AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 7 November 2019

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member)

Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

Cameron Jones (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a) 7-11 Derby Street Kogarah

b) 723-729 Princes Highway Blakehurst

c) 3 Newman Street Mortdale

d) 977 Forest Road Lugarno

e) 47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno

 

 

 

 

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, 7 November  2019

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP045-19        977 Forest Road Lugarno - DA2019/0042

(Report by Consultant Planner)

LPP046-19        47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno - DA2018/0479

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP047-19        3 Newman Street Mortdale - DA2018/190

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP048-19        723 -729 Princes Highway Blakehurst - DA2018/0381

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP049-19        7-11 Derby Street Kogarah - DA2018/0137

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

 


 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP045-19

Development Application No

DA2019/0042

Site Address & Ward Locality

977 Forest Road Lugarno

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Fit out and use of the ground floor of an existing chruch buidling to be used as an Early Childhood Education Facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works

Owners

Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney

Applicant

Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney

Planner/Architect

Lee Environmental Planning (Scott Lee)                                  JMH Living Design (John Hatch)

Date Of Lodgement

13/02/2019

Submissions

Forty eight (48) submissions objecting to the proposal

Cost of Works

$10,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

2(b) - Contentious Development - more than ten (10) submissions received

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental planning Policy – Infrastructure 2007, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River, State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007,

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation State Environmental Planning Policy,

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013

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

Statement of Environmental Effects,

Architectural plans, Landscape plan,

Acoustic Report, Traffic Report,

Arborist Report, Accessibility Report

Report prepared by

Consultant Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused for the reasons included in this report

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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?

 

Not applicable as the application is being recommended for refusal. The refusal reasons will be available when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1: Site plan with the site outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         The development application seeks consent for the fit out and use of the existing ground floor/sub-floor area beneath the existing church hall as an early childhood education facility for thirty four (34) children, with a new outdoor play area and formalised car parking for eleven (11) cars to be provided, five (5) at the front of the site and six (6) at the rear adjacent to the outdoor play area, on land legally described Lot 2 in DP 405732, known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno.

 

Site and Locality

2.        The site is rectangular in shape with a splayed south western corner 1.83m in length which fronts Forest Road and a frontage of 24.69m to Ponderosa Place and a northern boundary of 120.120m and a southern boundary of 118.77m. The allotment has an area of 3140sqm. The site is located on the eastern side of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place. The allotment has a fall to the rear north eastern corner of 4.81m and a fall within the existing building footprint, comprising a church building and attached rear part one (1) part two (2) storey hall, of 2.72m.

 

3.        A single storey church/sanctuary building with attached rear part one/two storey hall with sub-floor is located on the western side of the site. This building has a 2.313m setback from the southern boundary and a variable setback from the northern boundary (3.54m to 6.71). The northern boundary setback is occupied by a driveway that provides vehicular access to the rear (eastern side) of the site and the existing dwelling house at the rear.

 

4.        Adjoining the site to the north are five (5) residential neighbours comprising dwelling houses. There are also five (5) existing dwelling houses existing to the north of the site and five (5) existing dwellings exist to the south and two (2) adjoining dwelling houses to the east of the proposal.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

5.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). A “centre-based child care facility” is a permissible use within the zone with development consent and the proposed use is permissible as it falls under this definition.

 

Submissions

6.         The application was notified in accordance with the provisions contained within the Hurstville Development Control Plan. In response, forty eight (48) submissions were received. The relevant concerns raised within the submissions have been addressed in detail later in this assessment report.

 

Conclusion

7.         An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the applicable assessment criterion as outlined in this report and the proposal generally is considered inadequate based upon the following conclusions:

 

a)    the inconsistencies between documentation lodged by the experts;

b)    the inconclusive submission on whether the proposed activity is a permissible use within the R2 Low Density Residential zone;

c)    the potential traffic access and vehicle generation impacts, and on-site car parking issues associated with the development;

d)    the acoustical impacts likely to result from the facility as proposed and any mechanical ventilation required to service that facility, and the likely overlapping operation of the church related activities;

e)    the recommendation by the Applicants’ Arborist to retain the trees on site and the likelihood that, based on the current design, this cannot be achieved; and

f)     the uncertainty that the operators, managing the joint operations of the church and the facility, can minimise potential local amenity impacts, relating to noise and traffic, to ensure that these independent site activities do not operate concurrently.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

8.         The Statement of Environmental Effects, November 2018, provided in support of the application, describes the proposal as :

 

“The proposed development is for a proposed Childcare Centre use within the ground floor of an existing two story building where the upper level floor is occupied by an existing Place of Public Worship.

 

It involves the internal fit-out of the building space and there will be no built form changes externally to the existing bulk, scale and height of the church building.

 

The proposed childcare centre will operate between 7am until 6pm Monday to Friday, and will accommodate 34 children and 7 staff.

 

The proposed childcare centre will operate on the ground floor at the rear of the existing church building with outdoor space being located to the east of the building with a north and east aspect.

 

Car parking will be provided at both the front of the site for drop off and pick up and for staff and other visitor vehicles to the rear of the building. Both of these areas are already utilised as parking areas for the Church use.”

 

9.         Detail on the proposal and its’ operations is tabulated in the SEE as follows, it is acknowledged there is discrepancy in the staff numbers, the assessment has been based on 6:

 

The centre will provide places for thirty four (34) children as follows:

·      0-2 year olds – Twelve (12) children

·      2-3 year olds – Twelve (12) children

·      3-5 year olds – Ten (10) children

 

These children will be supervised by a total of six (6) staff members

 

The following car parking is proposed for the site:

·      Six (6) spaces for child care staff;

·      Five (5) spaces for children drop off/pick –up, including one accessible space; and

·      Thirteen (13) exclusive church spaces, where the child care centre spaces are utilised for church activities/functions after the child care centre operating hours cease.

 

10.       Provision of the proposed car parking spaces within the front setback of the existing Church building will require preservation measures to be implemented to protect the three (3) canopy providing trees, including a Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), a Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and a Willow Gum (Eucalyptus scoparia).  Provision of the formal car parking at the rear of the site will require protection measures to be implemented for one (1) significant Willow Gum (Eucalyptus scoparia) and an exempt Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta).

 

11.       Vehicular access to the site is to be amended to provide an additional driveway on the southern side of the site providing a circular drive through arrangement at the front of the site. This proposal will enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

12.       The application also proposes an adjustment to the existing road line-marking and traffic island arrangement. The existing arrangement is as follows.

 

Figure 2: Existing corner intersection design (Source: GoogleMaps)

 

Figure 3: Modified road/access design (Source: Applicant)

 

13.       The Application proposes the adoption of a new southbound slip-lane exit from Ponderosa Place to Forest Road to service the development, see Figure 3 above.  The proposed new road markings will require south-bound traffic on Ponderosa Place to utilise the existing right turn lane to turn left onto Forest Road.

 

14.       Stormwater disposal from the site is proposed to be by way of a charged line to Council’s drainage system in Ponderosa Place.

 

Site and Locality

15.       The site is described as Lot 2 in DP 405732 and is known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno. The site is a rectangular shaped site with a splayed south western corner 1.83m in length which fronts Forest Road and a frontage of 24.69m to Ponderosa Place. The allotment has an area of 3140sqm. The site is located on the eastern side of the street, see Figure 4 below.

 

16.       A single storey church/sanctuary building with an attached rear part ground/part first floor hall and part ground/part sub-floor hall is located on the western side of the site. This building has a 2.313m setback from the southern boundary and a variable setback from the northern boundary. The northern boundary setback is occupied by a driveway that provides vehicular access to the rear (eastern side) of the site.

 

17.       A concrete courtyard and an open car parking area are provided to the east of the church and associated buildings. A part one/part two storey dwelling house is located at the rear, eastern side of the site. 

 

18.       The allotment has a fall to the rear north eastern corner of 4.81m and a fall within the existing building footprint of the church building/sanctuary and attached rear part one (1), part two (2) storey hall of 2.72m.

 

19.       There are three (3) significant native canopy providing trees at the front of the site immediately adjacent to the front boundary, see Figures 4 and 5 below. Two (2) significant native trees are also located in the eastern yard of the dwelling house on the eastern side of the site and two (2) significant native trees are located between the car park and the dwelling house in the eastern portion of the site.

 

20.       Adjoining the site to the north are five (5) residential neighbours comprising dwelling houses. There are also five (5) adjoining dwelling houses to the south and two (2) adjoining dwelling houses to the east of the proposal.

 

Figure 4: Photograph of due east aspect of front of subject site from Ponderosa Place intersection with Forest Road (Source: SEE by LEP 2018).

 

Figure 5: Street view picture during congregation day (Source: Public Submission).

 

Zoning and Permissibility

21.      The subject land is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposed development is defined by the HLEP 2012 as a ‘Centre-based child care facility’ which is a permitted land use in the zone, see Figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6 - Extract of Zoning Map and subject site outlined in blue.

 

Submissions

22.      The proposed development was notified to the immediate surrounding residents. In response, a total of forty eight (48) submissions were received by Council, all objecting to the proposed development. The relevant concerns raised have been addressed in detail later in this report.

 

Background

23.     

Date

Event

23 March 2007

Deferred commencement consent granted for an extension to the existing church building including the provision of a church hall under 06/DA-372.

21 May 2007

Deferred commencement activated for 06/DA-372.

28 September 2010

Pre-application advice is provided to the applicant in relation to the potential lodgement of a child care centre application.

15 July 2011

Development application for a child care centre lodged under 11/DA-236 for the provision of additional sub-floor area under the approved church hall for use as a child care centre.

July - November 2011

Unauthorised excavation works for the provision of the rear child care centre commence on site, increasing the excavation permitted under a previous consent for the church hall.

6 December 2011

Section 96 modification lodged under 06/DA-372REV01 for the provision of additional excavation to increase the area of the ground/sub-floor level underneath the approved church hall.

7 March 2012

11/DA-236 is refused for variations to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, numerous variations to Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1, insufficient information, traffic and parking issues and safety concerns.

4 April 2012

Development modification 06/DA-372REV01 considered at a Council meeting where the application was approved by Council.

3 June 2014

Pre-lodgement application for a child care centre lodged under PRE2014/0010.

7 August 2014

The Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee considered proposed alterations under PRE2014/0010 at the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place for a proposed child care centre. The committee resolved:

“THAT the proposed channelisation of the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place to improve road safe at the vehicular access points of the Congregational Christian Church in Samoa and the proposed child care centre at 977 Forest Road Lugarno be approved.

THAT a Section 138 Application under the Roads Act 1993 be lodged to Council’s Traffic Section for determination. A detailed plan of the proposed channelisation of the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place, Lugarno be incorporated with the application.

THAT all costs associated with the proposed works be borne by the applicant.

FURTHER THAT the applicant be advised of Council’s decision.”

17 September 2014

Formal pre-development advice provided to the applicant detailing issues with the proposed plans including tree removal, traffic, parking and disabled access. The applicant was advised to lodge plans/information that addressed these issues in detail.

23 December 2015

Application for child care centre lodged DA2015/0443.

2 February 2016

Council requests provision of acoustic report and landscape plan

15 March 2016

Council receives complaint from neighbour relating to unauthorised fit out of the ground/sub-floor level

16 March 2016

Stop work order issued in relation to the fit out works.

27 May 2016

Acoustic Consultant, “Acoustic Dynamics” requested to prepare acoustic report on behalf of Council in relation to the proposal.

27 October 2016

DA2015/0443 for an Child Care Centre for 34 children at ground level – Refused;

18 December 2018

DA2018/0570 lodged seeking to operate an Early Childhood Education facility within the existing building.

7 January 2019

DA2018/0570 rejected due to inadequacies in drainage, traffic, parking and need for Pre-lodgement meeting

13 February 2019

Current application lodged DA2019/0042.

26 February 2019

Neighbour notification for 14 days from 26 February.

19 May 2019

Meeting with Applicant to discuss objections and issues.

3 October 2019

Noise complaint relating to Church activities currently before the Court.

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

26.      The proposal is considered to not have met the statutory requirements under Schedule 1 of the Regulation.

 

27.      In this instance the documentation provided to support the Child Care Facility application is considered inadequate and inaccurate with a variety of inconsistencies between the documents.  These issues are identified as including:

 

Development Feature

SEE

Acoustic Report

Traffic

Assessment

Architectural Plans

Staff Numbers

6 or 7

7

7

----

Children Numbers

34

40

34

----

Car parking

11-13

11

11

----

Hours of Operation

7am – 6pm

7am - 6pm

7am – 6:30pm

----

Hardstand Footprint

2,639.5sqm

----

----

2,607.55sqm

Total Floor Area

(excluding residence)

1,346.98sqm

----

----

1,346.98sqm

Landscaped Area

500.4sqm

----

----

522.06sqm

Internal Play Area

169.2sqm

----

----

317.52sqm

Outdoor Play Area

270.4sqm

----

----

247.1sqm

 

28.      The above table illustrates the differences in factual content related to the development across the consultants reports on primary matters of children/staff, operating hours, landscaped areas, children’s play area (internal and external) and site hardstand surface areas.

 

29.      In addition to the above it is noted that the accompanying Landscape Plan by Zenith is dated 2015 and clearly relates to an earlier development design for the site as :

·      The vehicular entry point is from a different position north of the southern boundary;

·      The internal driveway design for the front carpark is different to the architectural plans and the Traffic Plan assessment;

·      The design is based upon the removal of the three front trees contrary to architectural plans; and

·      The access design off Ponderosa Place/Forest Road differs from the current architectural plans.

 

30.     The Acoustic Report addresses the noise control measures for the Outdoor Play Area, however, it does not address the internal play area and any required mechanical ventilation installation noise attenuation measures in response to neighbour objections.

 

31.      On the basis of the lack of adequate and consistent information and the above identified areas of inconsistencies in supporting documentation for the development application, which are on-going issues of significance for the development assessment, it is Councils’ view that the application/documentation as lodged is inadequate.

 

32.      The proposal is considered to not have met the statutory requirements under the Schedule 1 of the Regulation.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

 

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

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

 

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

 

35.      Part 107(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises is to have at least 3.25sqm per child of unencumbered indoor space equating to 111sqm for the proposed thirty-four (34) children.

 

36.      The proposed unencumbered indoor space is 317sqm equating to 9.32sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

 

37.      Part 108(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises has at least 7.0sqm of unencumbered outdoor space equating to 238sqm for the proposed thirty four (34) children.

 

38.      The outdoor space proposed is to be 247sqm equating to 7.26sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

 

Clause

Control

Proposal

Complies

25   Centre-based child care facility—non discretionary development standards

(1)  The object of this clause is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to a centre-based child care facility that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for those matters.

Proposal has considered the applicable standards within this assessment.

Yes

 

(2)  The following are non-discretionary development standards for the purposes of section 4.15 (2) and (3) of the Act in relation to the carrying out of development for the purposes of a centre-based child care facility:

(a)  location—the development may be located at any distance from an existing or proposed early education and care facility,

 

(b)  indoor or outdoor space

 

(i)  for development to which regulation 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements = 3.25sqm per child) or 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements = 7sqm per child) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations applies—the unencumbered area of indoor space and the unencumbered area of outdoor space for the development complies with the requirements of those regulations, or

 

(ii)  for development to which clause 28 (unencumbered indoor space and useable outdoor play space) of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 applies—the development complies with the indoor space requirements or the useable outdoor play space requirements in that clause,

 

(c)  site area and site dimensions—the development may be located on a site of any size and have any length of street frontage or any allotment depth,

 

(d)  colour of building materials or shade structures—the development may be of any colour or colour scheme unless it is a State or local heritage item or in a heritage conservation area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

Indoor unencumbered area = 9.32sqm per child.

 

 

 

Outdoor unencumbered area = 7.26sqm per child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted. The site is not identified as a State or Local heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

26   Centre-based child care facility—development control plans

(1)  A provision of a development control plan that specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to any of the following matters (including by reference to ages, age ratios, groupings, numbers or the like, of children) does not apply to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility:

(a)  operational or management plans or arrangements (including hours of operation),

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b)  demonstrated need or demand for child care services,

 

(c)  proximity of facility to other early education and care facilities,

(d)  any matter relating to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility contained in:

(i)  the design principles set out in Part 2 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, or

(ii)  the matters for consideration set out in Part 3 or the regulatory requirements set out in Part 4 of that Guideline (other than those concerning building height, side and rear setbacks or car parking rates).

The proposal seeks development consent for Child Care Facility (CCC) for thirty four (34) children. This clause overrides any applicable control within the Hurstville instruments.

 

 

 

Plans of Management (POM) are not enforceable for the CCC, however, in this instance the site accommodates multiple uses and the necessity for a POM is evident.

 

Demand is accepted

 

 

 

No other CCC is noted as a deterrent for the subject CCC

 

 

 

 

 

See table below.

 

 

Under assessment.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

 

 

Under review

 

(2)  This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

This clause has been considered as part of this assessment.

Noted

 

Child Care Planning Guideline Compliance Table

Controls

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

1.3 What are the planning Objectives

The planning objectives of this Guideline are to:

·    promote high quality planning and design of child care facilities in accordance with the physical requirements of the National Regulations

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    ensure that child care facilities are compatible with the existing streetscape, context and neighbouring land uses

 

 

 

 

 

·    minimise any adverse impacts of development on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood, including the natural and built environment.

 

 

·    deliver greater certainty to applicants, operators and the community by embedding the physical requirements for service approval into the planning requirements for child care facilities.

 

 

The proposal does not achieve this Objective as the CCC design simply aims to accommodate the facility in an existing lower ground floor of a building with evident ventilation, solar and amenity concerns.

 

Acceptable as CCC will be located at rear of site, although the car parking at front will impact streetscape appearance and noise concerns to neighbour properties.

 

Noise issues, traffic and car parking concerns are raised for neighbouring amenity and have not been adequately addressed.

 

Noted.  Acceptable where CCC has minor amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the locality.

Noted

 

No - proposal does not comply

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No - see discussion in report

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

3.1 Site selection and location

C1- For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone consider:

 

 

§ the acoustic and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the residential properties

 

An acoustic report accompanies the proposal which recommends the windows and doors be closed and internal play area air-conditioned when active.

An acoustic fence is proposed along the outdoor play area due to potential impacts on neighbouring lands.

No.-

Artificial ventilation, and most likely for lighting in winter is not a desirable outcome.  Any use of acoustic fencing is recommended to be supported by boundary landscaping which is not achievable in this instance.

§ the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context

 

The proposal will be accommodated in the existing building footprint on the land.

Yes

§ traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks to provide eleven (11) car spaces on site which is in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan requirements for the CCC.  However, should the activity operate whilst church activities are operating then there would be a shortfall of nine (9) spaces.

 

The proposal is conditionally supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator of Traffic on the basis that the final design is agreed upon for intersection works, documentation be lodged illustrating the safe manoeuvring of vehicles on site, acceptance of the need for a convex mirror along the driveway and erection of a crash barrier/bollards around the play area.

No.-

No legal restriction is placed on the Church operations and the application relies on acceptance that the activities will operate exclusive of each other.  However, in reality there is no restriction to enforce this action and traffic and car parking is an unresolved issue.

