been recently amended with the introduction of the New City Plan which permits substantial increases in height and density.  The former is increased from 12m to 21m and the latter 0.9:1 (?) to 2:1. This change will permit new development which is potentially inconsistent and out of scale with the existing low scale strata residential buildings. On a triangular site like this issues of scale and impact are severe.”

 

72.      DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): The current proposal retains the trees on the south western boundary and south eastern boundary and marginally increases side setbacks.”

 

73.      Planner’s Comment: The site is located adjacent to both a busy arterial road and the rail corridor. Land along the rail corridor is primarily residential. On the opposite “East Quarter” which (due to its 20 storey scale) contributes to the streetscape and character of the site’s context.

 

74.      Whilst existing development along Railway Parade in this location is predominantly 2 – 3 stories in height, these buildings are a legacy of the previous planning strategy for the locality.

 

75.      R3-zoned land along Railway Parade adjacent to the rail corridor has been granted a higher 21m height limit than the remainder of this R3 zone. As such, existing development along Railway Parade will over time be replaced with buildings of the same scale as the proposal.

 

76.      Approximately 250m to the west adjacent to the Col Jones swimming pool is a recently constructed 6 – 7 storey RFB facing Railway Parade and known as at 4 St Georges Parade. Refer to Figure 5 below. The proposal’s scale will be commensurate with this building.

 

Figure 5 – Recently constructed RFB at 4 St Georges Parade, viewed from Railway Parade

 

Principle 2 – Built form and scale

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

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

 

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

 

77.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal):The built form proposed is triangular shaped with inadequate setbacks along both side boundaries, non-complaint with both the ADG and Council DCP requirements. The height is slightly in excess of the 21m height control.  As a result the built form impacts negatively on all surrounding properties some of which have side facing balconies and living rooms. As proposed, the built form is unacceptable.  It would be preferable to establish an apparent datum at a much lower height in reference to the adjacent buildings and articulate higher levels differently. The location of the penthouse unit exacerbates the apparently over scaled massing of the building and should be setback or deleted.

 

The car park layout requires the removal of all trees along the south west boundary and the creation of a high podium setback a mere 1 metre from the south-west and south-east boundaries. This is an unacceptable outcome.”

 

78.      DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The setbacks to south western and south eastern boundaries have been expanded from 3m to 4.5m. The height is still slightly in excess of the 21m height control due to part of the penthouse unit which is slightly over and the lift and stair, which are located at the lowest point of the building height plane. The Panel suggested that the impact of the lift could be improved by moving it further north and the stair height could be substantially reduced by its roof profile responding to the stair flight and landing.

 

The 3D rendering submitted indicates a response to the comment about establishment of a datum and a distinguishable articulation of the upper levels of the building.

 

Overall the points in the previous meeting have been addressed. The car park has been redesigned to retain most of the existing trees along the south western boundary.”

 

79.      Planner’s Comment: The proposal’s scale, bulk and height are appropriate given the desired future character of the street as established by the 2:1 FSR and 21m height limit. The front elevation has a good level of articulation and modulation to its front façade, with north-east and north-west facing “wings” that emulate the orientation of building facades on adjacent and nearby sites.

 

80.      All levels have setbacks of 5.5 – 6.1m (generally) from the south-western and south-eastern boundaries in order to minimise adverse impacts to adjacent properties. These setbacks have been increased from earlier design iterations of the proposal.

 

81.      The amended proposal is 503sqm below the maximum gross floor area (GFA) permitted by the 2:1 FSR development standard of KLEP 2012. The penthouse apartment has been deleted.

 

82.      The proposal’s bulk and scale is an appropriate response to the up-zoning of the site under the New City Plan (KLEP 2012 Amendment No. 2). The scale and street edge proportions of the front façade are appropriate in the context of Railway Parade and the site’s location opposite the rail corridor and East Quarter development.

 

83.      The proposal responds well to a heavily constrained site in terms of shape and topography, with appropriate boundary setbacks and alignments that are respectful of existing development along Railway Parade and the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

84.      The building is 21m deep along its south-eastern wall and 24m along its south-western wall. This compares to a 32m depth of 504 Railway Parade and a 38m depth of 512 Railway Parade. It is commensurate with the depth of the older, smaller RFB immediately adjacent to the site at 510 Railway Parade. Therefore the proposal is relatively small and does not present an unreasonable bulky when viewed from adjacent properties.

