AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 5 March 2020

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Sue Francis (Chairperson)

Milan Marecic (Expert Panel Member)

Jason Perica (Expert Panel Member)

Erin Sellers (Community Reperesentative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a) 16 Peake Parade Peakhurst

b) 977 Forest Road Lugarno

c) 655-659 Princes Highway Blakehurst

d) 19-23 Empress Street Hurstville

e) 546 Railway Parade Hurstville

 

 

 

 

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, 5 March 2020

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP007-20        977 Forest Road Lugarno - REV2020/0001

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP008-20        655-659 Princes Highway Blakehurst - DA2017/0408

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP009-20        546 Railway Parade Hurstville - DA2018/0584

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP010-20        16 Peake Parade Peakhurst - REV2020/0003

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP011-20        19-23 Empress Street Hurstville - DA2019/0329

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

 


 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 05 March 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP007-20

Development Application No

REV2020/0001

Site Address & Ward Locality

977 Forest Road Lugarno

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Review of Determination - Fit-out and use of the ground floor of an existing church building to be used as an early childhood education facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works

Owners

The Congregational Christian Church of Samoa Parish of Sydney Inc.

Applicant

The Congregational Christian Church of Samoa Parish of Sydney Inc.

Planner/Architect

Planner - Lee Environmental Planning; Draftsman - JMH Living Design

Date Of Lodgement

8/01/2020

Submissions

Eighteen (18) submissions received.

Cost of Works

$10,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination as DA2019/0042 was determined by way of refusal by the Panel on 7 November 2019 and more than 10 unique submissions were recveived objecting to the application.

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

Site Plan

Elevations

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused for the reasons referenced at the end of 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 will be available to view when the agenda is published.

 

Site Plan

Site plan with the allotment outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of a Section 8.2 Review application relating to an application for the fitout and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as an early childhood education centre for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works at 977 Forest Road, Lugarno.

 

2.         The information provided by the planning consultant states:

 

Rather than amend the development application, the application for review is based upon clarification and confirmation of information. The Development Application remains for a 34 place child care centre, to occupy lower ground floor space within an existing building where the upper ground floor is lawfully occupied and used by the Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney.”

 

Site and Locality

3.         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.

 

4.         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.

 

5.        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.

 

6.        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

7.         The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposal involves the fitout and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as “centre-based child care facility” for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works.

 

Figure 1 - zoning map with the allotment outlined in blue

 

Submissions

8.         The application was placed on neighbouring notification between 20 January 2020 and 17 February 2020. Eighteen (18) submissions were received objecting to the proposed development.

 

Referrals

9.         The Review application was referred to the following council officers:

 

·      Traffic Engineer - the proposal is not supported as it fails to comply with the relevant Australian Standards for access and parking, will have adverse impacts on pedestrian and children’s safety, and proposes works on council property for which consent has not been provided.

·      Building Surveyor – BCA issues could be addressed at Construction Certificate stage.

·      Environmental Health – the proposal is not supported as it fails to demonstrate how acoustic issues will be mitigated.

·      Consultant Arborist – the proposal could be supported subject to the provision of a Landscape Plan and conditions of consent should the application be approved.

 

10.      The Review application did not contain stormwater management plans and as such the Review application was not referred to the Development Engineer. Comments within this report with regard to stormwater were provided in the assessment of DA2019/0042 – refer to comments in the DCP section of this report.

 

Reasons for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

11.      The application is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) for consideration and determination as the original application (DA219/0042) was refused by the Panel at its meeting on 7 November 2019 and more than 10 unique submissions were received objecting to the application.

 

Conclusions

12.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 8.2 and Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, and in particular against the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017, the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (DCP). The proposal has not adequately addressed the reasons for refusal of the original Development Application and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Report in Full

Proposal

13.      Council is in receipt of a Section 8.2 Review application for the fitout and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as an “centre-based child care facility” for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works at 977 Forest Road, Lugarno.