 

C2 - When selecting a site, ensure that:

§ the location and surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development or use

 

 

 

The location of the proposed child care centre is generally compatible with residential development where noise and traffic control measures are implemented.

 

 

No -

Amelioration measures are not considered appropriate and raise the question as to whether this site is appropriate for the use.

 

 

§ the site is environmentally safe including risks such as flooding, land slip, bushfires, coastal hazards

The site is not impacted by any affectations such as flooding, landslip, bushfire or coastal hazards.

Yes

 

§ there are no potential environmental contaminants on the land, in the building or the general proximity, and whether hazardous materials remediation is needed

No site contamination is known on the land which has been used for residential and church activities over many years

Yes

 

§ the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to:

- size of street frontage, lot configuration, dimensions and overall size

 

- number of shared boundaries with residential properties.

 

- the development will not have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area, particularly in sensitive environmental or cultural areas.

The proposal is located on the corner of Forest Road (Main Road) and Ponderosa Place (Local Road) adjacent to a roundabout intersection in a predominantly residential environment.

 

 

The property adjoins twelve (12) residential properties.

 

Issues related to noise, traffic and car parking have been identified as directly impacting neighbouring amenity.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

§ there are suitable drop off and pick up areas, and off and on street parking

 

The proposal provides car parking on site, with 5 spaces at the street frontage and 6 behind the building.

The Traffic Report relies on the CCC and Church activities to operate at different times to ensure there is adequate onsite car parking

 

No -

Policing or enforcing this remains questionable.

A tight turning and manoeuvring area is proposed at the street frontage which will potentially impact the trees to be retained.

 

§ the type of adjoining road (for example classified, arterial, local road, cul-de-sac) is appropriate and safe for the proposed use

Ponderosa Place is a local road. This road is not identified as a collector road within the Hurstville DCP 2013.  Forest Road is a Main Collector and the access is to be modified.

Yes

 

§ it is not located closely to incompatible social activities and uses such as restricted premises, injecting rooms, drug clinics and the like, premises licensed for alcohol or gambling such as hotels, clubs, cellar door premises and sex services premises.

The subject site is located in a residential setting and is not impacted by any of the criterion listed within this clause.

Yes

 

C3 - A child care facility should be located:

 

 

 

§ near compatible social uses such as schools and other educational establishments, parks and other public open space, community facilities, places of public worship

The subject site is surrounded by residential uses within the immediate vicinity and the site accommodates a place of public worship and is within 500m of a shopping precinct, parks and school.

Yes

 

§ near or within employment areas, town centres, business centres, shops

The subject site is located relatively close to Lugarno commercial precinct known as Chivers Hill.

Yes

 

§ with access to public transport including rail, buses, ferries

Bus stops are located along Forest Road.

Yes

 

§ in areas with pedestrian connectivity to the local community, businesses, shops, services and the like.

The subject site has pedestrian connectivity to the Lugarno commercial precinct known as  Chivers Hill

Yes

 

C4- A child care facility should be located to avoid risks to children, staff or visitors and adverse environmental conditions arising from proximity to:

 

 

 

§ heavy or hazardous industry, waste transfer depots or landfill sites

§ LPG tanks or service stations

§ water cooling and water warming systems

§ odour (and other air pollutant) generating uses and sources or sites

§ which, due to prevailing land use zoning, may in future accommodate noise or odour generating uses

§ extractive industries, intensive agriculture, agricultural spraying activities

The site is not located within proximity to any of the risks identified within this clause.

Yes

 

§ any other identified environmental hazard or risk relevant to the site and/ or existing buildings within the site.

No other hazards identified.

Yes

3.2 Local character, streetscape and the public domain interface

C5 - The proposed development should:

 

 

 

 

§ contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape

The proposal utilises the existing church built form and will not be visible from the street. The car parking will however result in the loss of landscaped area at the street front and will detract from the streetscape.

No.

 

 

§ reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas

The proposal utilises the existing church built form and will not be visible from the street. This is considered to be compatible with the built forms within the immediate vicinity.

Yes

 

§ recognise predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, materials and colours

The existing building form is not inconsistent with the character of the existing streetscape.

Yes

 

§ include design and architectural treatments that respond to and integrate with the existing streetscape

The proposal relies on the existing building form and will not result in any new building form. The street front appearance will be adversely impacted due to increased hardstand surfaces for car parking which detracts from the streetscape and may lead to the loss of existing mature trees located in the setback.

No -

The proposal will have a negative impact on the streetscape due to the loss of landscaped area, lawn areas and potentially mature trees.

 

§ use landscaping to positively contribute to the streetscape and neighbouring amenity

 

The proposal will result in an overall reduction in site landscaping due to the creation of car parking in the front setback.

No - Landscaped area will be lost on a low density residential zoned site with existing site coverage exceeding 50%

 

§ integrate car parking into the building and site landscaping design in residential areas.

Car parking is proposed to be formalised at the rear of the Church Hall and also for parental use at the street front, see Figure 3

No -

Provision of additional car parking on site will detract from the current appearance of the site.

 

C6 - Create a threshold with a clear transition between public and private realms, including:

 

 

 

§ fencing to ensure safety for children entering and leaving the facility

Appropriate fencing is proposed, and would be conditionally required if approved, to ensure safe child access from the street and car parks into the CCC.

Yes -

Achievable.

 

§ windows facing from the facility towards the public domain to provide passive surveillance to the street as a safety measure and connection between the facility and the community

CCC is to be located in the existing basement level of the Church Hall and will not have a visual presence from the street to provide for passive surveillance

No -

CCC is not appropriately located to achieve this standard.

 

§ integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.

Landscaping is reduced and will not be improved.

No

 

C7- On sites with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with the child care facility should be differentiated to improve legibility for visitors and children by changes in materials, plant species and colours.

The proposal has a defined pedestrian entry which is clearly legible.

Yes

 

C9- Front fences and walls within the front setback should be constructed of visually permeable materials and treatments. Where the site is listed as a heritage item, adjacent to a heritage item or within a conservation area front fencing should be designed in accordance with local heritage provisions.

No front fence is proposed. The site is not listed as a heritage item or within a conservation area.

Yes

 

C10- High solid acoustic fencing may be used when shielding the facility from noise on classified roads. The walls should be setback from the property boundary with screen landscaping of a similar height between the wall and the boundary.

Forest Road is not a classified road in this location although it is a local collector road.

 

 

N/A

 

3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design

C11- Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to:

 

 

 

ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by:

-    facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties

-    placing play equipment away from common boundaries with residential properties

-    locating outdoor play areas away from residential dwellings and other sensitive uses

 

 

 

 

The proposal has no choice in location of Outdoor Play area, as it is confined to the area adjacent to rear of the Hall and bounded by a carpark.

Noise issues are proposed to be addressed by the use of hooded screens over the play area.  Noise will still project from the play area open roof and will also have a visual impact due to the screen size.

No -

High screening walls, partly roofed, are proposed to address noise from the outdoor play area.

This wall will have visual impacts as well as funnelled noise concerns.

 

§ optimise solar access to internal and external play areas

 

The CCC is located within the basement area of the church hall but has a northerly aspect for the windows/doors along this façade.

The outdoor play area is proposed to be heavily screened and partly roofed, whilst being located on the eastern end of the Hall building. Hence solar access is likely to be impacted. The Applicant has not submitted any solar access analysis. 

No -

Potentially both the internal and outdoor play areas may lack adequate solar access, however timing on the use of outdoor areas may satisfy solar access, however has not been resolved.

 

§ avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties

Proposal will not result in structures which adversely overshadow neighbouring lands.

Yes

 

§ minimise cut and fill

The proposal seeks no cut and fill.

Yes

 

§ ensure buildings along the street frontage define the street by facing it

The proposal involves no external building works.

Yes - although an additional hardstand car parking area and outdoor play area is proposed.

 

§ ensure that where a child care facility is located above ground level, outdoor play areas are protected from wind and other climatic conditions.

The proposal is located at ground level with appropriate shelter protection from the elements.

Yes

 

C12- The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character:

 

 

 

§ building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality

The proposal involves no external building additions.

Yes

 

§ building height should respond to the scale and character of the street

The overall building height is existing.

Yes

 

§ setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility

The building position is existing.

Yes

 

§ setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance

The building position is existing.

Yes

 

§ setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character.

The building position is existing.

Yes

 

C13- Where there are no prevailing setback controls minimum setback to a classified road should be 10m. On other road frontages where there are existing buildings within 50m, the setback should be the average of the two closest buildings. Where there are no buildings within 50m, the same setback is required for the predominant adjoining land use.

The building position is existing.

Yes

 

C14- On land in a residential zone, side and rear boundary setbacks should observe the prevailing setbacks required for a dwelling house.

The building position is existing.

Yes

 

C15- The built form of the development should contribute to the character of the local area, including how it:

 

 

 

§ respects and responds to its physical context such as adjacent built form, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage

The building position is existing.

 

The provision of onsite car parking within the front setback is proposed through necessity, as there is not another location available.

No -

The streetscape will be further impacted due to car parking in the front setback, whereas currently formal car parking is located at the rear, although Figure 3 illustrates current usage impacts.

 

§ contributes to the identity of the place

 

The building position is existing.

Yes - Place identity unchanged.

 

§ retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant

The proposal seeks to retain trees on the site and within the front setback.   This is likely to be difficult to achieve due to increased demands for use.

No -

Lawn area and potentially trees will be impacted at the street front.

 

§ considers heritage within the local neighbourhood including identified heritage items and conservation areas

The subject site and immediate surrounding area are not identified as being heritage listed or within a conservation area.

Yes

 

§ responds to its natural environment including local landscape setting and climate

 

The proposal seeks to retain trees on site and provides for landscaping.  Landscaped areas will be reduced due to car parking requirements.

No -

Retention of trees will be an issue due to the increased use and paving.

 

C16- Entry to the facility should be limited to one secure point which is:

 

 

 

-    located to allow ease of access, particularly for pedestrians

-    directly accessible from the street where possible

-    directly visible from the street frontage

-    easily monitored through natural or camera surveillance

-    not accessed through an outdoor play area.

-    in a mixed-use development, clearly defined and separate from entrances to other uses in the building.

The proposal seeks a main entry along the northern side elevation which is accessed from Ponderosa Place via a pedestrian walkway. This is a direct path in accordance with this clause. The rear car park access is via a ramp along the northern facade.

No - the proposal seeks a dual entry/exit arrangement to provide a circular drive to the front hard stand car parking area.  This arrangement raises safety and manoeuvring concerns as discussed in report.

 

C17- Accessible design can be achieved by:

 

 

 

-    providing accessibility to and within the building in accordance with all relevant legislation

-    linking all key areas of the site by level or ramped pathways that are accessible to prams and wheelchairs, including between all car parking areas and the main building entry

-    providing a continuous path of travel to and within the building, including access between the street entry and car parking and main building entrance. Platform lifts should be avoided where possible

-    minimising ramping by ensuring building entries and ground floors are well located relative to the level of the footpath.

-    NOTE: The National Construction Code, the Discrimination Disability Act 1992 and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 set out the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.

The proposal is accompanied by an Access Report which concludes that the CCC will be suitably accessible in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code and relevant Australian Standards.

Yes

3.4 Landscaping

 

C18- Appropriate planting should be provided along the boundary integrated with fencing. Screen planting should not be included in calculations of unencumbered outdoor space. Use the existing landscape where feasible to provide a high quality landscaped area by:

 

 

 

-     reflecting and reinforcing the local context

-     incorporating natural features of the site, such as trees, rocky outcrops and vegetation communities into landscaping.

The proposal results in a reduction of landscaped area, where car parking is proposed across the street front.  A landscape plan has been lodged to improve the remaining landscaping, although it is noted that this landscape plan is dated 2015 and identifies a different vehicular access arrangement. If the application was to be supported than a requirement for a revised landscaping plan would be required.

No -

The reduction in landscaped area is a poor design outcome for a large site which will adversely impact streetscape.

 

C19- Incorporate car parking into the landscape design of the site by:

 

 

 

 

-    planting shade trees in large car parking areas to create a cool outdoor environment and reduce summer heat radiating into buildings

-    taking into account streetscape, local character and context when siting car parking areas within the front setback

-    using low level landscaping to soften and screen parking areas.

The proposal has been designed to respond to the requirements of this clause.

Existing large trees are to be retained as shade and low level landscaping to screen cars. 

No -

The potential for the existing trees to survive the construction and paving impacts are considered low.

 

C21- Minimise direct overlooking of indoor rooms and outdoor play spaces from public areas through:

 

 

 

 

-     appropriate site and building layout

-     suitably locating pathways, windows and doors

-     permanent screening and landscape design

The proposal has been designed to reasonably satisfy the requirements of this clause.

Yes

 

C22 Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through:

-     appropriate site and building layout

-     suitable location of pathways, windows and doors

-     landscape design and screening.

The proposal has been designed having regard to reducing adverse overlooking impacts to adjoining properties. This is also assisted by screen planting and acoustic screening.

Yes

 

C23- A new development, or development that includes alterations to more than 50 per cent of the existing floor area, and is located adjacent to residential accommodation should:

 

 

 

§ Provide an acoustic fence along any boundary where the adjoining property contains a residential use. (An acoustic fence is one that is a solid, gap free fence).

New works and use are proposed and acoustic screening and roof over to the northern and southern sides of the outside play area has been proposed implementing the recommendations of the acoustic report.

Yes - An acoustic fence has been provided, however, as discussed in this report the design and form is considered unacceptable

 

C24- A suitably qualified acoustic professional should prepare an acoustic report which will cover the following matters:

 

Yes

 

§ identify an appropriate noise level for a child care facility located in residential and other zones

§ determine an appropriate background noise level for outdoor play areas during times they are proposed to be in use

§ determine the appropriate height of any acoustic fence to enable the noise criteria to be met.

The acoustic report has identified an appropriate background noise and requires an acoustic fence to an overall height of 2.4m, with pitched roof, along the northern Outdoor Play Area (OPA) and a roof element to 4m in height above the existing 3.12m high southern boundary wall OPA. The acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Health who raised concern that the internal areas should be air-conditioned rather than naturally ventilated.

No -.

The acoustic wall/fence with a roof over, at the rear of the site is an undesirable outcome for a site of 3,000sqm due to building site constraints and poor internal amenity.

3.6 Noise and air pollution

 

 

C25 Adopt design solutions to minimise the impacts of noise, such as:

-     creating physical separation between buildings and the noise source

-     orienting the facility perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses

-     using landscaping to reduce the perception of noise

-     limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources

-     using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (winter gardens)

-     using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties, such as solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits

-     locating cot rooms, sleeping areas and play areas away from external noise sources.

The proposal incorporates an acoustic fence with roof over around the outdoor play area.

 

The proposal has incorporated design elements consistent with the intent of this clause to respond to potential noise impacts from the centre.

Yes -

CC design is generally responsive to this issue.

 

Although the design of the centre within this building form attempts to respond to the issues raised, concern remains that development will result in additional noise concerns for neighbouring properties and within the centre, and will potentially be affected by a noise tunnelling affect.

 

C26- An acoustic report should identify appropriate noise levels for sleeping areas and other non-play areas and examine impacts and noise attenuation measures where a child care facility is proposed in any of the following locations:

An acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health.

No -

See comments at C10 and C24 above.

 

C27- Locate child care facilities on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development.

The site is located on a local road, with partial frontage to the collector road Forest Road, and is not within close proximity to any industrial uses.

Yes

 

C28- A suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care facilities close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines.

The air quality assessment report should evaluate design considerations to minimise air pollution.

The subject site is located away from potential impacts from external sources. Therefore an air quality assessment report was not required.

N/A

3.7 Hours of operation

 

C29- Hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The hours of operation of the proposed child care facility may be extended if it adjoins or is adjacent to non-residential land uses.

The proposal seeks consent to operate between 7.00am – 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Closed on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.

 

 

Yes

3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation

 

C31 Off street car parking should be provided at the rates for child care facilities specified in a Development Control Plan that applies to the land.

Compliant car parking provided on site in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013, where the Centre use operates exclusively of the church activities only.

Yes

 

C33- A Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised.

 

-     the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected

-     there will be no impacts on the safe operation of the surrounding road network

A Traffic and Parking study was submitted. This was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator Traffic and is supported subject to conditions and requirements for further details.

 

Concerns are raised at internal circulation, potential queuing to enter/exit site, paving impacts on landscaping and potential dual use of car parking

No -

Access and entry to the site compounded by the corner position, which raises traffic and car parking management concerns.

 

C36- The following design solutions may be incorporated into a development to help provide a safe pedestrian environment:

 

-     separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal provides separate pedestrian and vehicular access from Ponderosa Place

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

-     pedestrian paths that enable two prams to pass each other

 

A pedestrian pathway is proposed along the northern side façade adjacent to the driveway.

Yes – via a condition the path be 1.5m wide if the application was to be supported.  This would require a redesign of the driveway /pedestrian access (8.4m wide), but both should be safely accommodated

 

-     delivery and loading areas located away from the main pedestrian access to the building and in clearly designated, separate facilities

Delivery and loading areas can be accommodated in the waiting bay area at the front of the site. Deliveries are to occur outside peak pick up and drop off times.

Yes via

a condition to ensure that deliveries occur outside peak pick up and drop off times, if the application was considered worthy of support.

 

-     vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction which is facilitated by a turning area in the rear carpark and curved drive at the street front.

Yes

 

C38 Car parking design should:

 

 

 

-    include a child safety fence to separate car parking areas from the building entrance and play areas

-    provide clearly marked accessible parking as close as possible to the primary entrance to the building in accordance with appropriate Australian Standards

The proposal provides a separate pedestrian entry to that of the basement entry.

Yes -

Requiring safety fence and markings can be imposed as a condition if the application was to be supported.

 

39.      The proposed development is unsatisfactory in design and form when assessed against the broad principle provisions of the Education and Care Services National Regulations and the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017. Of particular note are the non-compliances with provisions relating to the following:

 

a)    Identifying a suitable site based upon compatibility with the existing streetscape character. The locality, although adjacent to a roundabout, remains a low density residential area with soft landscaping the predominant visual feature which is not attainable with the current proposed design;

b)    Disclosure of the educational programming and practice at the Facility is required to be provided. This is a necessary requirement for the subject application to clearly illustrate that the Facility will achieve the requirements for the definition of a Centre-Based Child Care Facility to be a permissible land use;

c)    Ensuring and illustrating that the development retains a landscaped character complimentary to the streetscape as identified in point (a) above;

d)    Ensuring and illustrating that outdoor open space areas have adequate solar access to 30% of the area year round. The current proposal seeks to introduce large arched acoustic walls around the outdoor play area to minimize noise for neighbouring properties. Generally where such features are proposed adjacent to boundaries they are required to include landscaping along the boundaries of similar size and this has not been proposed. With the arched design and high wall height it is questionable whether the outdoor play area can achieve direct solar access to 30% of the play area year round and the Applicant has failed to illustrate that this is achievable;

e)    Ensuring and illustrating that the internal floor space is appropriately designed to be naturally ventilated and achieves adequate natural lighting. Generally internal areas should not have a depth greater than 2.5 times the room height to ensure reasonable natural ventilation and lighting can be achieved. In this instance the height at 2.42m provides for only an acceptable depth of 6.05m whilst the subject design provides an internal play area depth of 12.2m;

f)     Illustrating that the facility has a visible presence from the public road and safe/secure accessibility. In this instance the entry to the Facility will be :

 

·     in excess of 25m from the street front;

·     located 15m behind the existing church building alignment; and

·     will not be able to provide visual security surveillance of the access pathway or the carpark area at the street front.