 

85.      The amended proposal is consistent with Principle 2 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 3 – Density

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

 

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

 

86.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): “Although it is proposed at well under the density allowable for the site both side setbacks do not comply with the ADG’s separation requirements.  In consideration of the adverse impacts the proposal creates along both side boundaries, it is clear its density will need to be significantly reduced.”

 

87.      DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): The proposed FSR of 1.85:1 is within the 2:1 density control.”

 

88.      Planner’s Comment: The amended proposal has an FSR of 1.48:1 which is 503sqm below the maximum GFA permitted on the site. The reduced GFA is appropriate given the site’s dimensional constraints. The proposal is considered to be of an appropriate density. An FSR of 2:1 could not be accommodated on the site without considerable amenity impacts to neighbouring properties in terms of visual intrusion.

 

Principle 4 – Sustainability

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

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

 

89.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): “The apartments proposed high levels of solar access. Cross ventilation does not achieve the 60% required as proposed. The removal of the large trees is not supported as this compromises the sustainability of the site and its immediate context.

 

There appears to be no rainwater tanks or other sustainability measures to support the requirements of a project of this scale. This should be reviewed.

 

90.      DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The revised submission retains the large trees in the southern corner.

The rainwater tank should be located out of deep soil zones and within the building footprint.

 

The design of the southern corner is still problematic due to the proposed onsite detention. Alternate solutions to accommodate this should be developed. Furthermore this corner should provide additional large trees to supplement the existing tree plantings and to visually screen the lift core. Solar access and cross ventilation are satisfactory.”

 

91.      Planner’s Comment: The DA is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate No. 822722M_02 dated 16 September 2019 and NatHERS Certificates which demonstrate that the proposal achieves the minimum water, thermal comfort and energy targets for a development of this type.

 

92.      The amended proposal complies with the number of apartments that do not receive any direct sunlight at mid-winter as detailed in the ADG Compliance Table below.

 

93.      The proposal fully satisfies the ADG with respect to natural cross ventilation and internal solar access requirements. These attributes will reduce the apartments’ reliance on energy and will increase their internal residential amenity.

 

94.      The submitted Waste Management Plan states that where possible, demolished materials will be sorted for reuse, recycling or resale as appropriate, to be determined by the main contractor.

 

Principle 5 – Landscape

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

 

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

 

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

 

95.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): “The site setback boundary planting of one metre is insufficient as a screening method for adjacent properties.  The front area of the site has some good amenity tree planting that screens from the road edge. This area is also the deep soil zone.  While community open space is proposed at roof level the ADG does require 25% of the site area; it may be best to delete the penthouse to ensure that this is achievable.

 

The panel recommends increasing the south western setback to retain the existing trees.  The panel also recommends reconfiguring the building envelope on the north eastern side to facilitate solar access to the adjoining property and landscaping.

 

While relaxation of the front setback was flagged it is crucial that deep soil is provided for large trees along this very noisy frontage.”

 

96.      DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The revised proposal includes a roof top communal space of 140sqm. This appears to be still under the 25% requirement and could be expanded through redesign of the penthouse unit. The landscape design needs further refinements. These include:-

·      Provide larger trees along the front deep soil zone. This should replace the proposed Magnolia plantings with a medium to large trees that supplement the existing street tree planting.

·      The proposed turf areas in the front verge offer very limited landscape amenity. This should be replaced with planted gardens.

·      The rear space (currently the OSD basin) should be redesigned to incorporate large trees and OSD relocated.

·      The landscaping on the eastern boundary should be reconsidered in regards to tree planting as the proposed Crepe myrtles may not have sufficient sun to perform well.

·      Feature tree planting at the roof top communal open space should be designed to ensure adequate soil and irrigation.

 

97.      Planner’s Comment: The proposal will provide deep soil landscaped areas along the front, south-eastern side and rear of sufficient width to permit tree planting.

 

98.      The OSD basin in the rear corner of the site is deep soil and will permit tree plantings. The existing 3 trees are shown to be retained but new stormwater drainage is proposed to be located in this location and the trees are not natives. Council’s consultant arborist has approved their removal. It will prove a better outcome in the longer term to remove these trees and replace them with 2 new native canopy trees centrally located in the OSD basin area. A condition has been recommended requiring new pipes in this area to hug the south-western and south-eastern boundaries to maximise deep soil for the trees.

 

99.      The communal open space area on the rooftop will have perimeter planting with trees to greatly improve the amenity of this area.