 

40.      With design modifications these issues may be resolvable, or improved, however, the general landscaping, car parking, accessibility, tree retention, streetscape and solar access requirements under the Regulations/Guidelines appear to be issues that require significant re-assessment and redesign in order to achieve an acceptable outcome.

 

41.      On the basis of this assessment, it is concluded that the current application design/form would not conform to the aims and objectives of the Regulations or Guidelines and is therefore not an appropriate form of development under those instruments.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

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

 

45.      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). 

 

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

 

47.      The proposal is supported by Council’s consulting arborist subject to conditions of consent and retention of the existing trees.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of land

48.      The subject land has traditionally been utilized for residential or place of public worship uses and has no record of contamination concerns making the land unsuitable for a proposed centre-based child care facility. In this regard appropriate consideration has been given to the SEPP.  The application was not supported by a preliminary contamination report; however the Statement of Environmental Effects raised no concerns on the basis that preliminary investigations revealed no contamination issue.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Draft Remediation SEPP

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

 

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

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

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

·        clearly list the remediation works that require development consent; and

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

 

A contamination report was not required for this development as the works are proposed on a residentially zoned allotment of land which has historically been used as a place of public worship with no known contamination issues recorded. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP.

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

52.      The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Clause

Standard

Assessment Under HLEP 2012

Part 2 –

Permitted/Prohibited Development

R2 Low Density Residential

The Application is for an early childhood education facility.  For the purposes of definition the Applicant seeks approval as a Child care centre (CCC) which is permissible in the zone. See comments below.

 

Objectives of the Zone

The proposal does not comply with two objectives of the zone (1).

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

As existing - 8.9m.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

As existing - 0.48:1, inclusive of church/hall and residence.

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

N/A as existing.

5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation

Consent is required for pruning or removal of specified vegetation

Council’s consultant Arborist concurs with the Applicants Arborist with the retention of the existing trees, but raises concerns with the ability to protect the trees with the subject design.

5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by DCP

 

 

Trees are not proposed to be removed. It is noted that SEPP now deals with assessment of such proposals.

6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made of the following:

“(3)(a) affect the natural environment, including topography, rock formations, canopy vegetation or other significant vegetation, and

 

(b) affect the visual environment, including the views to and from the Georges River, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places, and

(c) affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville, and

(d) Contribute to the scenic qualities of the residential areas and the Georges River by maintaining the dominance of landscape over built form.”

The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal has been assessed against the matters for consideration and is concluded to be unacceptable.

 

The development comprises work that reduces the landscaped area within the street front setback and is replaced with paving for car parking. It is also likely that due to the extent of paving required for parking and manoeuvring that the 3 trees in the setback will be under threat and not able to survive.

 

The proposal will not impact on view corridors.

 

The proposal will not impact on any items of environmental heritage listed under Schedule 5 of the LEP.

The removal of the lawn and possibly significant trees at the front of the site and the provision of parking and driveways within the front setback does not result in the “dominance of landscape over built form.”

6.7 – Essential Services

The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required:

* Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage

* Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

* Suitable vehicular access

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land.

Appropriate stormwater disposal is proposed.

An existing charged system was approved via DA2006/0372 for the Church Hall and Additions.

Vehicular access from Ponderosa Place/Forest Road is proposed subject to agreement being reached on modifications to the intersection.

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

53.      The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the Applicant seeks approval of an early childhood education centre which is being assessed as a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility” being a permissible form of development with Council’s consent, and defined as follows:

 

centre-based child care facility means:

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

(i)    long day care,

(ii)   occasional child care,

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

(iv) preschool care, or

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

Note.   An approved family day care venue is a place, other than a residence, where an approved family day care service (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)) is provided.

but does not include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

54.      With regard to the subject application the Applicant has not clarified the basis for the proposals compliance with the definition with regard to :

·      What is the educational role of the Facility as required by (a) and (g)? and

·      Whether the Education Facility has a religious role and thus would be excluded from the definition?

 

At this time the Applicant has failed to confirm that the proposed activity is consistent with the definition for a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility”.

 

55.      Where the facility is determined not to be a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility” (CCC), the Applicant would need to rely on the Facility operating as an ancillary use to the existing “Place of Public Worship” use to be assessed as a permissible use.  Reliance on this approach to permit the activity would necessitate the Applicant illustrating that the “Place of Public Worship” use would remain the dominant land use considering that the CCC Facility is proposed to operate 5 days weekly and the Church only on weekends this seems unlikely.

 

Objectives of Zone

56.      The proposed use seeks consent to provide a child care service that must satisfy the following objectives of the zone, including:

 

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

 

57.      A CCC is a service that provides for the day to day needs of residents and the wider community. However, the plans provided in support of the proposal do not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposal can provide a satisfactory facility which can suitably accommodate the children and maintain reasonable neighbour amenity.

 

58.      This assessment identifies that the proposal has not been suitably designed to provide :

·      appropriate car parking and vehicular site egress/access;

·      appropriate indoor/outdoor space to safely and securely accommodate the children whilst providing sufficient natural light and ventilation to the centre;

·      appropriate noise amelioration measures to ensure preservation of the neighbouring residential property amenity; and

·      suitable measures for the retention of the existing significant trees on the site.

 

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

 

59.      The existing building has already proved to be insufficient, in terms of acoustic treatment, to provide a satisfactory level of acoustic amenity to adjacent neighbours. The provision of a child care centre in the existing building without adequately addressing the noise impact from the indoor/outdoor play spaces associated with the child care centre use remains unsatisfactory.

 

60.      The application has not demonstrated that the proposal achieves suitable acoustic amenity from the use of indoor areas. The Acoustic Dynamics 2016 report, commissioned by Georges River Council, had previously advised that:

         

“…the calculated noise emission from the indoor playground will not achieve compliance with the relevant noise emission criteria when windows and sliding doors are open. Accordingly Acoustic Dynamics advises that air conditioning should be installed to service the Child Care Centre. This will provide the option for mechanical ventilation of the Child Care Centre, and provide the occupants with the option to leave external doors and windows closed.”

 

61.      The Applicants current acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works, November 2018, provides comments on outdoor play area of the Facility but does not make any recommendations for the indoor play area. Further, the noise monitor positioning between the proposed outdoor play area and the on-site dwelling is not an appropriate location, as this should be located on the northern/southern boundaries between the noise generator (child care facility) and the impacted dwellings in order to provide realistic noise readings, particularly along northern boundary where windows/doors of the facility may be opened.

 

62.      The suggested resolution of the internal noise generation impact, involving keeping windows/doors closed during use, will appropriately address noise generation, however, for the operation of the child care centre it is considered to be a poor amenity outcome.  A plan of management (POM) is warranted, considering the multiple use activities of this site, to ensure suitable action is taken by the child care centre operator when necessary. Although reliance on air-conditioning is not a preferred outcome for a child care centre, indeed the SEPP encourages natural ventilation, it is an option where noise levels during active periods is unreasonable and this is generally acknowledged as an option by the SEPP provisions. Air-conditioning is not an appropriate option where there is no enforceable POM available to instruct the centre operators.

 

63.      As such, the proposal cannot provide for appropriate acoustic amenity for the adjoining neighbours and therefore fails to satisfy the objective of the LEP.

 

64.      Additionally, the proposed development involves increased paved areas within the front setback thus reducing the potential landscaped area further. The Applicants architectural plans indicate that the site, within a low-density residential area, would provide only 16% (500.41sqm) of the site as soft landscaping being a reduction of a further 7% (234.64sqm) of soft landscaped area on site. This further loss of landscaped area is considered unreasonable in a residential precinct where the development adjoins standard residential housing, see Figures 1 and 2.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

Section 3.1

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.1.4.1 (table) – Child care centres refers requirements under 5.4.10

1 space per 2 staff (7 staff required) = 3.5 car spaces

Short term drop off and pick up spaces at 1 space per 10 children (single access driveways)

(34 children) = 4 car spaces

Total required = 8 car spaces

6 proposed

 

5 proposed

 

 

 

11 proposed spaces

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

3.1.4.1

Place of Public Worship

1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 10sqm GFA whichever is greater)

GFA is 839.279sqm = 84 spaces

 

11 available – shared with proposed child care centre use

(church original approval required the provision of 9 spaces including 2 disabled spaces)

No

3.1.4.1 Residential –  controls under 4.1

Dwelling House

2 car parking spaces required for 3 or more bedrooms

 

Single garage – 1 space

No

 

On site car parking

66.      As demonstrated in the table above, the child care centre development proposes complying car parking spaces for the proposed child care centre use. For each individual activity taking place on the subject land, the proposed car parking is considered to be adequate, noting that the Church activity was approved with a requirement for nine (9) spaces. However, concerns remain that without appropriate management conditions applying to all uses of the land, the likelihood of multiple uses occurring on the land simultaneously is high. As the site is unsuitable to provide for appropriate car parking for both proposed uses, being the church and the child care centre, where active concurrently then the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Intensification of car parking demand

67.      The car parking approved for the site as part of the previous extensions to the hall under 06/DA-372 and later modified under 06/DA-372REV01 included the provision of nine (9) car parking spaces at the rear of the church hall. Two (2) of these spaces were to be designated accessible spaces. Two (2) additional spaces were provided for the existing dwelling house resulting in a total of eleven (11) spaces for the site.

 

68.      The original Council report identified a shortfall of car parking provision of fifty (50) spaces for the site for the church and church hall use. This existing shortfall of fifty (50) spaces was permitted to be increased (when the sub-floor area was increased in size) on the basis that existing congregation numbers were demonstrated to be low and the parking provided on site would be sufficient for the existing congregation size. The justification claimed the additional floor space would not result in an intensification of the use. This was supported by Council with the provision of the following condition of consent:

 

65.       The proposed hall shall be used for purposes ancillary to the church only and shall not be hired or let to other persons for private use.

79B.    The approved hall shall only be used for church activities and is not permitted to be leased for commercial activities, functions or the like.

 

69.      The intention of these conditions was to ensure the intensity of use of the hall was in accordance with the existing approved place of public worship. That is the church hall was to be used by parishioners that would otherwise attend the church itself and that eleven (11) spaces were sufficient.

 

70.      The “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” (dated November 2018, prepared by Traffic Impact Services Pty Ltd) specifies that the weekday use of the proposed child care centre “will not conflict with the church activities which are held only on a Sunday.” However timetable information provided by the church indicates that the occasional church related activity occurs during the week. On occasions where church use and child care centre use overlap, it is claimed that church events during the week “would be restricted to the hours of 9.30am-3.30pm which would be outside the child care drop off and pick up times.”  Demonstration of how events would be restricted has not been provided.

 

71.      Potential instances of parking overlap are problematic where the church/church hall use and the proposed child care centre use operate concurrently, significant deficiencies in car parking would result. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be no parking conflict between any use of the church/church hall and the child care centre during the week. Existing conditions of consent relating to the use of the church and church hall do not specify that the church and ancillary uses cannot occur during the week. There is no capacity to provide conditions of consent under the current application that will prevent multiple activities overlapping.

 

72.      As such there is no certainty that the combined uses, church and facility related, will not result in an intensification of car parking demand and its spill over into the surrounding road network. Insufficient management strategies, i.e. no plan of management, have been provided in support of the application to demonstrate how this issue can be avoided through general agreement arrangements.

 

Available car parking and site constraints

73.      The “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” has based its assessment on the provision of eleven (11) car parking spaces on site with five (5) spaces provided at the front of the site and six (6) spaces provided at the rear of the site exclusive of the residential car parking. The paving required for manoeuvring in the front setback raises concerns with the retention of the existing trees, which Council’s consultant Arborist contends are likely to be adversely impacted.

 

74.      The five existing trees on site are recommended to be retained in accordance with the recommendations of the “Arborist development assessment report” (prepared by Moore Trees Arboricultural services, dated December 2018) submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal. This report requires the retention of three (3) significant trees at the front of the site with the following protection measures :

 

It is recommended that this area has a surface that is permeable to water and oxygen. Brick paving will still allow a limited amount of water and oxygen exchange …..

 

75.      The provision of this tree retention measure is contended by Council’s consultant Arborist as inadequate to ensure the long term retention of the impacted trees.

 

Summary

76.      The child care centre use will increase the current car parking demand for the site and the subject application has not adequately addressed the following:

 

·      The dual driveway access and car parking proposed at the front of the site cannot be supported as the design and finishes would threaten the long term retention of the three (3) significant trees;

·      The rear car parking cannot be supported for use by visitors to the child care centre as it raises a safety issue for pedestrians accessing the child care centre via the driveway and potential conflicts in passing vehicles along the access drive;.

·      The site cannot provide suitable vehicular access and car parking on site to accommodate the demand of concurrently operating activities and as such is not supported. 

 

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

77.      This section of Development Control Plan No 1 requires the provision of “access for all persons through the principal entrance and access to appropriate sanitary facilities in accordance with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards.”

 

78.      The Application is accompanied by an “Accessibility Report” prepared by Accessibility Solutions Pty Ltd, dated 10 October 2017, which relies on outdated plans for the development, including a larger car park at the rear. The conclusions reached relating to the accessibility of the existing building remain relevant as no changes are proposed as part of this application. The Consultant concluded as follows:

 

“The plans confirm the new works will provide appropriate ramped entry and internal circulation to essential features and amenities for children and staff with disabilities, including outdoor play areas in a manner that can comply with the abovementioned standards and legislation”.

 

79.      If the application was to be supported than a condition would be imposed to have the Construction Certificate plans reviewed to ensure compliance prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

  

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

Section 3.4

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

Fencing

Allows natural surveillance to street

The front of the site has no fences and the proposal will not alter the existing level of natural surveillance to the street currently available, however surveillance is not available from the child care centre given its recessed location within site.

Yes

Blind Corners

To be avoided

Blind corners, such as to the car parks, are generally overlooked by windows by the church above.

This clause could only be satisfied if the Church was operating at the same time as the childcare facility.

No

Communal Areas

Provide opportunities for natural surveillance

The child care centre entry and outdoor play spaces are visible from within the centre or the adjacent church office.

Yes

Entrances

Clearly visible and not confusing

The entry to the child care centre is at the rear of the premises and pedestrian access is via a designated pathway adjacent to the driveway.

This may be confusing without appropriate signage.

No

Site and Building Layout

-   Provide surveillance opportunities

-   Building addresses street

-   Offset windows

Surveillance opportunities provided at the rear of the premises only. The existing church provides street surveillance opportunities from the office window but this is proposed to be replaced with doors. To maintain this casual surveillance any doors introduced in this area should be glass doors.

No, as the adequacy of surveillance is only achieved where the church is functioning concurrently which would raise parking demand issues.

Lighting

-   Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally

-   Access/egress points illuminated

-   No light spill towards neighbours

-   Hiding places illuminated

-   Lighting is energy efficient

Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved.

Yes

Landscaping

-   Avoid dense medium height shrubs

-   Allow spacing for low growing dense vegetation

-   Low ground cover or high canopy trees around car parks and pathways

The proposal is accompanied by a landscaping plan which was prepared in 2015 and identifies a different access/egress arrangement.  Generally these issues could be addressed conditionally where an updated Landscape Plan is required to be lodged if the application was to be supported.

No, the landscape plan lodged to address these issues is out dated and addresses a different development form

Building Identification

-   Clearly numbered buildings

-   Entrances numbered

-   Unit numbers provided at entry

Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved.

Yes

Security

Provide an appropriate level of security

Sufficient level of security provided.

Yes

Ownership

Use of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownership

Ownership is implied by the church building and appropriate signage could be installed to direct the users of the childcare centre if the proposal was supported.  

Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

80.      The provisions of Section 3.5.2.1 specify a number of requirements relevant to the proposal.

 

Solar Access

81.      Solar access to buildings is encouraged in order to provide for energy efficiency. The indoor play area occupies a central area of the floor plan and is 19.8m deep measured from the doors; hence, solar access to the majority of the indoor play area is unavailable. No openings, and therefore no solar access or natural lighting, is provided to the southern or western rooms in the childcare centre as this portion of the centre is underground. No detailed solar access analysis has been submitted to illustrate that reasonable solar access can be provided to either the internal of the centre or the outdoor play areas.

 

Windows and cross ventilation

82.      As described above, no windows are provided to any of the southern or western rooms of the child care centre and the indoor play area will not be cross ventilated should the doors to the rear play area be closed as required by Council’s Acoustic Consultant (providing advice on a similar proposal under DA2015/0443) where no air conditioning is proposed. The design for the conversion of the Church Hall basement level is considered to be inappropriate for a child care centre in that natural light and ventilation is not provided to the majority of the centre.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.7 DRAINAGE AND ON SITE DETENTION

83.       The hydraulic plan provided with the site relates to a previous design of the proposal, including having ten (10) car parking spaces at the rear. This plan does not take into account the excavation undertaken for the provision of the outdoor play area to the rear and the drainage of this area has not been detailed appropriately. It is acknowledged that the proposal seeks to utilise the existing site drainage system, including an existing pump-out arrangement for the rear carpark.  Insufficient information has been provided to enable a final assessment of the stormwater disposal from the site in accordance with this section of Development Control Plan No 1. The building form is as approved and relies on the existing stormwater system whilst the outdoor paving and car parking areas are to be drained to existing pump out system shown on plans.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT

84.       A waste management plan has been provided.  A final detailed waste management plan for construction will be required in order to undertake a full assessment of the proposal.  Inclusion of a plan of management with appropriate details of waste storage and disposal required for the child care centre and the Church uses should be provided.  On this basis insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with this section of Development Control Plan No 1.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.11 PRESERVATION OF TREES AND VEGETATION

85.       The application is uncertain relating to the preservation of trees on site as the SEE advises that one tree at the street front and two at the rear are to be removed whilst the Arborist report recommends retention of the trees. As described previously in the report, consent cannot be granted for removal of these trees due to their assessed significance and the preservation measures proposed by the Applicants consultant Arborist are not considered to be long term effective. This inconsistency between consultant reports remains a matter of concern and raises uncertainty as to what is sought for determination.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 5.3 CHILD CARE CENTRES

86.       The proposed child care centre has been assessed against the requirements of Section 5.3 of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as shown below.

 

Section 5.3

Standard

Proposed

Complies

DS2.1-DS2.13

Locational Criteria

Should be located close to community focal points

The site is located diagonally opposite Lugarno Public School.

Yes

Minimum site area of 500sqm

3140sqm

Yes

Min. frontage of 18m where a separate entry and exit is provided

24.69m

Yes

Sites must not have a property boundary to a state road

The site does not adjoin a state road.

Yes

Site must be at least 300m away from telecommunications towers, large over-head power wires, any other inappropriate area

High tension power lines, telecommunications towers or other inappropriate structures or uses are located within 300m of the site.

Yes

Approval will not be given to sites which are less than 55m from an LPG above ground gas tank or tanker unloading position

The site is not located near an LPG tank or tanker unloading position.

Yes

Analysis of existing and/or potential site contamination

As the previous use of the site was for a place of public worship, no significant contamination is likely to be present on the site.

Yes

Approval will not be given to sites located within cul-de-sacs or closed roads

The site is not located within a cul-de-sac or closed road, but the site is located on an intersection with Ponderosa Place which is a cul-de-sac requiring all vehicles to exit/enter from this intersection.

Yes

Child care centres are not to be located on bushfire or flood prone land, or located adjoining drug clinics or other inappropriate land uses

The site is not bushfire or flood prone land.

Yes

Proposals must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Statement provided by a qualified Consultant

A traffic report has been provided.

 

Yes

DS3.1-DS3.4

Cumulative Impacts from Centres within Residential Areas

Only one child care centre is permitted at an intersection

No other child care centres are located at the intersection.

Yes

Child care centres will not be permitted on land adjoining any other existing or approved child care centre

The site does not adjoin any other existing or approved child care centres.

Yes

Only one child care centre is permitted per street block

No other child care centre is located on the same block.

Yes

DS5.1-DS5.3

Size of Centres and Child Age Groups

Maximum 40 children within the R2 - Low Density Residential

Maximum 34 proposed.

Yes

Minimum number of places within the 0-2 year age group is to be the same as the % of 0-2 year olds in the under 5 years population at most recent census  (which is 35% from the 2011 census) = 12 children

12 children = 35.29%

Yes

DS6.1-DS6.3

Building Form

Height – Single storey in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

Within existing part single part two storey building.

Yes

DS6.4 –DS6.6

Setbacks

Front Setback

5.5m to primary front

 

>5.5m.

 

Yes

Side Setback - 0.9m

>0.9m to 2.313m

Yes

Rear Setback – 3m

48.1m and there is a dwelling separating the childcare centre and the rear boundary.

Yes

DS6.7-DS6.12

Relationships to Adjoining Properties

 

Impacts of the following to be considered:

·    Play areas – indoor and outdoor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    Windows and doors (particularly those associated with indoor play areas)

 

·    Verandahs

 

·    Point of entry

·    Pick-up and drop-off points

·    Any plant equipment which may be required within the context of the centre

·    Openings such as windows and doors should not correspond with existing opening on adjoining properties

 

 

 

Acoustic barriers relating to the outdoor play areas may be designed so as to meet satisfy acoustic amenity. Indoor play areas have not been demonstrated to be capable of achieving appropriate acoustic amenity for adjacent neighbours.

Acoustic separation between internal spaces and the adjacent neighbours does not provide appropriate acoustic amenity when windows are open.

No verandah play area is provided.

The point of entry is adjacent to the rear yards of the northern neighbours. The Acoustic Dynamics report of 10 August 2016 (prepared on behalf of Council for DA2016/0443) has concluded that the child care centre may provide appropriate acoustic separation with a 2.2m high acoustic barrier along the northern boundary and the undertaking of all internal play with windows closed and mechanical ventilation provided. The current design however is considered inadequate as the acoustic barrier cannot operate in compliance with the DCP or Regulation whilst also achieving the provision of natural light and ventilation.

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

No

Yes

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

No

DS6.13—DS6.15

Solar Design and Energy Efficiency

A minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm is to be maintained to adjoining private open space, habitable rooms and solar collectors

Complies for neighbouring land impacts. However, Solar access issues arise potentially for minimum solar access to internal areas and outdoor play areas.

Yes

DS6.16

Streetscape Assessment

Streetscape and the design principles used to improve the existing streetscape

Removal of the landscaped area at street front will have a negative impact on the streetscape.

No

DS6.17

Building Detail

The design of the centre must provide strong visual links between indoor and outdoor spaces

Provided through two glazed double doors.

Yes

DS7.1– DS7.11

Parking and Driveway

1 space per 2 staff

7 staff = 4 spaces

1 space per 15 children

34 children = 3 spaces

Total = 7 spaces

See assessment.

Only adequate where other uses do not operate concurrently.

No

Vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction

Vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

Yes

Bike racks must be provided on site.

1 required

No bike racks proposed.

No

Driveway crossing on corner allotments must not be located closer than 9m to the property alignment at the intersection

11m from roundabout.

Yes

Landscaping and paving design associated with driveways  must achieve the following:

·    Pedestrian safety and visibility

·    Level, hard surface from vehicles to entry point

·    Satisfactory  manoeuvrability for disabled persons and/or prams

·    Clear delineation between driveway and yard areas

Driveway and pedestrian access provides for inappropriate pedestrian safety.

No

A “Neighbourhood Parking Policy” and a “Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Risk Assessment Report” must be submitted for Council’s consideration

The submitted Traffic Report considers pedestrian safety and on street parking.

 

Yes

Physical demarcation is required to be provided between pedestrians and vehicular access ways to ensure pedestrian safety

Any shared position is to be demarcated by use of bollards/fencing to ensure separation.

Yes - via conditions if the application was to be supported.

DS7.12- DS7.

Traffic Considerations

Council to consider traffic and safety impacts

A Traffic Report was submitted with the application. The report has been reviewed by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer and found that circulation must be improved in relation to the dual driveway design, visual lines improved and restrictions imposed on the rear carpark use prior to being acceptable.  Design changes required to the vehicular access entry to the site may also impact the carpark functioning and landscaping.

No

Consideration of traffic impacts between 7.30am-9am and 3.30pm-6pm.

The submitted traffic report has considered traffic impacts. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer will further assess this when the final design for vehicular entry has been resolved.

 

No - concerns are raised at accessibility to site, adequacy of car parking on site and potential manoeuvring issues.

DS7.15-DS7.16

Access for Persons with Limited Mobility

A 1m wide landscaped area is required to be provided along the front setback

1.2m landscaped area is provided along the primary frontage.

Yes

Disabled access is to be provided from the street to the main entrance

The Applicant’s Accessibility Report indicates that the site will be accessible, albeit based on a previous revision of plans. Further plans would be required to illustrate this compliance; however, the site has sufficient length to accommodate the required ramps.

Yes -

The DA has addressed this issue and considers that access can be attained.

Disabled access ramp is to be provided to the playground areas

An accessible access ramp is provided between the playground areas.

Yes

DS8.1-DS8.8

Tree Preservation and Planting

A 1m wide landscaped area is required to be provided along the front setback

Screen planting is to be provided along the side boundaries

1.2m along the frontage.

 

 

Screen planting is provided along the northern side boundary of the site.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

Tree retention where required by Council’s Tree Officer/Arborist

No significant tree removal is proposed by the Applicant as referenced in the Arborist Report.

 

Yes -

Although concerns are raised by Councils consultant Arborist that the trees will survive the construction works and manoeuvring required in close proximity.

DS8.8.7

Drainage

Play areas must be capable of rapid clearance of surface water

The hydraulic plan does not provide sufficient information to enable assessment.

 

No

DS11.1-11.3

 Hours of Operation

Max. 7am – 6.30pm

Mon – Fri: 7am – 6.30pm.

It is acknowledged there is conflicting information in the documentation; however the latest time referenced is 6.30pm which is compliant.

Yes

DS12.1-12.2

Visual Privacy

Minimise overlooking through screening etc.

A 2.4m high acoustic barrier (1.8m wall to 2.4m pitched roof) along the northern boundary of Outdoor play area (OPA) and 4m barrier (3.12m wall to 4m roof pitch) along the southern boundary of OPA is proposed. The indoor play area is not visible from adjacent properties.

Yes

Play equipment to be setback 3m from boundaries adjoining residential

No details of play equipment provided but sufficient outdoor play space is available.

Yes

DS12.3-12.4

Acoustic Amenity

Acoustic Report by a suitably qualified consultant to be provided

An Acoustic Report has been provided by Acoustic Works Pty Ltd.

Yes

DS12.5-12.6

Fencing

Where it is essential that side street boundaries be fully fenced, they are to be designed to allow landscaping along the boundary.

Boundary fencing is retained as existing.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Stormwater Assessment

 

Existing Stormwater System

Hydraulic plan details pump out to the front of the site and gravity fed to the street.

The proposal does not provide a sufficient stormwater plan to facilitate assessment.

Proposed Stormwater System

As existing.

Stormwater objectives for development type met?

No (pump systems not permitted).

It is acknowledged that a pump out system exists on this site approved via DA2016/0372 for the approval of the church hall and additions.

Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)

Yes by approximately 3m, RL63.62 to RL60.60.

Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?

Yes from front property boundary, but is charged to this point.

Discharge into the same catchment?

Yes

Easement required?

No

 

IMPACTS

 

Natural Environment

 

Streetscape Character and Amenity

87.      The proposed development, although proposing only internal alterations to the existing building, will result in changes to the physical streetscape appearance of the property when viewed from the public domain due to the introduction of an additional hardstand area to accommodate car parking and the drop-off/pick-up driveway. In accommodating the needs of the child care facility the removal of the front grassed areas is required and the potential for tree removal. This design option will detract from the local Ponderosa Place streetscape and the Forest Road appearance, see Figures 4 and 5.

 

Relationship with adjoining properties

88.      Consideration is required to be given to the impacts of the proposed child care centre on existing adjoining development. One of the main neighbour issues in relation to the proposal is the provision of acoustic amenity to adjacent residential neighbours. The application has been accompanied by an Acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works Pty Ltd that concluded noise from outdoor play areas can be reduced to complying levels by means of an acoustic barrier (proposed 1.8m wall to 2.4m roof in height and the existing 3.12m wall to 4m roof barriers) to both the northern and southern boundaries and to the immediate north and east of the outdoor play area.

 

Figure 7: Acoustical Consultant acoustic barrier recommendation.

 

89.      Noise from the indoor play area and any air-conditioning plant associated with the indoor play area, have not been identified as issues in the Acoustic Works report. Previous reports on past applications have concluded that internally generated noise will satisfy acoustic amenity if undertaken with the windows closed and mechanical ventilation provided. This is generally not recommended as an appropriate option for the indoor play areas as natural ventilation is a preferred requirement for child care centres under the Regulation.

 

90.      On this basis the provision of acoustic barrier measures to provide for an appropriate level of neighbour amenity is currently unresolved as the Acoustic Report should have regard to all potential noise concerns, including air-conditioning plant associated with operation of internal play areas.

 

Traffic, Parking and Driveway

91.      The Application is supported by an “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” prepared by Traffic Impacts Services, dated November 2018.  This Assessment was undertaken on the basis that the Church activity would only operate on Sundays and the child care centre would operate Monday to Friday only, as a result there would be no overlap of the activities. The conclusion of the Assessment was therefore that adequate car parking, as proposed, would be available for the proposed and existing activities where they operated exclusively and not concurrently.  The basis for the assessment is considered to be inappropriate having regard to the following considerations:

·      The Church operations are currently under legal challenge due to the noise impacts on neighbouring residential properties, which includes activities occurring during weekdays;

·      The Church has no conditional restriction on when the activities of the church can be undertaken; and

·      The Assessment clearly indicates that the Church activities have previously included operations during weekdays.

 

92.      Having regard to the above comments and the conclusions of the assessment the car parking requirements have been tabulated as follow, based upon uses operating concurrently:

 

Land Use Activity

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Staff requirements – 1 per 2 staff

4

4

Yes

Child Care Centre –1 per 15 children

3

3

Yes

Church – as approved

9

4

No

 

93.      The above table illustrates car parking requirements where the proposed Centre and Church activities operate concurrently, then there will be insufficient available car parking on site to accommodate the demand (It is noted that the existing residence is serviced by its own garage). This outcome would result in traffic management concerns including:

·      Managing car parking time limits for the drop-off/pick-up within the front setback;

·      Restricting parents from using the rear carpark for drop-off/pick-up as this would create conflict along the single lane driveway for passing vehicles in peak periods;

·      Managing patron use of street car parking where a shortfall is experienced on site.

 

94.      The proposed car parking is considered to be acceptable for the Childcare Centre operations however; it would be inadequate where church activities operate concurrently.  In addition, it is noted that due to the location and design of the car parking, access and driveways the following issues arise:

·      Car parking is split, 5 within the setback at the front of the site (including accessible parking) and 6 at the rear for staff, (although the plans indicate that parents will be able to utilise these for drop-off/pick-up).  The Architectural plans and a Facility Plan of Management would need to clearly illustrate that the rear car park is not available for drop-off/pick-up as it is only suitable for staff car parking;

·      Traffic queuing at the entry or down the drive is likely to occur in peak hour situations if used for pick-up/drop-off services;

·      Reversing areas of 5.8m in the front setback abutting pedestrian pathways and existing mature trees is likely to result in vehicle conflicts for peak hour drivers attempting to negotiate these barriers and is likely to result in accidents;

·      During peak hour drop-off/pick-up periods the front carpark area would need to be suitably managed to ensure patrons utilise the service efficiently rather than parking in the street or in the rear car park area, resulting in congestion and queuing concerns.

 

95.      It is concluded that the criteria for the Traffic Impact Services Assessment was ill conceived and should have regard to the worst case scenario for the site, being all operations acting concurrently and the lack of management control of the church operations.

 

Disabled Access

96.      Insufficient details, including section plans and elevations, have been provided to demonstrate that compliant access for all is provided to and within the site.

 

Tree retention and planting

97.      The proposal is for the retention of all trees on site, however, Councils consultant Arborist raises concerns that the trees in the front street setback are likely to be adversely impacted by vehicle movements and the proposed paving finishes.

 

Drainage

98.      A hydraulic plan has not been provided in association with the child care centre use on the basis that the stormwater will be directed into the existing stormwater system, including a pump out arrangement from the rear carpark. The plan provided relates to the previous proposal which does not take into account the new level of the outdoor play area and the drainage of this area, however, these details could be resolved at the Construction certificate stage if the proposal was to be supported.

 

Indoor Spaces

99.      The indoor spaces provided for the child care centre are generally inappropriate. While the majority of room sizes are satisfactory, the majority of rooms have no natural light or ventilation and will require mechanical ventilation and artificial lighting. This is considered to be unsatisfactory for a child care centre use. 

 

            Outdoor Spaces

100.    No shaded area is provided for the outdoor play area. This is not a major issue in the afternoon as the play area will be overshadowed by the child care centre/hall. However the outdoor play area will have no shade until the afternoon. Some shading for morning play must be provided.

 

Heating and Cooling

101.    With unsatisfactory cross ventilation provided to the proposal it is assumed that some form of mechanical ventilation will be proposed. No indication of the location of this system is provided on the plans or in the statement of environmental effects. The existing floor plate only has available solar access and ventilation from the northern and eastern elevations. The southern and western sides of the building footprint have no windows as these areas are within a sub-floor (basement) area. The provision of a child care centre within a building that has approximately half its floor area in a basement is not appropriate for this type of use, as appropriate natural light and ventilation cannot be provided to the child care centre.

 

Building Materials and Finishes

102.    The proposal relies upon the use of the existing approved building and only external works involved relate to the materials and finishes of the Outdoor Play Area (OPA), the finishes of the OPA have been recommended as part of the Acoustic Works report for acoustical treatment of the OPA, as follows:

 

“The acoustic barriers should be constructed using either 20mm lapped timber (minimum 40% overlap), masonry, 9mm fibre cement sheet, Hebel, Perspex, plywood, or other materials with a minimum surface density of 11kg/m2 and shall be free of gaps and holes.

 

The partially covered play area is recommended to be constructed using either 10mm thick Perspex, Colorbond roofing backed with 4.5 or 6mm fibre cement sheet, or other materials that achieve the minimum surface density. The junction of the roof and barrier needs to be joined, ensuring no gaps or holes.

 

Acoustic absorptive linings can be added to the internal faces of the roof for the benefit of improved amenity within the play area and maximising the acoustic performance of the barrier system. Acoustic absorptive linings may include 50mm polyester insulation,”

 

103.    These recommendations are standard forms of finish for works of this nature.

 

Built Environment

104.    The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts upon the built environment as the majority of physical work will be internal within the Church/Hall complex.

 

Social and Economic Impact

105.    The proposed development will result in unreasonable adverse social and economic impacts within the locality and for neighbouring lands.

 

Suitability of the Site

106.    It is considered that the proposed development is of a type, scale and design that is not suitable for the site having regard to the land shape, topography, the built form and relationship to adjoining developments.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

107.    The proposal was notified to ­­adjoining neighbours for a period of fourteen (14) days during which forty eight (48) submissions objecting to the development were received. The submissions raised the following issues.

 

Noise Impacts

104.    Ongoing concerns are raised by objectors with regard to noise generated by the Church activities and it is noted that Council currently has legal action pending on this matter.  The submissions detail that the proposed Child Care Facility will further exacerbate this situation.

 

Officer Comment:  This issue has been addressed within this Report where the issue of noise is acknowledged as a matter of concern warranting strict controls as part of any approval.  The Applicants submission is that this can be managed by sealing the indoor play area during use and providing a semi-enclosed outdoor play area with sound barriers. Concerns have been raised that enclosing the internal play area would not be appropriate for the amenity of the children due to the lack of natural light and ventilation.  This argument is considered to be justified as the proposal has the potential to exacerbate the existing noise compliant concerns particularly where the church activities and Child Care Centre operate concurrently on site.  If the proposal is to be approved then a commitment to the development of a Plan of Management is warranted due to the multiple uses which will operate from this constrained site.

 

The noise issue may be able to be managed if the Childcare Centre operates in isolation from the other church activities, using the controls recommended. This has not been resolved in this application. 

 

Car Parking and Traffic Generation

105.    Concern is raised that there is inadequate on-site car parking considering that church patrons currently park in the street and often illegally in resident driveways.  Figures 5 and 8 illustrate the on-site car parking of the congregation. This issue has been discussed in detail in this Report where it is acknowledged that if all site functions operate concurrently then on-site car parking would be inadequate. 

 

Figure 8: Rear Car park during church congregation (Source Objector Picture)

 

Officer Comment:  The Applicant contends that this is resolved where church activities take place outside the operating hours of the Child Care Facility as the car parking demand would be adequately catered for. This position is accepted, however, there are no controls existing, or proposed via a Plan of Management (POM), that would legally restrict the operations of the Church.  On this basis it is agreed that on-site car parking numbers are inadequate without applied restrictions.

 

The issue of traffic generation compliance or non-compliance relies on whether more than one activity takes place on the land at the same time. It is noted that the revised vehicular entry and queuing length on site for the Childcare Centre will result in further issues with access and manoeuvring on-site. This issue may also be compounded further where access to the rear carpark via a driveway in excess of 40m in length which is a single lane with a width of 2.8m will result in queuing to enable passing of vehicles.

 

This issue remains a valid concern which would require acceptance, and action, by the Applicant to ensure that operating hours of activities do not cross over and thus place pressure on the availability of the existing on-site car parking and manoeuvring areas. 

 

Access & Intersection Modification

106.    Concern is raised at any modification to the Forest Road/Ponderosa Place intersection will result in queuing and potentially accidents at the entry point. 

 

Officer Comment:  This issue is considered to be a valid concern which requires full analysis should the application be recommended for approval. Any modification to the intersection/roadway will require final approval from the Local Traffic Committee and design approval from Councils’ Engineering Department to ensure safety and functionality of the roundabout and site entry is not compromised.