 

100.    Three (3) new street trees will be required along the frontage of the site by condition of consent and will ameliorate the scale of the building.

 

101.    In summary, the proposal’s landscape design is consistent with Principle 5 on the basis that it will enhance the streetscape and native tree canopy and provide a high level of internal amenity for residents. New trees will serve to mitigate the bulk of the building and provide a landscaped setting consistent with the existing landscape character of the locality.

 

Principle 6 – Amenity

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

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

 

102.      DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): “As noted above in sustainability the apartments achieve high levels of amenity with good solar access and outlook. However, the adverse impact of the proposed layout on adjoining properties requires that is redesigned and significantly reduced in area.

 

In the revised layout, the Panel recommends that;

The entry is relocated from its side position to a central street facing location.

The penthouse is either relocated or removed

That side setbacks are greatly increased to facilitate solar access to adjoining properties, maintain existing trees and reduce the over-whelming visual bulk.

Overlooking is minimized through the use of carefully designed screening.

That the carpark is greatly reduced in area and alternative vehicular access solutions be investigated.

The snorkel apartments proposed do not comply with the ADG’s indentation requirement.”

 

103.    DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The applicant has addressed the comments of the previous Panel as follows:-

·      The entry is now relocated to a central street facing location

·      The penthouse has not been relocated or removed. However this Panel recommends that it be reduced in size by making it a two (2) bedroom unit to enable the roof top open space to be increased and to provide toilet facilities to the roof top open space.

·      The side setbacks have been increased from 3m to 4.5m and existing trees have been retained

·      It appears that overlooking has been minimised by not having windows on the south east and south west elevations except for small openings and obscure glass. This has the result of presenting large areas of relatively blank wall to the neighbours. The application drawings show dark finishes to these walls which would be very oppressive. These finishes should be reconsidered.

·      The car park has been reduced in area creating more deep soil planting and tree retention.

·      The snorkel units have been eliminated.

 

104.    Planner’s Comment:  As stated by the DRP, the latest amended proposal is a significant improvement over earlier versions and now satisfies the Amenity design quality principle of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 7 – Safety

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

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

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

 

105.    DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): The current entry path is poorly located and potentially unsafe.”

 

106.    DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The entry path has been relocated and is now satisfactory.”

 

107.    Planner’s Comment: The lobby is accessed via a central security access door at ground level and conditions of consent can ensure appropriate lighting to this area.

 

108.    A condition of consent has been recommended requiring a security gate to be located on the pedestrian pathway to the south-eastern side of the building, adjacent to the front egress staircase at the eastern corner of Unit G.03. This will assist in preventing entrapment in this passageway. The gate will need to satisfy BCA requirements for egress safety.

 

109.    Subject to conditions of consent, the proposal will satisfy relevant CPTED principles and will provide a high level of safety to residents and passive surveillance to the public domain and ground level communal areas.

 

Principle 8 – Housing diversity and social interaction

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

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.”

 

110.    DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): The revised proposal must comply with adaptable unit requirement of the DCP and the ADG. The communal open space will provide potentially excellent amenity provided that it is well sized, designed, accessed and equipped.

 

111.    DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “Acceptable on the proviso that the communal open space area is increased.”

 

112.    Planner’s Comment: The proposal includes a mix of studio, one (1) bedroom and two (2) bedroom apartments.

 

113.    As recommended by the DRP, the rooftop communal open space area has now been maximised to the fullest extent possible. This area is provided with BBQ facilities and will provide opportunities for social interaction amongst residents. The site is also within an 8 minute walk from two (2) different parks (Meade Park and Empress Reserve) which both provide for both active and passive recreation.

 

Principle 9 – Aesthetics

“Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. 

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

 

114.    DRP Comment (Pre-DA proposal): See comments above re: built form and its articulation of a lower more compatible part of the building being distinct from upper levels.

 

While it is too big for the site and requires reduction in scale the principle of two expressed ends with an infill frame section is acknowledged by the panel as a sound approach to the site.  However, the penthouse exacerbates the issue of scale and would be better significantly setback or removed.”

 

115.    DRP Comment (Current DA as-lodged): “The building mass has been reduced by increased setbacks. The articulation has been improved. The penthouse will be acceptable if it is reduced in area. Further considerations should be given to the lift core rear elevation in conjunction with other elevational treatment of significant blank walls. The colour palette in general needs to be reviewed to be lighter.”