 

Facility Functionality for Local Community

107.    Residents raise concerns that the Childcare Centre will only provide a service for the Samoan community and that the majority of users will not be residents of the local community. 

 

Officer Comment:  The operation of any child care facility is not constrained to servicing only the local community and can draw on the wider Sydney community to ensure viable enrolments are achieved. This does not negate a local resident from enrolling children in the Centre when places are available. On this basis, and considering there is no evidence that the Centre will be offered as a restricted entry facility.

 

Lack of Natural Light and Ventilation to Facility

108.    Previous applications have been refused partly on the basis that natural light and ventilation of the lower floor level was inadequate for a child care facility. 

 

Officer Comment:  This issue remains a valid concern for the current application. The Applicant proposes that the lower floor level can be air conditioned to ensure a satisfactory level of personal amenity and artificial lighting. This is acknowledged as a positive response to this issue, however, it is not a preferred outcome considering Energy Efficiency and BCA preferences are for natural lighting and ventilation measures to maintain personal amenity. In this instance, any additional window openings along the southern boundary would create potential noise concerns for neighbouring properties off Tara Place. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactorily resolved in this regard.

 

Adequacy of Application and Report Inconsistencies

109.    Submissions have noted that there are inconsistencies and errors in the Application documentation, including the Landscape Plan being from 2015 and a different site layout. 

 

Officer Comment: This issue has also been addressed in this report and is acknowledged as a matter of concern, with inconsistencies relating to hours of operation, floor areas, landscaped areas, and the like, leading to uncertainty in assessment of the proposal by the public and Council Officers.

 

Internal Vehicle Circulation and potential Queuing Concerns

110.    This issue relates to the accessibility of vehicles to the car park at the rear of the site along the 40m by 2.8m wide driveway. 

 

Officer Comment:  This access cannot cater for two way traffic flow and hence any vehicles attempting to use the driveway would need to give way to vehicles on the driveway, resulting in potential queuing situations. The design layout provides for a small queuing area adjacent to the street entry, however, in reality the adequacy of this queue area is dependent upon the activities taking place on the site at any one time and is considered to be inadequate at peak childcare centre times.

 

This issue is considered to be a valid concern, where vehicles required to queue may instead seek on-street car parking or be forced to reverse some distance to enable other vehicles to access, these outcomes are unacceptable.

 

Overdevelopment of Property and lack of demand for Facility

111.    Concerns are raised that the development is significantly greater than residents expected to occur on the site and that it is likely to continue increasing uses.  Further, the demand for the Facility is not justified and likely to be restricted in accessibility for general public.

 

Officer Comment: The issue of the overall development of the land is addressed in this report.  It is acknowledged that the current development, although not increasing floor space, will result in a reduction of landscaped area due to increased hardstand surface areas.  This outcome, having only 16% landscaped area on a 3,140sqm residentially zoned allotment, is not a preferred arrangement, notwithstanding that on-site car parking is more formalised. This issue is valid and justified where the existing use of the land is becoming more diversified and the use of the buildings intensified.

 

The demand for child care facilities is generally acknowledged across the Sydney metropolitan area and any approval is not conditional upon the children being local residents.  Centres with acknowledged performance values will attract patrons from local community or from far afield. There is no requirement as part of an assessment under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017, the Educations and Care Services National Regulations or the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017 for the operator of a commercial enterprise to illustrate there is demand for the activity/service.  Indeed the commercial viability of the proposal is a matter for the Applicant.

 

Existing Church operations contrary to consents and Patron behaviour

112.    Objectors note that the existing church operations are under investigation and action by Council for noise issue complaints and this is compounded by patron behaviour, relating to litter. 

 

Officer Comment:  Council is currently pursuing action on noise complaints associated with activities by the Church, however, this remains a matter separate to the subject application.

 

Concerns are raised that the Church operations currently operate with limited regard for local amenity or amenity controls, and that this will be replicated as part of any approval for the Childcare Centre. Should the Application be approved then appropriate conditions would be recommended that are reflective of the site operations and would be enforceable in the Land and Environment Court.

 

Tree Removal or Loss

113.    Concerns are raised that Trees will be lost as part of the proposal due to increased hardstand areas and vehicle manoeuvring. 

 

Officer Comment:  The Applicant proposes to retain the existing trees on site in accordance with the recommendations of the Consultant Arborist.  The initial consultant Arborist advice to Council is that the retention of the trees, with the proposal in its’ current form, is questionable having regard to the amount of work proposed within the tree protection zones. 

 

The mature trees are healthy, providing shade cover and softening the bulk of the buildings, see Figures 4 and 5.

 

Compliance with National Construction Code requirements

114.    Concerns are raised that the building should be classified as a 9B building, being a place of worship and hall, which, based upon floor space, should not accommodate more than 100 persons unless fire upgrades are implemented. 

 

Officer Comment:  This issue is a matter that would need to be satisfied as part of any Construction Certificate sought once a development consent has been issued.  The Applicant contends that when the Childcare Centre is in operation the Church activities will not operate and thus the premises will not accommodate greater than 100 persons at any time. This issue may become a valid concern should there be problems relating to managing, or imposing enforceable conditions to control the hours of operation of the Church related activities on site.

 

Council Referrals

Traffic Engineer

115     Comment:  The proposed intersection works at Ponderosa Place and Forest Road require final design approval prior to further consideration being given to the operation of the proposed drop-off/pick-up carpark area at the front of the site. The Engineer recommended:

 

“…..the intersection treatment that the development is proposing at the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place. The applicant will need to submit detailed designs to the design section for review and approval. Once the Design section approves the intersection treatment detailed designs. The design will then need to go to the Traffic Advisory Committee for review and approval.”

 

Environmental Health Officer

116.    Comment: Any assessment of the noise impacts from the site should include a variety of Church activities which overlap into daytime operations involving the following potential uses:  Weddings, Birthdays, Funerals, Special events (such as "fashion event"), Christmas celebration, Easter celebration,  Meetings, Women’s Bingo, Choir Practice, Language classes and Youth group activities.

 

Concerns are raised with the Noise Report with regard to the basis for locating the noise logger, differences in number of children proposed, discrepancy in hours of operation and vague references in final recommendations. This raises concerns as to whether the recommendations are optional. Further, although no noise issues have arisen relating to mechanical ventilation, the likely need for placement of a ventilation system along the southern façade is likely to raise concerns from neighbouring properties and should have been addressed.

 

Consultant Arborist

117.    Comment: Council’s consultant arborist is unable to support the proposal, advising that:

 

“The landscape plan by Zenith shows the three trees at the front to be removed, whilst the Arborist report recommends retention. This is conflicting. The arborist report mentions permeable paving at the front, but the widths on site from the trees to the building and proposal designs cannot be supported as the trees viability would be in jeopardy. The applicant / proposal would need to get further away from the trees but still enable proper swept paths for vehicles in accordance with Standards and safety. The existing driveway would be a better outcome, south end, to add!.  Also the “staff” parking allocated close to T3 must be removed”.

 

It is agreed that the Zenith Landscape Plan is inconsistent as it references an outdated front driveway/carpark layout from that proposed in the current architectural plans and Traffic Consultant report. 

 

Development Contributions

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

 

Fee Type

Fee

Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017

$500.00

 

CONCLUSION

119.    Development consent is sought for the fit out and use of the lower ground floor area beneath the existing church/hall as an early childhood education facility for thirty four (34) children.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the zone under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and results in multiple variations to the Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide and the Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017.

 

As a “Centre-based child care facility” it is a permissible use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The Application seeks approval as an “Early Childhood Education Facility” which would normally come under the definition for a “Centre-based child care facility”, however, no justification has been submitted to support that this use complies with the permissible definition. The sites primary function is as a place of public worship and education activities associated with providing “a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity” is excluded under the definition for a Centre-based child care facility”.  The current application has not provided documentation to confirm the activity will be consistent with this interpretation and thus may be a prohibited use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

The proposed development generally does not comply with the planning controls and objectives of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 applies to the land, where the activity is defined as a Centre-based child care facility’, however the Applicant has not at this time adequately confirmed that the activity would conform to the land use definition.  An assessment has been undertaken of the controls under the SEPP and the Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017 and the application does not comply with primary controls.

 

The application is recommended for REFUSAL having regard to:

·      the inconsistencies between documentation lodged by the experts;

·      the inconclusive submission on whether the proposed activity is a permissible use;

·      the potential traffic access and generation, and on-site car parking issues associated with the development;

·      the acoustic impacts likely to result from the child care facility proposal, any mechanical ventilation required and the continued and overlapping operation of the church functions;

·      the recommendation by Arborist to retain the trees on site and the likelihood that based on the current design that this cannot be achieved; and

·      the uncertainty in managing the operations of the church and the child care facility in order to minimise potential local amenity impacts by ensuring that these activities do not overlap.

 

The provision of a Child Care Centre in addition to the existing Church use and associated hall is considered an unacceptable intensification of the site and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

DETERMINATION

120.  THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA2019/0042 for the fit out and use of the ground floor of the existing church building to be used as an early childhood education facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works on Lot 2 in DP 405732 and known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno, for the following reasons:

 

1.         Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(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)  Clause 2.3 Zone objectives – the proposal does not satisfy the following objective of the zone: To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained. The noise emission from the indoor play area will not provide for appropriate adjoining neighbour amenity when the windows and doors are open.

 

(b) Clause 5.9 and Clause 6.4 – The removal of landscaped areas along the street frontage and likely detrimental impacts on existing trees. These trees are significant in terms of their height and dimensions and species and contribute significantly to the visual and environmental amenity of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

(c)  Clause 6.7 – inadequate vehicular access is available to the site.

 

2.         The proposed development is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(b), 4.15(c), 4.15(d) and 4.15(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in that the site is not suitable for the development and will have an adverse impact for the reasons as follows:

 

(a)  The proposed siting and design of the outdoor play structure and acoustic fence results in unnecessary visual bulk and scale which results in an adverse impact to the built environment. Additionally inadequate setback and screen landscaping is proposed adjacent to the acoustic fence.

 

(b)  The design and sitting of the building addition results in an urban form which is incompatible with the immediate surrounding residential context.

 

(c)   The proposal results in adverse built environment and social impacts and is therefore not considered to be in the public interest.

 

3.         Refusal Reason - Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

 

a)    Section 3.1 Car Parking – insufficient car parking, vehicular access and pedestrian safety is provided on site for a child care centre use and church operating concurrently.

b)    Section 3.5 Energy Efficiency – insufficient solar access and natural ventilation is available to the child care centre.

c)    Section 3.11 Preservation of Trees and Vegetation – the proposal does not satisfactorily provide for the preservation of significant trees on site.

d)    Section 5.3 Child Care Centres – the proposal does not comply with various specific requirements for child care centres.

 

4.         Refusal Reason - Regulation - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care facilities) 2017, Educations and Care Services National Regulations and the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017 as they relate to provisions dealing with: in terms of the following:

 

a)    Streetscape impacts;

b)    Provision of natural light and ventilation;

c)    identifying a suitable site based upon compatibility with the existing streetscape character;

d)    disclosure of the educational programming and practice to be provided at the Facility;

e)    ensuring and illustrating that the development retains a landscaped character complimentary to the streetscape;

f)     ensuring and illustrating that outdoor open space areas have adequate solar access to 30% of the area year round;

g)    ensuring and illustrating that the internal floor space is appropriately designed to be naturally ventilated and natural lighting; and

h)   illustrating that the facility has a visible presence from the public road and safe/secure accessibility.

 

5.         Refusal Reason - Impacts on the Environment - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the following aspects of the environment:

 

a)    Natural Environment – The proposal requires the removal of front landscaping area and potentially results in the loss of significant trees.

b)    Social Impact – The proposal will result in an intensification of the existing noise, parking and traffic impacts on surrounding neighbours.

 

6.         Refusal Reason - Suitability of Site - Pursuant to Section 79C(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 has two (2) significant trees on the front boundary that require retention. Adequate vehicular access and car parking cannot be provided to the site on this basis.

b)    Inappropriate solar access and cross ventilation for a child care centre use is available to the existing building.

 

7.         Refusal Reason - Lack of Information

(a)   The submitted plans and documentation are inaccurate and inconsistent and are therefore insufficient to assess the proposal.

(b)   Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate compliance with relevant government guidelines and to determine whether the use is a permissible activity within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site plan - 977 Forest Road Lugarno

Attachment 2

Elevations - 977 Forest Road Lugarno

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 7 November 2019

LPP045-19              977 Forest Road Lugarno

[Appendix 1]          Site plan - 977 Forest Road Lugarno

 

 

Page 64

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 7 November 2019

LPP045-19              977 Forest Road Lugarno

[Appendix 2]          Elevations - 977 Forest Road Lugarno

 

 

Page 65

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 7 November  2019

Page 102

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP046-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0479

Site Address & Ward Locality

47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of an existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2

Owners

Rosemary Geagea

Applicant

Design and Building Group

Planner/Architect

Planner – Planning Ingenuity and Architect - Design and Building Group

Date Of Lodgement

13/11/2018

Submissions

14 submissions were received

Cost of Works

$3,278,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The number of submissions exceeded ten (10) “unique” submissions as referenced in the 9.1 Ministerial direction of 23 February 2018.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy – (Infrastructure) 2007,

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018,

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1

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

Architectural Plans by Design Building Group

Statement of Environment Effects by Planning Ingenuity

Bushfiure Hazard Assessment by Bushfire Planning & Design

Arborist Report by Nada Kbar

Report prepared by

Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

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.  The refusal reasons can be viewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan – the site is outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

 

1.           The development application seeks development consent for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2.

 

2.           The site is identified as being Bushfire Prone Land; the application was referred to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) for their concurrence. Formal approval has been issued by RFS and specific conditions recommended if consent is granted.

 

Site and Locality

3.           The application applies to land known as 47 Woodlands and legally described as Lot 24 in DP205787. The site is a battle-axe allotment located on the southern side of Woodlands Avenue between Coachwood Place and Tea Tree Place. The access handle is located along the western side of the allotment. The site has an area of 2,063.06sqm excluding the access handle, and falls approximately 47m from the street to the waterfront.

 

4.           Immediately adjoining the site to the east and west is a mix of older and contemporary detached dwelling houses with similar subdivision patterns of battle-axe allotments extending to the Georges River. To the west of 45 Woodlands Avenue is a right of carriageway known as Coachwood Place which provides vehicular access to eleven (11) properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: View from Woodlands Avenue

 

5.           The northern side of Woodlands Avenue is a more conventional subdivision pattern with a mix of older style and contemporary detached dwellings.

 

6.           The site is affected by a foreshore building line (FBL) as indicated in the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). The FBL extends 133m from the southern boundary adjacent to the Georges River.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

7.           The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). The proposed two lot subdivision and construction of dwelling house and alterations and additions to a dwelling house is permissible with consent.

 

Submissions

8.           The development application was notified to neighbours in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP1).  It was noted that the initial notification omitted a number of properties to the west of the site and a second notification was carried out between 21 February and 7 March 2019.

 

9.           A total of 14 submissions were received. In summary the concerns raised by the submitters include:

·     Incomplete Development Application as owners consent not sought from 3 Coachwood Place to traverse their property to permit access to Coachwood Place;

·     Access by the proposed development via Coachwood Place will increase traffic by 50% to a private road;

·     Excessive car parking spaces proposed;

·     Destruction of native fauna and flora;

·     Overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining properties;

·     Loss of views to Georges River;

·     Overshadowing to adjoining properties;

·     Traffic Impact Assessment misrepresents the impact of additional traffic to Coachwood Place;

·     Proposal exceeds the permissible GFA;

·     Proposed Lot 2 does not provide indicative building envelope;

·     No Waste Management Plan provided for residential rubbish collection;

·     Concern for access to Coachwood Place during the construction phase, and issue of liability to Coachwood Place during construction;

·     Limited visitor car parking on Coachwood Place;

·     Safety for children playing on Coachwood Place;

·     No architectural plans that indicate the proposed floor area;

·     SEE does not reference plans submitted with the DA;

·     Arborist recommendations regarding Tree 13 is not adhered to in the proposed development of proposed Lot 1;

·     Geotechnical Report – not assessment of the possible interference with groundwater on the site and likely impact of proposed significant excavation on the capacity to retain trees on site or possible impact on trees on adjacent sites or downhill of the proposed excavation.

 

Reasons for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

10.         This application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination, as the number of submissions exceeds ten (10) “unique” submissions as reference in 9.1 Ministerial Direction of 23 February 2018.

 

Planning and Design Issues

11.         The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

 

12.         The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, 40% of dwelling 1 is forward of the FBL; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the GFA.

 

13.         The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality. For these reasons Council is unable to adequately assess the removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

 

Conclusion

14.         The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The following deficiencies have been identified:

 

a.    The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

b.    The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address the variations to the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, 40% of dwelling 1 is forward of the Foreshore Building Line; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the Gross Floor Area.

c.    The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality.  For these reasons Council is unable to address removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

 

15.         Given the above considerations, the proposal is not supported in its current form and is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

16.         The proposed development involves the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2.

 

17.         More specific details of the proposal are included below.

 

Proposed Subdivision

The site is to be subdivided into two lots. Proposed Lot 1 is 1,252.1sqm with the access handle to Woodlands Avenue for vehicular and pedestrian traffic to be maintained.  Proposed Lot 2 is 1,006.2sqm with access to the Georges River, the existing dwelling house is being retained.

 

Proposed Dwelling on Proposed Lot 1

The proposed dwelling consists of four (4) levels and basement garage area:

Basement Level

o parking for four (4) cars

o workshop

o waste bin enclosures for Lots 1 and 2

 

Lower Ground Level

o rumpus room/gym

o store room and wine cellar

o bathroom/change room

o lift access

o swimming pool and decking with a BBQ area

 

Ground Floor

o four bedrooms one with ensuite and 2 with walk in robes

o 2 bathrooms

o sitting room/breakout area

o lift access

o balcony

 

Upper Ground Floor

o 20 seat home theatre

o bathroom

o lounge area

o laundry

o kitchen with butler’s pantry and coolroom

o dining room

o family room

o lift access

o decking with BBQ area

o drying courtyard

 

First Floor

o entry lobby

o master bedroom with retreat, ensuite, walk in robes and a deck area

o outdoor deck

 

Retaining walls and landscaping works are proposed.

 

Proposed Lot 2

o retain existing three (3) bedroom dwelling

o construction of double car garage

o access driveway and retaining walls.

 

Vehicular Access

The application is seeking to gain access to both proposed Lots 1 and 2 via an extension to a private road and right of carriageway known as Coachwood Place. The extension of this carriageway will result in a right or access being required over proposed Lot 1 to access the new garage associated with proposed Lot 2.

 

Coachwood Place being a private road requires owners consent to facilitate the extension of the access to service proposed Lots 1 and 2, owners consent has not been provided with this application.

 

18.         The following is a photomontage of the proposed development, including surrounding existing dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 3: Photomontage of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties (source: Design Building Group)

 

Background

19.         The proponent had a pre-DA meeting 7 October 2015 (PRE2015/0022) to consider 47 and 49 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno. The proposal consolidated the two allotments and creation of five (5) Torrens title allotments with vehicular access via a right of way along the eastern boundary of the site.