 

116.    Planner’s Comment: The penthouse has been deleted entirely and replaced with rooftop communal open space. The proposal has a pleasing aesthetic to Railway Parade and on its side elevations, with good proportions. There is an appropriate mix of materiality including both painted render and timber-look aluminum cladding to complement traditional building materials in the locality.

 

117.    Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. The following ADG Compliance Table assesses the proposal against these provisions, with relevant assessment comments provided where non-compliances are proposed.

 

ADG Compliance Table

 

 

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3D – Communal Open Space (COS)

Provide COS at least 25% of the site area (ie 440.23sqm), 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)

Rooftop: 244sqm

= 25.3% of site area.

 

 

 

In excess of 50% of the rooftop COS will receive direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm due to its northerly aspect.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

3E – Deep Soil Zones

Site area is 650sqm - 1,500sqm

= 3m min dimension

 

 

 

Min deep soil area of 7% (67.5sqm)

The majority of the deep soil areas have minimum 3m x 3m dimensions and will allow for tree planting.

 

34% (335sqm)

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

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

 

 

SE elevation:

·    At least 6.1m to all windows.

 

SW elevation:

·    5.6m to kitchen windows

·    7m to lobby windows.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

No (kitchen windows) –see below

Minimum separation to side and rear boundaries:

 

12m to 25m (5-8 storeys):

4.5m non-habitable rooms

9m habitable rooms and balconies

Levels 3 – 5:

 

SE elevation:

·    6.1m to kitchen windows and 6.3m to media/storage room on Levels 3 – 5

·    6.9m to rooftop COS

 

SW elevation:

·    5.6m to kitchen windows

·    7m to lobby windows

·    7.5m to rooftop COS

 

 

 

No

 

 

No

 

 

No

No

No

Comment on Visual Privacy

The proposal does not achieve strict numeric compliance with the ADG in relation to separation from the boundary for visual privacy purposes. The components that do not comply are kitchen, media/storage room and lobby windows on both the south-eastern and south-western elevations, and also the rooftop communal open space.

 

Despite the numeric non-compliances, the underlying objective of this ADG design criteria (Objective 3F-1) has nonetheless been met because all of the aforementioned windows have been treated with frosted glazing and/or external screening, thereby achieving “reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy”.

                                                                                                                             

All balconies are oriented towards the street to maximise visual privacy to neighbouring properties (and achieve a high level of solar access).

 

The rooftop communal open space has a 1.4m wide perimeter planter box along its south-eastern and south-western edges. This will keep users of this area away from the edge, thereby preventing views downwards.

 

The additional bulk does note result in adverse shadow impacts.

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

Achieved

 

 

 

The site is appropriately activated by the central pedestrian access point and three (3) additional pathways to the terraces of the ground floor apartments.

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

Achieved subject to conditions. Single driveway minimises visual impact in street.

Yes

3J – Bicycle and Car Parking

Car parking provided in accordance with RMS GTTGD (Sub-Regional Centres) for sites located within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area:

 

Residential spaces:

0.6 spaces per 1br unit = 3 spaces

0.9 spaces per 2br unit = 11 spaces

14 residential spaces total min.

 

Visitor spaces:

1 space per 5 units = 4 spaces

 

Total spaces:

18 min.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 residential spaces provided within the basement levels.

 

 

 

 

4 visitor spaces provided within the basement levels.

 

29 spaces total.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

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 (i.e. 13 apartments)

 

Max. 15% of apartments receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter

Two (2) hours sunlight achieved to all 18 (i.e. 100%) apartments.

 

 

 

 

No (zero) apartments receive no direct sunlight.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4B – Natural Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building (i.e. 11 apartments)

 

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

66% (12 apartments)

 

 

 

 

No cross-over apartments exceed 16m in depth.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4C – Ceiling Heights

Minimum ceiling heights measured from FFL to finished ceiling level:

Habitable rooms  = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m

All habitable and non-habitable rooms 2.7m min.

Yes

4D – Apartment Size and Layout

Minimum internal areas:

Studio: 35sqm

1br: 50sqm

2br: 70sqm

 

(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 size requirements.

 

 

Calculated accordingly.

 

 

All apartments achieve compliance.

 

 

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 (excluding open plan layouts) are compliant.

 

 

All apartments with open plan layouts have a depth no greater than 8m.

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

 

Internal width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m

All bedrooms are compliant.

 

 

 

All bedrooms are compliant.