 

20.         Council had concerns with construction of dwellings forward of the FBL, the extremely steep terrain, dwellings within close proximity of the MHWM, and the extensive loss of existing vegetation. Lots 4 and 5 to the southern boundary where therefore not supported.

 

21.         The applicant corresponded with Council between 3 March and 9 August 2017 discussing the possibility of vehicular access via Coachwood Place.

 

22.         The application was lodged with Council on 13 November 2018. On 16 November 2018 payment for integrated development to Rural Fire Service was requested. This payment was received on 4 February 2019.

 

23.         On 13 February 2019 Council requested the applicant obtain all landowners consent to access the right of carriageway which provides vehicular access to the site.  Alternatively, withdraw the application until such time owners consent was obtained.

 

24.         Legal advice was provided by the applicant on 14 March 2019 outlining an alternative outcome to providing owners consent by way of deferred commencement determination.  Council did not accept this option and advised the application would be refused in its current form.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

25.         Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is summarised in the table, and discussed in more detail below.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

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

Not enough information to assess

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

Yes

 

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

26.         The main aims and objectives of this plan are (not limited to);

 

·     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,

 

27.         The application is accompanied by concept stormwater plans prepared by John Romanous & Associates. A pump out system is acceptable for the basement which would accommodate a silt arrestor pit and holding tank.

 

28.         This method of stormwater detention has been referred to Council’s Engineering Section. No objection has been raised in respect of the management and disposal of stormwater subject to the imposition of conditions if consent is granted. All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and will satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment.

 

29.         Final vehicle access provision is not defined in the submitted plans hence no assessment is possible for runoff from this hard surface.

 

30.         The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the aims, objectives and purpose of the Regional Plan.

 

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

31.         BASIX Certificate No.902706S_02 dated 29 October 2018 has been issued for the proposed development and the development 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

32.         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.

 

33.         Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. 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.

 

34.         A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site. The Geotechnical Report that accompanies the application prepared by EI Australia does not identify any potential contaminants at the site. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

35.         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.

 

36.         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.

 

37.         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 respect to contamination of the Site. Appropriate conditions are included in respect to any potential asbestos removal and an expected finds condition will ensure that if any trace of contamination is found appropriate measures in accordance with EPA requirements are implemented.

 

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

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

 

39.         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).

 

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

 

41.         The proposed development involves the removal of several trees at the front of the Site which affect the location of the building. An Arboriculture report was lodged with the application (prepared by Nada Kbar AQF Level 5).  The report assessed a total of seventeen (17) trees within the property (see Figure 4).  Twelve (12) trees are identified for removal. The report rates most of the trees as Low to Very Low significance and condition with one tree identified as Tree 6 being a Sydney Red Gum (Angophora costata) which is rated of high significance.

 

42.         Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site “…is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush”. The twelve (12) trees in question are considered to be in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Location of trees to be removed/retained on site (extract from the Aboricultural report)

 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

43.         The Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 was formally implemented to conserve and protect biodiversity values and systems across the State. The legislation lists threatened species and ecological communities (EEC’s) and outlines processes and procedures in the assessment of these valuable and sensitive environmental species and communities.

 

44.         First step of the process in accordance with the Act is to see whether a tree is threatened.  Twelve trees are to be removed from the site: three (3) Angophora costata, three (3) Glochidion ferdinandi, two (2) Eucalyptus (E.) floribunda, two (2) Casuarina cunninghamiana one (1) E. robusta and one (1) E. sp.  None of these trees are listed as threatened species.  However, collectively it is remnant bushland.

 

45.         The second stage is to see whether it forms part of an EEC or remnant vegetation of an EEC. Council’s mapping system identifies the site having vegetation that forms part of the Sydney Hinterland Apple-Blackbutt Gully Forest towards Woodland Avenue and Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest located in the southern corner (Figure 5).

 

46.         Council’s mapping system identified the site having a vegetation that forms part of the Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest and Sydney Hinterland Apple Blackbutt Gully Forest (refer to Figure 5 below).  These are not identified as an EEC within the Act and Council’s mapping system which also shows where biodiversity and EEC’s exists does not highlight this site or any vegetation/area within the immediate surround of the Site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: SCMA Vegetation 2016 Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest (blue) &Sydney Hinterland Apple Blackbutt Gully Forest (pink)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

47.         SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 updates and consolidates three previous SEPPs (SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands, SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests, SEPP 71 Coastal Protection) into one integrated Policy and is a matter for consideration for the current DA.

 

48.         Under SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018, the subject site is mapped as a Coastal Environment area and a Coastal Use area. These have the following management objectives under the SEPP:

 

(a)     to protect and enhance the coastal environmental values and natural processes of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, and enhance natural character, scenic value, biological diversity and ecosystem integrity,

(b)     to reduce threats to and improve the resilience of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, including in response to climate change,

(c)     to maintain and improve water quality and estuary health,

(d)     to support the social and cultural values of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons,

(e)     to maintain the presence of beaches, dunes and the natural features of foreshores, taking into account the beach system operating at the relevant place,

(f)      to maintain and, where practicable, improve public access, amenity and use of beaches, foreshores, headlands and rock platforms.

 

49.         The following is an assessment of the matters for consideration listed under the SEPP as applicable to the Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area.

 

SEPP Control

Proposal

Complies

13. Development on land within the coastal environment area

 

 

(1)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

 

 

(a)    the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,

Surface water runoff is to be managed in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan and imposition of conditions.  The proposed removal of significant trees has not been adequately addressed and has the potential to impact on the integrity of the hydrological processes.

No – see discussion below

(b)    coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

(c)    the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

The site is not located on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1.

N/A

(d)    marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,

The ecologist report submitted fails to address the impact upon a number of issues including, adequately address the impact to native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, geological features and hydrology/water quality.

A detailed assessment cannot be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.

No – see discussion below

(e)    existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

The subject site is privately owned and there is no public access to Georges River.

Yes

(f)     Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

The site is not known as a place of Aboriginal significance. There is no impact in terms of Aboriginal heritage.

Yes

(g)    the use of the surf zone.

The development is not located near the surf zone.

NA

(2)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

 

(a)    the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or

The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 is located within the coastal environment area.  Construction of a garage attached to the existing dwelling is proposed. The dwelling on proposed Lot 1 is considered excessive in bulk and scale.  The proposal in its current form is not supported.

No – see discussion below

(b)    if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)    if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact

14 Development on land within the coastal use area

 

 

(1)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority:

 

 

(a)     has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

 

 

(i) existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

The proposed development does not provide public access to the Georges River.

N/A

(ii)       overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,

There are no unreasonable overshadowing impacts generated by the proposal on public places or the foreshore/waterways. It should be noted there are currently no views from the public domain to the waterways.

Yes

(iii)the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,

The proposal has minimal impact on the visual quality when viewed from the waterways.

Yes

(iv)Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

The property is not a known site of Aboriginal heritage.

Yes

(v)       cultural and built environment heritage, and

The site does not contain or adjoin any heritage items.

Yes

(b)   is satisfied that:

 

 

(i)    the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or

The proposal is not supported in its current form. The proposal has a number of issues with regards to siting of the dwelling on proposed Lot 1, removal of vegetation and negative impact on the environment. Although Lot 1 is not within the coastal use area the proposed development in its entirety must be considered.

A detailed assessment can’t be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.

 

 

No

(ii)   if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(iii)  if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and

(c)   has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

Development is non-compliant with regards to FSR and GFA. The dwelling 1 on proposed Lot 1 is considered excessive in bulk and scale and does not satisfy built form controls in HLEP and HDCP1.

The development is not consistent with the built form immediately adjoining development and is not supported.

No

 

50.         Generally, the proposed development is consistent with the management objectives of the SEPP. However, the ecologist report submitted fails to address the impact upon a number of issues including, adequately addressing the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, geological features and hydrology/water quality.

 

51.         The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered excessive and has the potential to negatively impact on the visual quality and amenity when viewed from the waterway.

 

52.         A detailed assessment cannot be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

53.         The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Refer to the zoning map below. The proposed development is for subdivision and construction of a dwelling house and alterations and additions to a dwelling house which are permissible land uses in the zone.

 

Figure 5: Zoning map – site outlined in red

 

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

 

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

2.2 Zoning 

R2 Low Density Zone

The development type proposed comprises of “dwellings” and “subdivision

Yes

2.3 Zone objectives

Objectives of the R2 Zone.

The density and height of the proposal and design generally satisfies the zone objectives.

Yes

2.6 Subdivision

Permissible subject to Council’s consent

Satisfies the Clause and needs to satisfy Clause 4.1

Yes

4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Land identified as “K” on lot size map which prescribes a minimum allotment size 550sqm

 

The objectives of Clause 4.1 are;

(a)  to retain the pattern of subdivision in residential zones while allowing infill development of smaller lots in some areas,

(b)  to ensure lots have a minimum size that would be sufficient to provide useable area for building and landscaping, to require larger lots in the foreshore area or where the topography or other natural features of the site limit its subdivision potential.

 

Subclause (3A) states that if a lot is a battle-axe lot or other lot with an access handle, the area of the access handle and any right of carriageway is not to be included in calculating the lot size.

Lot 1 has a proposed area of 1,058.16sqm

Lot 2 has a proposed area of 1,006.2sqm

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the subdivision clause as the lot closest to the Foreshore will have an area of 1,006.2sqm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The calculation of each lot excludes the area of the access handle.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

Dwelling 1 – A maximum height of 9m. Each level has been designed to step down the slope of the site in accordance with the natural fall of the land.

Dwelling 2 – The existing dwelling complies. The proposed garage has a finished height of 7m.

Yes

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

 

(An assessment under Clause 6.5 – Gross floor area of Dwelling Houses in Residential Zones is referenced later in this table)

When calculated in accordance with Cl4.5 of the HLEP, the development results in an FSR as follows:

Lot 1 FSR – 0.68:1

Lot 2 FSR – 0.17:1

Lot 1 – No see discussion below regarding Clause 6.5.

Lot 2 - Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl4.5

(b

 

The floor space of each dwelling has been calculated in accordance with Clause 4.5 and the “gross floor area” definition within the HLEP.

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development Standards

Clause 4.6 Variation to any of the development standards is required.

The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to, the Foreshore Building Line (Cl 6.4) and non-compliance with gross floor area of dwellings in residential zones (Cl 6.5) (54% over) in accordance with the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance.

No – see comments below

5.1 Bushfire

Bush fire hazard reduction work authorised by the Rural Fires Act 1997 may be carried out on any land without development consent.

The site is affected by bushfire prone land and is integrated development. A referral was sent to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) seeking general terms of approval.

Yes – draft conditions provided by RFS

6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils

The Clause states that development consent is required for works within land classified as being Class 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

The proposal does not contain acid sulfate soils.  The proposal therefore is not affected by the provisions of Clause 6.1.

Yes

6.2 – Riparian Land and watercourses

The objectives of this clause are to maintain water quality within watercourses, maintain the stability of the bed and banks of watercourses and their aquatic and riparian habitats.

The southern portion of the site is designated as Riparian Land and watercourse. (see Figure 6). The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 is 29m from the MHWM. The proposed works to Lot 2 are not within the mapped Riparian Land.

Yes

6.3 – Limited development on the 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”.

 

Development is to be restricted within the foreshore area.

A foreshore building line of 140m is applicable to the subject site. Development needs to be setback a minimum of 140m from the foreshore.

The site is located within a Foreshore Area and is affected by the Foreshore Building Line (FBL). Approximately 40% of the proposed dwelling on proposed Lot 1 is forward of the FBL (see Figure 7 below).

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives and intention of the clause in that the dwelling is stepped down the site respecting the landform. However, the bulk and scale of the dwelling is considered excessive and has a non-compliant GFA, approximately 54% variation above the control.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA)

The objectives of clause are to protect significant views to and from the Georges River and reinforce the dominance of the landscape over built form.

Dwelling 2 - is an existing structure and is contained forward of the FBL. The proposed two car garage is also forward of the FBL

 

Approximately 40% of proposed Dwelling 1 is located forward of the FBL.

No – see discussion below regards Clause 4.6

6.5 – Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones

The gross floor area calculation

site -1000x.2+457.5

Dwelling 1 –

1058-1000x0.2+457.50 =

469.12sqm

Proposed – 724.15sqm

 

 

 

Dwelling 2 –

1006.2-1000x.2+457.5 = 458.74sqm

Proposed - 168.3sqm

No – see discussion below regarding Clause 4.6.

 

Yes

6.7 – Essential Services

Development consent must not be granted to development unless services that are essential for the development are available

Essential services are currently available to the site and can be extended to service the development; conditions could be imposed if the application was to be supported.

Yes

 

 

Figure 6: Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

55.         The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliances of the development standards relating to floor space and the foreshore building line. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line breach, as 40% of the dwelling 1 and the garage of dwelling 2 is forward of the FBL; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the Gross Floor Area.  These are contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

 

Figure 7: Foreshore Building Line Map

 

56.         The proposed massing and built form will be visibly dominant when viewed from Georges River. The proposal exceeds the floor space control and is considered an overdevelopment of the site and is not supported in its current form.

 

HURSTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 1

57.         The proposal needs to address and satisfy the provision of Section 3 – General Planning Considerations and Section 4 Specific Controls for Residential Development.  These provisions are addressed in detail below.

 

Compliance Table

Applicable DCP Controls

DCP Provisions

Development Provisions

Complies

Neighbourhood character

DS1.1        The development application is supported by a Statement of Environmental Effects that:

a.  includes a satisfactory neighbourhood and site description, including the identification of the key features of the neighbourhood and site

b.  shows how the siting and design response derives from and responds to the key features identified in the neighbourhood and site description

c.  demonstrates that the residential development proposal respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and satisfies objectives of the zone in the LEP

 

 

 

 

The proposal is supported by an SEE and addresses the key features of neighbourhood character and demonstrates how the siting and design responds to the site. 

The proposal fails to address the non-compliances with the objectives of the HLEP with regards to, construction within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area.

 

 

 

 

No

Building Height

DS2.1. Maximum building height is in accordance with the LEP

 

DS2.2. Maximum ceiling height is 7.2m above the existing ground level vertically below that point. Note: maximum ceiling height is measured at the intersection of the upper most ceiling with the internal face of any external wall

 

 

DS2.3. For flat roofed dwellings, maximum height to the top of the parapet of the building is: a. 7.8m above the existing ground level vertically below that point.

 

DS2.4. For steep or sloping sites, the building is sited and designed to be staggered or stepped into the natural slope of the land

The maximum building height is 9m.

 

 

 

A small portion of dwelling 1 has a maximum ceiling height is 8.8m above the skylight located over the foyer/entrance of the dwelling.

The proposal complies with building height outlined in the HLEP and this prevails over the HDCP.

Yes

 

 

 

 

No – see discussion below.

Setbacks

DS3.1. The minimum front setback to a primary street is:

a. 5.5m to the main face of the dwelling or

b. 4.5m to the main face of the dwelling where located on a corner site and 5.5m to the garage

 

DS3.2. For properties greater than 15m in width, the minimum setback to a secondary street boundary is 2.0m to the wall of the dwelling

 

DS3.3. For properties 15m or less in width, the minimum setback to a secondary street boundary is in accordance with the side boundary setback requirements.

 

DS3.5. The minimum side setback inside the FSPA is 900mm (ground floor) and 1.5m (first floor).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DS3.6. Minimum rear boundary setbacks are:

a  3m for any basement and ground floor level solid wall

b. 6m for first floor level solid walls

c.  where a first floor balcony is proposed at the rear, 6m from the balustrade

 

 

DS3.7. For battle-axe lots, minimum side boundary setbacks apply to all boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A the site is a battle-axe block and proposed dwelling 1 is not visible from Woodlands Avenue.

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A – the site is within an FSPA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 1

Lower ground floor – 1.5m (east), 1.5 (west)

 

Ground floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

 

Upper ground floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

 

First floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

 

Dwelling 2 (existing)

varied – 0.6m to 1.5m (west), 1.06m to 1.6m (east

 

Dwelling 2 - garage

varied 0.25m to 0.76m (west), varied 3.6m to 4.1m (east)

 

 

Dwelling 1: varied 22m to 33m

Dwelling 2 (existing) – 62.9m

 

Dwelling 1

varied  44.74m to 47.3m

Dwelling 1

varied 56.4m to 58.2m

 

Minimum side setback (1.5m) achieved for all setbacks except for garage setback – 0.25m to 0.76m.

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

No – however existing structure.

 

 

No – see discussion below.

 

 

 

Yes

Facades

DS4.1. The dwelling house has a front door or window to a habitable room facing the primary street frontage.

 

DS4.2. The dwelling house incorporates at least two of the following building elements facing any street frontage:

a.  entry feature or portico

b.  awnings or other features over windows

c.  eaves and sun shading

d.  window planter box treatment

e.  bay windows or similar features f. wall offsets, balconies, verandas, pergolas or the like

DS4.3. Garage doors are not wider than 6m

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is a battle-axe allotment; the dwelling is not visible from the primary street frontage being Woodlands Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garage doors are not visible from the primary street as both proposed lots are seeking vehicle access via the private road known as Coachwood Place.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Solar Access

DS6.1. 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.

 

DS6.2. Development complies with the Energy Efficiency section in Appendix 1 of this DCP and BASIX requirements.

 

DS6.3. Buildings are encouraged to incorporate window shading devices where necessary to minimise exposure to direct summer sun. Alternatively, windows may be shaded by the planting of large trees, including deciduous species.

Adjoining properties will continue to receive greater than 3 hours during mid-winter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal is BASIX compliant.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal is BASIX compliant.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Visual Privacy

DS7.1. Windows of proposed dwelling must be offset from neighbouring windows by 1m, especially windows of high-use rooms.

 

DS7.2. Windows for primary living rooms must be designed so that they maintain privacy of adjoining site’s principal private open space.

 

DS7.3. Development applications are accompanied by a survey plan or site analysis plan (to AHD) of the proposed dwelling showing the location of adjoining property windows, floors levels, window sill levels and ridge and gutter line levels.

Windows are offset from adjoining properties.  A majority of windows are oriented south with views of the Georges River.

 

 

The windows for primary living areas are to the south of the adjoining properties private open space.

 

 

 

The application includes survey plan and architectural plans indicating the adjoining properties, and window sill levels.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Noise

DS8.1. Noise generators such as plant and machinery including air conditioning units and pool pumps are located away from windows or other openings of habitable rooms, screened to reduce noise or acoustically enclosed.

 

DS8.2. For sites in proximity to a busy road or railway line, development is to comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and the NSW Government’s Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline

The location of pool pump and air condition units are not indicated on the plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Condition could be applied to for noise attenuation measures if the proposal was to be supported.

 

 

 

N/A

Vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring

DS9.1. Car parking is provided on site in accordance with the following minimum rates:

a. for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, 1 car parking space

b. for 3 or more bedroom dwellings, 2 car parking spaces

 

DS9.2. For all new dwellings, at least 1 car space must be located behind the front building setback

 

 

 

 

 

 

DS9.3. Enclosed or roofed car accommodation, including garages and carports, are located at least 1m behind the main setback. Note: Carports forward of the front setback may be considered where no vehicular access behind the front building alignment is available.

 

DS9.4. The maximum width of a garage opening is 6m.

 

DS9.9. Driveway gradients must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1(2004).

Dwelling 1 – provision of four (4) car parking spaces within a basement garage and workshop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 2 – two (2) car garage

N/A

Dwelling 2 – garage is located at the front of the dwelling. However the site is a battle-axe allotment, the garage is not visible from the public domain.

 

Dwelling 1 – 3.6m opening

Dwelling 2 – 6.5m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

The proposed vehicle crossing is 3.9m in width and is located on the west boundary approximately half way down the site. The access relies on the private road known as Coachwood Place. No owners consent has been provided for the extension and use of this private road

Yes – the additional car spaces and workshop are included in the GFA for dwelling 1.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

No – the garage is not visible from the street and is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

No as insufficient detail has been provided to undertake a complete assessment.

Landscaped areas and private open space

DS10.1. Where located outside the FSPA, a minimum of 20% of site area is landscaped open space.

 

DS10.2. Where located in the FSPA, a minimum of 25% of the site area is landscaped open space.

 

DS10.3. The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m in any direction.

 

DS10.4. A minimum of 15m2 of the landscaped open space is provided between the front setback and the street boundary in the form of a front yard.

 

DS10.5. An area of Principal Private Open Space is to be provided which:

a.  has a minimum area of 30m2

b.  has a minimum dimension of 5m

c.  is located at ground level and behind the front wall of the dwelling

d.  is directly accessible from a main living area

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 1 – 38%

Dwelling 2 – 70%

 

 

 

Complies – minimum width is 9m

 

 

 

N/A – the site is a battle-axe allotment with no street frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling 2 – POS is approximately 82sqm and is located at ground level and accessible from main living area.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Stormwater

DS11.1. Diversion of flows from one drainage sub-catchment to another is not encouraged.

 

DS11.2. Stormwater drainage is to occur by:

a.  drainage by gravity to the adjacent road kerb and Council’s drainage system or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DS11.3. Where drainage by gravity is involved this must not cause ponding/backwater effects on upstream properties.

 

DS11.5. On-site retention of roof run-off using rainwater tanks or detention tanks for storage and re-use are encouraged. Overflow from storage facilities must be connected to an appropriate stormwater system as detailed in DS11.2.

 

 

DS11.7. Development is not to concentrate overland flow of stormwater onto an adjoining property.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineers and Drainage Engineers have provided comments and raised no objection in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions relating to this development if the proposal was able to be supported.

 

There are no buildings proposed to be built over, on or within the easement.

 

 

 

Councils Development Engineers and Drainage Engineers have provided comments and raised no objection in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions relating to this development if the proposal was to be supported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Balconies

DS14.1. Access to balconies and terraces is direct from a habitable room at the same floor level. Note: a level difference of one step may be considered for the purpose of rain water protection.

 

 

DS14.2. Balconies and terraces include fixed planter boxes and / or privacy screens.

 

 

 

 

DS14.3. Fixed planter boxes are at least 1m wide.

 

DS14.4. Privacy screens are between 1.5m and 1.8 m high

 

DS14.5. Terraces are not visible from the street.

 

 

DS14.6. Roof top terraces are not provided.

 

DS14.7. Development applications for terraces and balconies must provide sight line diagrams that demonstrate how privacy issues to neighbouring properties are proposed to be addressed.

The balcony on the first floor off the master bedroom is 7.1m.

A second balcony is located on the upper ground floor with depth of 12.5m and a 3m balcony on the ground floor accessed via bedroom 2 and 3.

 

The ground floor balcony has 1600mm privacy screens while the remaining balconies have 600mm screens on the east and west facades.

 

No planter boxes are proposed.

 

 

Privacy screens are 1.6m

 

 

The balconies are on the southern elevation and are not visible from the street.

 

N/A

 

 

 

Site diagrams have been submitted.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

3.2 Subdivision

PC1: Lot size and shape

DS1.1 Residential allotment sizes are to confirm to Table 1 – Lot size and shape

 

R2 Low Density Residential in the FSPA – 550sqm

 

 

DS1.2 The width or the area of any existing or proposed access handle is to be exclude when determining the area or width of each allotment.

 

DS1.6 New allotments for dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy development are to have a minimum width of 15m for the entire allotment.

 

 

 

 

 

Lot 1 – 1,058.16sqm

Lot 2 – 1,006.2sqm

The area of the handle is excluded from Lot 1.

 

The site has a maximum width of 11.93m with the handle of 4.27m at the street. Both proposed lots exceed the minimum site area.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No – see discussion below.

 

Swimming Pools

PC1 Pool siting and noise control

DS1.10. The swimming pool edge must be at least 1.5 metres from side and rear property boundaries.

Dwelling 1 -

19.8m from the rear boundary.

 

2.5m from the east and 4.7m from the west boundary.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

DS1.11. The position of the swimming pool in relation to neighbours and other residents must be considered to reduce noise associated with activities carried out in the swimming pool or from associated the swimming pool equipment, such as cleaning equipment.

The pool decking is at RL44.66 with the adjoining property on west boundary front balcony at RL43.9.

Privacy screen/pool fences of 1600mm are proposed on the east and west boundary.

The setback from the west boundary is 2.5m and 4.7m to the east boundary and complies to minimise any privacy impacts.

No – The privacy screens/pool fences could be increase to 1.8m to further reduce privacy/overlook impacts to adjoining properties.

Outbuilding (Pool and Change Room)

PC2. Building height

DS2.1. Maximum height is 3m.

3m

Yes

PC3. Setbacks:

DS3.4. Minimum setbacks for garages, gyms, cabanas and sheds = 0.9m.

37.5m (rear)

1.5 (side)

Yes

 

DS4.1. The amount of landscaped open space on the site is in accordance with that specified for the relevant predominant land use type on the site under this DCP.

Landscape provided complies with the DCP requirement.

Yes

Subdivision

DS10.1. Where Torrens Title subdivision of an attached dual occupancy dwellings is proposed, the dividing wall between dwellings must be of masonry construction and at least 200mm thick.

 

DS10.2. For a battle-axe lot, an access handle or right of carriageway to the street with a minimum 3m width must be provided for the rear lot.

 

DS10.3. For a battle-axe allotment, all vehicles must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The vehicular access for both proposed lots is via the creation of a carriageway 112m from the front of the property on the western boundary.  This access traverses adjoining allotments to access a right of way known as Coachwood Place.  Owners consent to traverse the adjoining properties has not been provided and owners consent has not been provided for the use of the carriageway either.

In addition the access to proposed lot 2 will require easements across proposed Lot 1.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No - The proposed subdivision and means of access to proposed lot 1 and 2 can’t be determined without adjoining landowners consent.

 

Ceiling height

58.         A small portion of dwelling 1 has a maximum ceiling height is 8.8m above the skylight located over the foyer/entrance of the dwelling. If the application was approved a design modification would be required to reduce the maximum ceiling height.

 

Minimum width

59.         The site has a maximum width of 11.93m with the handle of 4.27m at the street and does not meet the minimum required width of 15m for new allotments for dwelling houses. Both the proposed lots exceed the minimum site area, proposed Lot 1 is 1,058.16sqm and Lot 2 is 1.006.2sqm. The reduced site width is acceptable given that the site is a battle-axe allotment with limited street frontage. A compliant built form can be constructed on both the allotments.

 

Side setback

60.         Dwelling 2 proposed garage side setback on the western boundary is varied - 0.25m to 0.76m and does not comply with the minimum 900mm setback at ground level.  The reduced western boundary setback is not supported.

 

61.         An assessment of the proposal has been carried out against the provisions of the Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020. The controls the development has been assessed in accordance with in the DCP table above remain relevant in the Interim Policy.

 

Developer Contributions

62.         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 one additional 5 bedroom dwelling. If the development was to be approved a condition outlining the required contributions would be imposed.

 

Impacts

Natural Environment

63.         The proposed tree removal has been assessed by Council’s Consultant Arborist and is not supported as the trees proposed to be removed are a contributing continuous community of Australian native remnants…in addition the impacts on trees to be retained will decline due to the changes in soil biota, nutrient and hydrologic changes to the immediate location.”

 

64.         The ecology report submitted notes that “in respect to the timing of the survey and survey effort employed, a considerable continuum of fauna and flora species and assessment of the ecological process that are likely to be imposed on the study site, have been derived through desktop searches, and background and literature searches. Therefore, a full inventory of flora and fauna and the ecological processes likely to occur on the study site and surroundings cannot be fully provided in this report.”

 

65.         The information submitted does not allow for a detailed assessment of the site.  Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Built Environment

66.         The proposal for dwelling 1 exceeds the FSR development standard of HLEP by 54%.  A Clause 4.6 Objection was not submitted in support of the non-compliance.

 

67.         Notwithstanding the clause 4.6, the bulk and scale of the dwelling resulting from the exceedance of this standard is unreasonable and unacceptable in the site’s context and the neighbourhood’s character. The bulk and scale of the building would result in an unacceptable outcome for the site and is thus recommended for refusal.

 

Social Impact

68.         No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment. However, the built form is not an appropriate outcome for the site.

 

Economic Impact

69.         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

70.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible land use within the zone, subject to development consent.

 

71.         The subject site does not meet the minimum site width control for subdivision.  Extensive tree removal is proposed and the development has not been sensitively designed to respond to the constraints of the site and has not been designed to satisfy the floor space ratio permitted for the site or observed the foreshore building line.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND PUBLIC INTEREST

72.         The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville DCP No. 1 on two (2) occasions for 14 days each notification period.  Fourteen (14) submissions were received.  In summary the following issues and concerns were raised.

 

·     Incomplete Development Application as owners consent not sought from 3 Coachwood Place to traverse their property to permit access to Coachwood Place

 

Officer Comment: The application was requested to provide landowners consent to traverse the properties to permit access to Coachwood Place.  Legal advice was submitted requesting the imposition of a deferred commencement condition with the satisfactory resolution of adjoining landowners consent. This option was not accepted by Council Officers and contributes to the application being recommended for refusal.

 

·     Access by the proposed development via Coachwood Place will increase traffic by 50% to a private road, and will need consent to access this right of way from all properties who use right of way

 

Officer Comment: The proposal did not provide landowners consent to access the right of way from affect landowners. The proposal is for two dwellings to access Coachwood Place. It is estimated that this would equate to an additional one vehicle every 30 minutes during the peak morning and evening. However, given consent to access Coachwood Place this is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

 

·     Excessive car parking spaces proposed

 

Officer Comment: Proposed dwelling 1 includes a garage to accommodate four car parking spaces and substantially workshop. The HDCP 1 requires a minimum of 2 car spaces for three or more bedroom dwelling. There is no maximum for car spaces. The additional car spaces are included in the Gross Floor Area. It is acknowledged the floor space ratio for the site has also been exceeded.

 

·     Destruction of native fauna and flora

 

Officer Comment: This issue has been addressed in detail earlier in this report. The information submitted does not allow for a detailed assessment of the site with respect to the tree removal. This is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

 

·     Overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining properties

 

Officer Comment: If the proposal was approved, conditions would be applied to provide privacy screens to balconies to reduce potential overlooking to adjoining properties.

 

·     Overshadowing to adjoining properties

 

Officer Comment: This issue has been addressed in detail earlier in this report. The proposal complies with the minimum solar access provisions of the HDCP1.

 

·     Traffic Impact Assessment misrepresents the impact of additional traffic to Coachwood Place

 

Officer Comment: The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer for comment and they did not object to the proposed development. Traffic generation is estimated using the Roads and Maritime Services’ “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” an industry standard. It is estimated that this would equate to an additional one vehicle every 30 minutes during the peak morning and evening.

 

·     Proposal exceeds the permissible GFA

 

Officer Comment: Proposed dwelling 1 is 54% over the GFA. The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance of clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones. This is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

 

·     Proposed Lot 2 does not provide indicative building envelope

 

Officer Comment: Proposed Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling which is to be retained. This dwelling is annotated on the plans indicating the existing building footprint and the proposed two car garage.

 

·     No Waste Management Plan provided for residential rubbish collection

 

Officer Comment: The proposal is not required to provide the method of residential rubbish collection for a dwelling house. A bin storage area has been nominated for Lot 1 and 2. The bins will need to be taken kerbside (Woodlands Avenue) for collection.

 

·     Concern for access to Coachwood Place during the construction phase, and issue of liability to Coachwood Place during construction

 

Officer Comment: If the application was approved standard conditions would require a Construction Management Plan to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and this document would include access during the construction phase to ensure that the dwelling accessed via Coachwood Place would remain available.

 

·     Limited visitor car parking on Coachwood Place

 

Officer Comment: The proposal is not required to provide visitor car parking spaces. There is sufficient space on both proposed Lot 1 and 2 to accommodate visitors to the site.

 

·     Safety for children playing on Coachwood Place

 

Officer Comment: If the application was approved standard conditions would require a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and this document would practices to ensure pedestrian safety during the construction phase. When the development was complete the same safety provisions would apply to the other residents using Coachwood Place.

 

·     No architectural plans that indicate the proposed floor area

 

Officer Comment: The architectural plans include the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) includes the floor area of proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling as well as the proposed garage for proposed Lot 2.

 

·     SEE does not reference plans submitted with the DA

 

Officer Comment: The SEE refers to the architectural plans in the Introduction.  The documents submitted meet Council requirements as outlined in Development Application Guide.

 

·     Arborist recommendations regarding Tree 13 is not adhered to in the proposed development of proposed Lot 1

 

Officer Comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site …is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush. The twelve trees in question are considered in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

 

·     Geotechnical Report – no assessment of the possible interference with groundwater on the site and likely impact of proposed significant excavation on the capacity to retain trees on site or possible impact on trees on adjacent sites or downhill of the proposed excavation

 

Officer Comment: If the proposal was approved the Geotechnical Report would be assessed by the PCA prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The adequacy of the report is outside the scope of this assessment.

 

REFERRALS

 

Council Referrals

Development Engineer

73.         The application was referred to Council’s Engineers for comment.  No objection was raised in respect to the design of the proposed stormwater/drainage plan.

 

Consultant Arborist

74.         There are twelve (12) trees existing on site that will be affected by the development.  The application was accompanied by a Predevelopment Tree Assessment Report prepared by Nada Kbar (consulting Arboriculturalist). The report notes the twelve (12) trees identified for removal are rated as Low to Very Low significance with one tree rated as of high significance.

 

75.         Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site …is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush.  The twelve trees in question are considered in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

 

76.         Further an Ecologist report was submitted and reviewed. The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality. For these reasons Council is unable to assess the impact of vegetation/tree removal on the site.

 

External Referrals

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

77.         The application was referred to the RFS in accordance with Section 4.14 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A formal response was provided and concurrence was obtained subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Ausgrid

78.         The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No formal response was provided in the prescribed time.

 

CONCLUSION

79.         The proposal has been assessed using the maters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to undertake works on Lots associated with Coachwood Place to facilitate vehicular access to the site from this private road known as Coachwood Place for the proposed development. The plans also show that a retaining wall and fence is proposed in the area where the vehicular access is proposed. The plans are inconsistent.

 

80.         The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of floor space control standards and does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HELP to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, and therefore fails to satisfy the provision and requirements of Clause 4.6 of the HLEP.

 

81.         The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality.  For these reasons Council is unable to address removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

82.         The reasons for this recommendation area:

·     The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) and clause 6.5 (Gross floor area of dwellings in residential zones) controls within the HLEP. The additional bulk and scale of the building will adversely affect the character of the area and will be inconsistent with surrounding approved development;

·     The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality.  For these reasons Council is unable to address removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1; and

·     The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

In consideration of the above reasons, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

 

Determination

83.         THAT pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse development consent to Development Application DA2018/0479 for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2 and access to the site via an extension of the private road known as Coachwood Place at Lot 24 in DP205787 and known as 47 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno, for the following reasons:

 

1.      The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) and clause 6.5 (Gross floor area of dwellings in residential zones) controls within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan. The additional bulk and scale of the building will adversely affect the character of the area and will be inconsistent with surrounding approved development;

 

2.      The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of clause 6.4 (Foreshore Scenic Protection Area) controls within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan.  Structures forward of the FBL would impact on the visual environment and view to and from Georges River and affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville.

 

3.      The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality. For these reasons Council is unable to address removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

 

4.      The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to undertake works on Lots 4 and 5 DP1012655 (known as 3 and 4 Coachwood Place) to facilitate vehicular access to Coachwood Place for the proposed development.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan and Elevations - 47 Woodlands Ave Lugarno

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 7 November 2019

LPP046-19              47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno

[Appendix 1]          Site Plan and Elevations - 47 Woodlands Ave Lugarno

 

 

Page 105

 


 


 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 7 November  2019

Page 136

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

 

LPP Report No

LPP047-19

Development Application No

DA2018/0190

Site Address & Ward Locality

3 Newman Street Mortdale

Mortdale Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) storey boarding housing, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 consisting of nineteen (19) rooms and basement parking for eleven (11) car spaces

Owners

State Projects Pty Ltd

Applicant

State Projects Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

Architect and Planner - Pyramid Consulting

Date Of Lodgement

15/05/2018

Submissions

Eleven (11) submissions

Cost of Works

$737,000.00 (cost of original works)

Local Planning Panel Criteria

More than 10 unique submissions received

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009,  State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX (Building and Sustainability Index) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017; Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, Draft Environmental State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation of Land,

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan (amendment No.7)

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

Architectural Plans

Landscape Plan

Statement of Environmental Effects

Survey

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

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

 

Site Plan

Figure 1 – Subject site (3 Newman Street, Mortdale) outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of a development application which seeks consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) storey boarding housing, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The boarding house consists of nineteen (19) rooms and basement parking for eleven (11) car spaces on land known as 3 Newman Street, Mortdale.

 

2.         Inconsistent information has been provided within the amendments to the proposal.

 

3.         An assessment has been undertaken based on the amended plans which have resulted in the following key deficiencies relating to inadequate car parking, manoeuvrability and turning manoeuvrability together with poor occupant amenity.

 

4.         Insufficient information which prevents a complete assessment of the application relates to the absence of an arborist report, no plan of management, no revised BASIX Certificate or stormwater plan.

 

Site and Locality

5.         The site is legally described as Lot 13, Section 2 in DP 2778 and is known as known as 3 Newman Street, Mortdale.

 

6.         The site area and dimensions of the site are as follows:

 

Site Area

588.1sqm

West (Primary frontage to Newman Street)

15.43m

North (Secondary frontage to Ocean Lane)

38.10m

East (rear boundary to Ocean Lane)

15.68m

South (side adjoining 5 Newman Street, Mortdale)

38.10m

 

 

Zoning and Permissibility

7.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. A “boarding house” forms a permissible use with development consent within this zone. The proposal satisfies the boarding house definition.

 

Submissions

8.         The application was notified to one hundred and thirty two (132) owners and occupiers accordance with the provisions contained within the Hurstville Development Control Plan. In response, eleven (11) submissions were received which are addressed in detail later in this report. The amended plans were not re-notified as this application given the deficiencies in the submitted information.