 

 

 

All living and living/dining rooms achieve the minimum required widths.

 

 

 

 

N/A – none proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

4E – Private Open Space and Balconies

Minimum primary balcony sizes:

Studio: 4sqm area

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 balconies achieve the minimum area and depth requirements.

 

 

 

Calculated accordingly.

 

 

 

Minimum area and depth is achieved for both of the ground-level 2br apartments (17sqm and 20sqm) but not for the studio (10sqm). However, a 10sqm studio terrace is 150% larger than the minimum balcony size that would be require if the studio were situated on any of the levels above ground. It will therefore offer a high level of amenity to its future occupants relative to an upper level studio apartment.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes – acceptable on merit

4F – Common Circulation Areas

Maximum 12 apartments off a circulation core on a single level

Three (3) apartments off the circulation core on each level.

Yes

4G – Storage

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

Studio: 4m3

1br: 6m³

2br: 8m³

 

At least 50% of storage is located within the apartment

All units have compliant total storage volumes as per the ADG volumes, as shown in the table on Drawing No. A-1000 (Ground Floor Plan).

 

 

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

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4H – Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Window and door openings are generally orientated away from noise sources

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

Refer Building Separation requirements in Part 3F. Acceptable on merit.

 

 

The building is north facing achieving solar access, and away from adjoining properties for privacy. However this also has the effect of orientating all dwellings towards the noise source (Railway Parade and the rail line).

 

Circulation lobby located away from bedrooms on each level

 

 

 

 

 

Not practical in the context as the noise source (north of the site) is an optimum orientation for daylight access and streetscape presentation and is largely as a result of the allotment shape.

Yes

 

 

 

 

No but acceptable in the circum-stances

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptable on merit

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

In the circumstances of the site, being its orientation, location and shape, it is simply not possible to physically separate the noise source and the proposal. Doing so would adversely affect neighbouring properties by orientating more windows towards them. The acoustic report has addressed the salient issue of noise and notes that mechanical ventilation will be required in order to achieve compliant noise levels within the units, particularly at night.

Yes – acceptable on merit subject to conditions of consent.

4K – Apartment Mix

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

 

The apartment mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building.

The proposal includes a mix of studio, 1 and 2 bedroom apartments at an acceptable ratio.

 

 

Achieved.

Yes

 

 

 

 

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

A reasonable degree of street activation has been achieved.

 

 

Ground floor apartment amenity and safety is satisfactory.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

4M – Facades

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

See comment below.

Yes

Comment on Facades

The facades are well resolved with an appropriate level of articulation including to the street. The proposal adequately satisfies Objective 4M-1 of the ADG, namely that “Building facades provide visual interest along the street while respecting the character of the local area”. There is an appropriate degree of expression of vertical scale and modulation within the facades to adequately respond to the streetscape, to nearby lower scale RFBs and to the human scale.

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.

Clean, simple roof form with a lift overrun that is located at the rear to minimise its visual impact to Railway Parade. Open space achieved on Level 6 (rooftop).

Yes

4O – Landscape Design

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

Good range of plants within the street setback to enhance the public domain. Deep soil zones well in excess of the ADG minimum requirement will provide a landscaped setting and compliant building setbacks will allow for the planting of canopy trees to ameliorate the scale of the building and provide a landscaped setting to the building, thereby improving both the internal and external amenity.

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

Planter boxes are of an appropriate depth.

Yes – Conditions  included

4Q – Universal Design

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

No liveable apartments proposed.

No – Condition included to provide 4 liveable apartments

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 reuse.

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

Excellent 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

Water treatment is not required under KDCP 2013 for sites less than 2,000sqm in area.

 

The site is not flood prone.

Yes

4W – Waste Management

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

A bulky waste storage room is provided within the waste room on the Ground Level.

Yes

 

4X – Building Maintenance

Building design provides protection from weathering

 

Enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost

A reasonable proportion of the building consists of materials that will require minimal maintenance and will weather well. Windows are generally accessible for residents within reason.

Yes

 

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)

 

118.    The subject site is zoned Zone R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. Refer to the zoning map extract at Figure 4 below. The proposal is defined as a residential flat building which is permitted in the R3 zone.

 

Figure 4: Zoning map – the site outlined in yellow

 

119.    The objectives of the R3 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.

 

120.    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 zone as it will provide for a variety of residential apartments in a medium density residential environment.

 

121.    The proposal is fully compliant with the relevant provisions of KLEP 2012 as detailed within the following table.

 

KLEP 2012 Compliance Table

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Clause 4.1A – Minimum subdivision lot size

Minimum 1,000sqm for RFBs in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

963.7sqm

(i.e. 36.3sqm below the minimum lot size).

No (3.63% variation)

 

Refer to the assessment below

Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings

Maximum 21m

Lift overrun: 24.44m

(i.e. 3.44m over the height limit).

 

Lobby roof parapet: 22.84m (i.e. 1.84m above existing ground).

 

Rooftop pergola: 22.34m (i.e. 1.34m over the height limit).

No (16.4% max.)

 

Refer to the clause 4.6 assessment below

Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio (FSR)

Maximum 2:1 (1,927.4sqm)

1.48:1 (1,424.6sqm).

Yes – 502.8sqm below the maximum permitted GFA

Clause 4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

 

Calculated accordingly.

Yes

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this clause are;

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

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

Proposal is not within the vicinity of any environmental heritage nominated under KLEP 2012.

Yes

Clause 6.1 – Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)

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

The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils under KLEP 2012.

N/A

Clause 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

Earthworks necessary to enable construction of the proposal will be acceptable subject to conditions of consent.

Yes

Clause 6.5 – Airspace Operations

The consent authority must not grant development consent to development that is a controlled activity within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 of the Commonwealth unless the applicant has obtained approval for the controlled activity under regulations made for the purposes of that Division

The proposal is not a controlled activity under the relevant Division 4. The proposal has a maximum height of RL 84.24m AHD which does not penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS).

N/A

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to KLEP 2012 development standards

Lot Size

 

122.    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.

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

123.    The 1,000sqm minimum lot size requirement that applies to the site is a development standard contained within Clause 4.1A of KLEP 2012.

 

124.    The proposal seeks a variation to the development standard as the site has an area of 963.7sqm, which falls short of the minimum 1,000sqm requirement by 36.3sqm. This represents a 3.63% variation to the development standard. A variation to the minimum lot size development standard can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of KLEP 2012.

 

125.    Clause 4.6(3) stipulates 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:

(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”

 

126.    The applicant has submitted a written request for a variation to the minimum lot size development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. A full copy of this request is on the DA file and the most relevant extracts are reproduced below. This written request is considered herein.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

127.    The singular objective of the minimum lot size development standard of KLEP 2012 is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones”.

Compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3)(a))

128.    There have been several Court cases that have established provisions to assist in the assessment of Clause 4.6 statements to ensure they are well founded and address the provisions of Clause 4.6. In Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ set out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

129.    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.

 

130.    The Clause 4.6 Statement was prepared in consideration of the recent court cases and their judgements.

 

131.    The following is an extract of the Applicant’s written request with respect to the proposal’s consistency with the objectives of the standard:

 

“It is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the standard for the following reasons:

·        the proposed scale and massing of the building is consistent with the desired future character of the locality;

·        the redevelopment of Nos. 506 & 508 Railway Parade represents an appropriate site amalgamation to create a development site, having regard to the prevailing subdivision pattern, where Nos. 506 & 508 form a triangular shaped allotment wedged between the adjoining regular shaped allotments. As such, the opportunity for setting a precedent is minimised due to the particular circumstances of this subdivision pattern;

·        the proposed development does not seek to exceed the allowable floor space ratio so as to achieve an overall density beyond the environmental capacity of the site. As such, there is no tangible nexus between the minimum lot size variation and the overall land use intensity; and

·        the minor non-compliance will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining land uses with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy, inappropriate scale etc.”

 

132.    Officer Comment:

The Applicant’s written justification adequately demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the objective of the standard. The building’s density is acceptable in the context of the desired future character of the area, being well under the maximum Gross Floor Area whilst providing acceptable separation from the street and side/rear boundaries.

 

Clause 4.6(3)(b) are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard

133.    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 there is an absence of any negative impacts of the proposed non-compliance on the environmental quality of the locality and amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or view loss.

 

134.    In this regard, the Applicant’s written request states the following:

 

“…it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Key environmental planning grounds to support the variation include:

·        Despite the minor non-compliance to the minimum lot size, the redevelopment of Nos. 506 & 508 Railway Parade represents an appropriate site amalgamation to create a development site, having regard to the prevailing subdivision pattern, where Nos. 506 & 508 form a triangular shaped allotment wedged between the adjoining regular shaped allotments.