 

Conclusion

9.         The amended proposal as assessed is considered to be inconsistent with the applicable planning controls with regards to car parking, access and mobility and tree preservation. Insufficient information has been provided to enable Council to undertake a holistic assessment of the proposing having regard to stormwater, BASIX, waste management and a plan of management associated with the operation of the boarding house. The proposal accordingly is recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

10.      Council is in receipt of a development application which seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) storey boarding housing, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 consisting of nineteen (19) rooms and basement parking for eleven (11) car spaces on land known as 3 Newman Street, Mortdale.

 

 

Figure 2 – Front west elevation of the proposal facing Newman Street, Mortdale (Source: Pyramid Consulting, 2019)

 

11.      In detail, the proposal as assessed is described as follows;

 

12.      Basement Level

Eleven (11) car space with one (1) nominated as accessible, four (4) motorcycle spaces, four (4) bicycle spaces, stairs and a waste storage area. This basement is accessed via a ramp from Ocean Lane.

 

13.      Ground Floor

Common hallway, six (6) double occupant boarding rooms, two (2) accessible double occupant boarding rooms, one (1) single occupant boarding room, communal room, communal open space along north eastern setback, stairs to first floor above and lift access from the rear.

 

Removal of one (1) paradise fern along the north west side boundary.

 

14.      First Floor

Common hallway, two (2) double boarding rooms, seven (7) single boarding rooms, one (1) managers single room. Seven (7) of these rooms contain balconies.

 

15.      1m-1.6m high semi open fencing with horizontal slats along Newman Street. 2m high timber fencing is proposed along Ocean Lane (secondary frontage and rear lane).

 

16.      Deep soil areas with landscaping are proposed along the north eastern frontage and rear south eastern setback.

 

17.      In summary the proposal comprises of the following:

 

Composition

No. proposed

Single occupant boarding rooms

8

Double occupant boarding rooms

10

Manager single rooms

1

Total rooms

19

Car parking spaces

10

Accessible spaces

1

Total car spaces

11

Motorcycle spaces

4

Bicycle spaces

4

 

HISTORY

 

18.    Council records indicate the following development application history;

 

30 October 2015                  (DA2015/0865) Construction of six (6) multi-dwellings State Projects Pty Ltd v Hurstville City Council (10018 of 2015) – refused by New South Wales Land and Environment Court.

 

17 July 2018                         (DA2017/0195) Demolition of existing and construction of multi dwelling housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Applicant was advised to withdraw development application due to design deficiencies. Application subsequently withdrawn.

 

Development application history

 

15 May 2018                         (DA2019/0190) Demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) storey boarding housing, pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 consisting of nineteen (19) rooms and four (4) stacked car spaces.

 

17 May 2018                         Stop the clock request for additional information which included; Engineering - OSD and stormwater details, a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report and driveway profiles.

 

31 May 2018                         Requested additional information received by Council.

 

22 June –

6 July 2018                 Notification period

 

15 November 2018    Site inspection

 

15 January 2019        Meeting with applicant

 

24 January 2019        Applicant advised of issues with proposal regarding – deficient car parking, private open space, side setbacks, articulation, Building Code of Australia.   

 

It is noted that the applicant was advised of:

-    potential exhibited legislative changes limiting boarding houses to maximum 12 rooms within R2 zones;

-    that supporting documentation to be amended to reflect the amended proposal;

-    a fourteen (14) day timeframe to submit outstanding documentation.

 

5 April 2019                          Revised documentation received by Council which comprised of revised architectural plans and landscape plan. Supplementary building and access information provided.

 

 17 October 2019        Second site inspection undertaken

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

19.      The site is legally described as Lot 13, Section 2 in DP 2778 and is known as 3 Newman Street, Mortdale.

 

20.      The area and dimensions of the site are as follows:

 

Site Area

588.1sqm

West (Primary frontage to Newman Street)

15.43m

North (Secondary frontage to Ocean Lane)

38.10m

East (rear boundary to Ocean Lane)

15.695m

West (side adjoining 5 Newman Street, Mortdale)

38.10m

 

Figure 4 - Survey of site being 3 Newman Street, Mortdale. It is noted that Cross Lane as indicated on the submitted survey has misidentified Ocean Lane (Source: RGM Property Surveyors, 2014)

 

Figure 5 - Photograph of the front of site taken from Newman Street, Mortdale (Source: Author. GRC, October 2019).

 

Figure 6 - Photograph of rear of site taken from Ocean Lane (rear) Mortdale (Source: Author. GRC, October 2019).

 

21.      There appears to be no apparent material constraints on the site. Council’s GIS records indicate that sewerage and stormwater services traverse the site parallel with the east rear boundary.

 

22.      The site accommodates a single storey fibro dwelling house centrally located on site with a fibro garage within the rear north east corner. Private open space is located at the rear.

 

23.      One (1) paradise fern is located along the southern side boundary within the rear setback.  Small trees and plants are also located on site.

 

Surrounding Area

24.      The site located on a transition point between three and four storey residential flat buildings located to the north, north east and east. Single storey and double storey dwelling houses with the occasional multi dwelling to the south and west. Marist Catholic College is located further to the east. Mortdale Railway Station and commercial area are located to the south.

 

Figure 7 - Photograph of adjoining four storey residential flat buildings with driveway access to Ocean Lane (secondary frontage) to the north (Source: Author, GRC October 2019).

 

Figure 8 – Photograph of adjoining residential dwelling (5 Newman Street, Mortdale) to the southern side boundary (Source: Author, GRC, October 2019).

 

Figure 10 – Photograph of adjoining Ocean Lane (secondary frontage), Mortdale. Source: Author. GRC, October 2019).

 

Figure 11 – Photograph of adjoining Ocean Lane (rear), Mortdale (Source: Author, GRC October 2019).

 

25.      No stopping and no parking signs are located in front of the property along Newman Street (primary frontage), Ocean Lane (secondary frontage) and Ocean Lane (rear lane).

 

Zoning and Permissibility

 

26.      The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012).

 

27.      A R3 High Density Residential Zone adjoins the site to the north, north west and east which comprise of three to four storey residential flat buildings.

 

28.      R2 Low Density Residential is located further to the south and east which comprises dwelling houses of varying architectural styles and designs.

 

Figure 12 – Extract of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan and subject site – outlined in blue

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A) Regulation 2000

29.      The proposed development satisfies the relevant matters for consideration under the Regulations.

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

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

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

Proposal

Complies

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

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

Yes

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

The amended proposal reconfigured rooms and windows, however has not been supported by a revised BASIX Certificate. This does not satisfy the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 and the Regulations.

No

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

The proposal is not considered to provide an orderly and economic development of the land due to poor vehicular car parking and manoeuvrability on site.

The proposal results in poor occupant amenity for future residents.

In this regard the intent of this object has not been satisfied.

No

(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing

The proposal seeks development consent for eighteen (18) boarding house rooms and one (1) manager’s room.

Yes *(comment: the DA was lodged prior to the amendment of the SEPP whereby a savings provision applies)

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

The proposal seeks the removal of one (1) paradise fern. The development given its excavation is likely to affect trees on the neighbouring property at 5 Newman Street, Mortdale.

 

Council’s consulting arborist has commented that an arborist report be provided to assess the impacts of these trees and identify and appropriate tree protection zone given the proposed basement which is in part on the boundary and in close proximity to these adjoining trees. No such information has been submitted to enable Council to undertake an informed assessment of these impacts.

No

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

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

Yes

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

The proposal is considered poorly designed due to inadequate functional car parking provided on site.

 

No  

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

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the intent of this objective as the proposal results in poor accessibility for future occupants. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has commented that the amended proposal seeks stainless steel mesh along the ground floor and first floor windows of the single aspect boarding rooms may conflict with light and ventilation requirements of the BCA. Furthermore, additional information would be required for consideration to ensure compliance.

No

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

N/A

-

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with the HDCP. In response, eleven (11) submissions were received; the concerns have been addressed in detail further within in this report. As previously mentioned, the amended proposal was not re-notified as the submission was deficient in the necessary information to undertake a holistic assessment of the proposal.

Yes

 

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

31.      The Act adopts the definition of ESD found in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 6(2) of that Act states that ESD requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision making processes and that ESD can be achieved through the implementation of:

 

(a)   the precautionary principle;

(b)   Inter-generational equity;

(c)   conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; and

(d)   improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

 

32.      Council has assessed the proposed development in relation to the ESD principles and has made the following conclusions;

 

(a)   Precautionary Principle – the site has been appropriately planned for the development and will not result in any serious or irreversible environmental damage.

(b)   Inter-Generational Equity – the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the environment for future generations.

(c)   Biodiversity Principle – the site is within a highly urbanised area and contains no significant flora or fauna.

(d)   Valuation Principle – the proposal includes a number of energy, water, and waste reducing measures to reduce the ongoing cost, resource usage, and energy requirements of the development. But we don’t have an appropriate BASIX!!!

 

33.      The proposal is inconsistent with the above as no amended waste management plan and revised BASIX Certificate was provided. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the ESD principles.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

34.      Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies is detailed and discussed below.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

35.      The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable provisions as referenced below;

 

Division 3 Boarding Houses

 

Clause 25 - 28 Development to which this Division applies

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

 

27  Development to which Division applies

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

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

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

 

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

 

accessible area means land that is within:

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

 

38.      By virtue of the definition, the site at 3 Newman Street satisfies the requirements of an accessible area as the site is located 704m away from the entrance of Mortdale Railway Station located to the west.

 

Figure 13 – Aerial extract measuring the walking distance from the site (3 Newman Street, Mortdale) to the entrance to Mortdale Railway Station – as marked with the blue line of travel (Source: Nearmap, September 2019).

 

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

 

Clause 29 - Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

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

 

Clause 29

Standards

Proposal

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

-  If  Residential accommodation is permitted

If the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a FSR is not more than the existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted (0.6:1 under HLEP 2012)

+0.5:1 FSR bonus = 1.1:1 maximum permissible floor space

0.91:1

 

 

Yes

Height

If the building height is not more than the maximum height permitted under another Environmental Planning Instrument for any building on the land:

Maximum 9m under the HLEP 2012.

7.2m

Yes

Landscape Area

The landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

The proposal provides a front setback of which comprises of landscaping and turfed areas.

The proposed timber fencing is considered to be generally compatible with the immediate surrounding area.

Yes

Solar Access

Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

 

One (1) communal room provided which is located on the ground floor at north east corner of the building which receives 3 hours solar access mid-winter. (Room Ref: G01).

Yes

Private Open Space

(other than the front setback area)

If a minimum of the following is provided:

(i)    one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for the use of the lodgers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii)   if accommodation is provided on-site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to that accommodation

 

 

36sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m located within the rear setback. It is noted that this private open space is disconnected from the communal room which results in poor occupant amenity as a result of poor design layout.

 

12.7sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m. (Room ref: Manager’s room 111).

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Parking

(iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site

18 boarding rooms are proposed Therefore 9 car parking spaces are required. 10 car parking spaces have been provided within the basement level.

 

1 Manager’s car space.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Accommodation size

 

Each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

 

(i)    12sqm in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

 

(ii)   16sqm in any other case

 

 

 

 

 

 

12sqm (min)

(Room ref: G07, 112 – 117, 120).

 

16qm (min)

(Roof ref: G03 – G07, G10, both ground floor accessible units, 118-119).

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses

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

 

Clause 30

Standards

Proposal

Complies

Communal living

(a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided

One communal living room provided located on the ground floor (16.78sqm)

Room ref: G01

Yes

 

Size of boarding rooms

(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25sqm

All rooms less than 25sqm (excluding area of bathrooms and kitchens).

 

 

Yes

Maximum occupancy

(c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers

Maximum 2 adult lodgers per room proposed (28 lodgers total therefore 1 manager required).

Yes

Kitchen and bathroom facilities

(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger

All boarding rooms have kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Yes

Boarding house manager

(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager

The boarding house rooms have the capacity to accommodate 28 lodgers. A Managers room has been provided on the first floor and is a single occupant room.

Yes

Bicycle and motor cycle space

(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

10 boarding rooms provided:

4 motorcycle and 4 bicycle spaces required.

 

4 motorcycle spaces and 4 bicycle spaces provided however the proposed motorcycle spaces are of an insufficient dimension at 1m in width and 1.75m in length. This is not in accordance with the AS2890.1:2004 whereby motorcycle spaces require a minimum dimension of 1.2m in width and 2.5m in length.

No

 

30AA Boarding houses in Zone R2 Low Density Residential

42.      Clause 30AA states that:

 

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

      

43.      The proposed boarding house is located in an R2 Low Density Residential zone and consists of eighteen (18) boarding rooms and one (1) manager’s room.

 

44.      It is noted that the application was lodged on 16 May 2018. A savings provision applies to applications lodged prior to this amendment being 27 February 2019; as a result this application is not required to meet this standard.

 

Clause 30A – Character of local area

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

 

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

 

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

 

Relationship to the Existing and Future Character of the Local Area

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

 

49.      The ‘local area’ in this case is taken to include the immediate visual catchment which includes both sides of Newman Street, Ocean Lane (secondary frontage and rear). Within this local area, development is primarily characterised by three to four storey residential flat buildings to the north and west. A row of residential flat buildings front Ocean Lane (secondary frontage). The remaining surrounding area comprises of a mixture of single and double storey dwelling houses of varying architectural styles and designs.

 

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

 

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

 

51.      Comment: It is acknowledged this development typology is permissible in this zone and generally transitioning to larger two storey dwellings or dual occupancies.

 

52.      Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is generally compatible to low density built forms. The proposal in its current form is considered to result in a built form that is inconsistent with the recently constructed development which incorporates a detached lift within the rear setback.

 

53.      In addition, the setbacks of the side elevations require protection of the openings given they are within 3m of the boundary under the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (NCC). The applicant has provided documentation for an alternative solution in support of a minimum side setback of 900m.

 

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

 

54.      Comment: The proposal generally adopts a visual built form similar to that to a double storey dwelling house and is consistent with the setbacks, height and landscape areas for both a dwelling and dual occupancy development with the exception of the detached external lift within the rear setback.

 

55.      This is considered to result in a poor design whereby such amenity would commonly be integrated within the built form. It is noted that the relocation of the lift core would likely have implications regarding the building layout and car parking manoeuvrability which would warrant a significant redesign.

  

Comparison Table

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

 

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

 

Control

Single Dwelling

Dual Occupancy

Proposal

Height

 

 

Maximum ceiling height

9m

 

 

7.2m

9m

 

 

6.8m

7.2m

 

 

6.6m

Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 (0.55:1 for dwelling house only)

0.6:1

GF: 267sqm

FF: 270sqm

Total = 537sqm
0.91:1 – however this development type receives an FSR bonus under the ARHSEPP

Landscape (minimum 2m x 2m)

20%

20%

23.2% (137sqm)

Setbacks:

Front

Rear setback:

Ground

First

 

Side setback:

Ground

First

 

4.5m

 

3m

6m

 

 

900mm

1.2m

 

4.5m

 

7m

9m

 

 

900mm

1.2m

 

5.76m

 

7.17m

7.17m

 

 

1,117mm

1,117mm

Secondary frontage

2m

2m

2,047mm

 

58.      As demonstrated by the above table, the proposed development observes key controls comparable with that of a single dwelling house and a dual occupancy. The gross floor area is centrally located on site which aligns with anticipated setbacks for dwelling and dual occupancy built forms.

 

59.      Assessing ‘compatibility’ required both the existing and future character of the local area to be taken into account (Sales Search Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1052 and Revelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1029). It is acknowledged that there are sites within the Newman Street streetscape that are yet to reach their development potential. However, the proposed development has been designed in contrast to what may be an appropriate built form particularly at the rear of the site; the development is not considered to be consistent with character of the R2 zoned land. 

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

60.      The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 — Georges River Catchment. A revised concept stormwater plan was not provided with the amended design for Council’s consideration. Therefore the proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is considered to be inconsistent with Council's requirements for the disposal of stormwater within the catchment.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

61.      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.

 

62.      Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. 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.

 

63.      Council historical records indicate that the site has been used for residential purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site.

 

64.      Council records indicate that the subject site and immediate surrounding area has been used for residential purposes therefore is unlikely to be contaminated. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the SEPP.

 

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

65.      A revised BASIX Certificate has not been submitted for the revised proposal. In this regard, the proposal has not adequately satisfied the requirements of the SEPP. 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

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

 

The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

 

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

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

 

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

 

68.      The proposal is not supported by Council’s consulting arborist as no arborist report was submitted for consideration to address the trees located on the adjoining land which are considered to be impacted by this proposed development.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Environment SEPP

69.      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.

 

70.      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.

 

71.      The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument as no revised concept stormwater plan was submitted with the revised proposal.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

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

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

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

·        clearly list the remediation works that require development consent

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

 

73.      Council records indicate that the subject site and immediate surrounding area has been used for residential purposes therefore is unlikely to be contaminated. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP.

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

74.      The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1.2 – Aims of the Plan

In accordance with Clause 1.2 (2)

The development is consistent with the aims of the plan.

Yes

1.4 - Definitions

Boarding House:

 

means a building that:

(a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

(b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

(c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

(d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

 

 

The proposed development is consistent with this definition.

 

 

Yes

2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table

Meets objectives of R2- Low Density Residential Zone.

 

Development must be permissible with consent

The proposal fails to meets all objectives.

 

 

The proposal is permissible with development consent.

No, refer to discussion below.

 

Yes

 Zone Objectives

 

The relevant objectives relating to the proposal within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone as identified in HLEP 2012 are as listed below:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

i.    The development results in poor residential amenity for future residents.

ii.   The proposed development does not provide adequate on site amenity for residents in relation to car parking.

iii.  The proposal results in a poor design layout which provides a disconnect between the communal room located at the front of the site and the communal open space located at the rear.

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

7.2m

Yes

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

(site area

Site area:588.1sqm

0.91:1

Yes, under SEPP (ARH) 2009 a bonus FSR is provided for this development form which prevails over the HLEP 2012 regarding floor space.

5.10 – Heritage conservation

In accordance with Clause 5.10 (1)

The site is not a heritage item and not located within the vicinity of any heritage items. The Site is not in a heritage conservation area.

Yes

6.1 – Acid sulfate soils

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

Site has not been identified as located in an area containing Acid Sulfate Soils as per the LEP maps.

Yes

6.7 – Essential Services

The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required:

 

-    Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage

 

 

 

 

-    Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

 

 

 

-    Suitable vehicular access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water, electricity and sewerage services are currently provided to the site and can be extended to service the development if it was to be supported.

 

No revised concept stormwater plan submitted for consideration.

 

The proposal has provided inadequate car parking layout and design which does not comply with AS2890.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

Suitable vehicular access

 

This has not been adequately designed whereby;

·    aisle widths are non-compliant, 6.3m is required.

·    motorcycle spaces are not of insufficient dimension;

·    no traffic impact statement has been provided;

·    no information regarding a traffic management system to facilitate the single driveway access to Ocean Lane (rear) which is one-way traffic has been provided;

·    no blind aisle provided to assist in turning and manoeuvrability;

·    no turning bay provided to facilitate access;

·    Location of motor cycle spaces conflict with vehicular access and pedestrian access path.

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

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