·        Despite being slightly less than the required minimum lot size, the overall bulk and scale of the building that will be achieved is considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale and built form and the relationship of the building to the adjoining residential development;

·        The opportunity for setting a precedent is minimised due to the particular circumstances of this subdivision pattern, where the amalgamation of these 2 sites is considered to be an appropriate solution having regard to the prevailing subdivision pattern.”

 

135.    Officer Comment:

The environmental grounds cited by the Applicant within the written request are considered to be sufficient to justify varying the minimum lot size development standard in the particular circumstances of the case.

 

136.    It is accepted that the proposed amalgamation of the two (2) allotments that form the subject site is an appropriate amalgamation to create a large triangular allotment located between more regularly shaped allotments. Achieving numerical compliance for the construction of an RFB (being the highest and best use of R3 zoned land) would most logically involve the acquisition of and amalgamation with 510 Railway Parade, assuming that was achievable. This would result in a rather odd “W”-shaped site that would be particularly atypical in the site’s context. Such an amalgamation would potentially accommodate a building with an FSR much closer to the maximum 2:1 permitted, with the resulting built form being elongated towards the west to absorb the additional site. Such a built form would be visually intrusive to the property to the south (6 Woids Avenue) and would result in little to no tangible benefit to the adjoining property to the south-east (504 Railway Parade).

 

137.    It is accepted, as detailed within the Applicant’s written request, that approval of the proposal despite the numerical non-compliance would not cause an undesirable precedent due to the rather unique shape of the site. Whilst there are a small number of other triangular R3-zoned sites along Railway Parade within proximity to the subject site, those sites are considerably smaller, in the order of 780sqm to 820sqm.

 

138.    The fact that the site’s particular constraints and context mean that it can be developed for the purposes of a reasonable RFB without causing an undesirable precedent and whilst not contravening the objectives of the development standard adequately constitutes environmental planning grounds to justify varying the development standard in the circumstances.

 

139.    The Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3) and therefore there is no impediment to approval of the DA pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i).

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(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

 

140.    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,

 

141.    The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the building height development standard for reasons detailed above.

 

142.    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.

 

143.    The proposal will provide for additional housing needs within a built form commensurate with other approved RFBs within the R3 zone. The proposal will contribute towards a variety of housing types within the R3 zone and will in itself have a variety of apartment sizes. The proposal will not preclude other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 

144.    The proposed development is therefore consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

145.    As assumed concurrence has been issued on 21 February 2018 (ref: NSW Planning & Environment Planning Circular No. PS 18-003) the considerations listed under Clause 4.6(5) are irrelevant to this application.

 

146.    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, which contravened the height development standard, result in a "better environmental planning outcome for the site" relative to a development that complies with the height development standard (in [141] and [142] of the judgment). 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.

 

147.    In conclusion and as per the decision of Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1097, the relevant tasks and tests under Clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012 have been satisfied and the proposed 3.63% variation to the minimum lot size development standard of KLEP 2012 is recommended for support.

 

Clause 4.6(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

148.    Concurrence from the Secretary has been obtained and can be assumed in this case.

 

149.    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 as there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that in this case the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and development standard (Clause 4.1A, subdivision lot size control).

 

Building Height:

 

150.    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.

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

151.    The 21m height of buildings limit that applies to the site is a development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of KLEP 2012.

 

152.    The proposal seeks a variation to the development standard as it will exceed the height limit by up to 3.44m (i.e. 24.44m maximum).

 

153.    The parts of the building that exceed the height limit are (lowest to highest) the rooftop pergola (22.34m above existing ground), the lobby roof parapet (22.84m above existing ground) and the lift overrun (24.44m above existing ground). The 3.44m exceedance of the lift overrun represents a 3.63% variation to the development standard. A variation to the height limit development standard can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of KLEP 2012.

 

154.    Clause 4.6(3) stipulates 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:

(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”

 

155.    The applicant has submitted a written request for a variation to the building height development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. A full copy of this request is on the DA file and the most relevant extracts are reproduced below. This written request is considered herein.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

156.    The objectives of the building height development standard of KLEP 2012 are:

(a)     to establish the maximum height for buildings,

(b)     to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

(c)     to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

Compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3)(a))

157.    There have been several Court cases that have established provisions to assist in the assessment of Clause 4.6 statements to ensure they are well founded and address the provisions of Clause 4.6. In Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ set out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

158.    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;