 

14.      The following documentation was submitted with the review application:

 

·      Application form;

·      Covering letter from planning consultant;

·      Document from planning consultant addressing the reasons for refusal;

·      Architectural plans;

·      Solar access diagrams;

·      Arborist Report;

·      Acoustic report; and

·      Letter from Traffic Engineer Consultant.

 

15.      The information provided by the planning consultant states:

 

Rather than amend the development application, the application for review is based upon clarification and confirmation of information. The Development Application remains for a 34 place child care centre, to occupy lower ground floor space within an existing building where the upper ground floor is lawfully occupied and used by the Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney.”

 

16.      The Statement of Environmental Effects, dated November 2018, provided in support of the original application (DA2019/0042), 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 child care centre will operate between 7am until 6pm Monday to Friday, and will accommodate 34 children and 7 staff.

 

The proposed child care 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.”

 

17.      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; and

·      Five (5) spaces for children drop off/pickup, including one accessible space.

(these spaces are used by the Church when in operation, these spaces are not in addition to the spaces currently allocated to the Church)

 

18.      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 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).

 

19.      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.

 

20.      The application also proposes an adjustment to the existing road line-marking and traffic island arrangement. The existing arrangement is shown in Figure 2.

 

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

 

Figure 3: Modified road/access design (Source: Applicant DA2019/0042)

 

21.      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.

 

22.      The applicant has not lodged the required application for approval for these road network changes with Council (Section 138 application). Further discussion is provided in this report in the traffic referral section.

 

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

 

The Site and Locality

24.      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.

 

25.      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.

 

26.     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 6.71m). 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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     Photos of the site area provided in the figures below.

 

Figure 4: The site as viewed from Ponderosa Place

 

Figure 5: The front setback to Forest Road

 

Figure 6: The existing driveway providing vehicular access to the rear of the property

 

Figure 7:  Lower ground level (northern elevation) – area of proposed child care centre within the area bounded by the blue brickwork

 

Figure 8: Proposed area for outdoor play and rear car park to the left

 

Figure 9: Rear car park

 

Figure 10: Southern elevation of the existing ground level

 

Background

 

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 a 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

DA2019/0042 application seeking consent for fit out and use of the ground floor as a childcare centre lodged.

3 October 2019

Noise complaint relating to Church activities currently before the Court.

7 November 2019

DA2019/0042 was refused by the Georges River Local Planning Panel.

8 January 2020

REV2020/0001 lodged seeking a review of the determination of DA2019/0042.

20 January – 17 February 2020

Neighbour notification period – Two (2) submissions were received.

Plus an additional sixteen (16) following the formal notification period.

 

29.      DA2019/0042 sought consent for the fit-out and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as an early childhood education centre for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works on the subject site. The application was referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel as more than 10 unique submissions were received (48 in total) on the proposed development. The Panel refused the application at its meeting on 7 November 2019. The reasons for refusal were:

 

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.

 

30.      REV2020/0001 (the current application) was lodged on 8 January 2020. The application seeks consent for the fit-out and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as “centre-based child care facility” for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works on the subject site.

 

Division 8.2 Reviews

31.      Division 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the following provisions (section 8.3) to be considered in the assessment of an application to review a determination:

 

(1)  An applicant for development consent may request a consent authority to review a determination or decision made by the consent authority. The consent authority is to review the determination or decision if duly requested to do so under this Division.

(2)  A determination or decision cannot be reviewed under this Division:

(a)  after the period within which any appeal may be made to the Court has expired if no appeal was made, or

(b)  after the Court has disposed of an appeal against the determination or decision.

(3)  In requesting a review, the applicant may amend the proposed development the subject of the original application for development consent or for modification of development consent. The consent authority may review the matter having regard to the amended development, but only if it is satisfied that it is substantially the same development.

 

32.      The statutory considerations pursuant to Division 8.2 Reviews have been met. The application has been lodged within an appropriate timeframe and is considered to be substantially the same as the original application (DA2019/0042). 

 

Discussion on reasons for refusal and the Review application

33.      An assessment of how the review application has addressed the reasons for refusal is provided in the following table.

 

Reason for refusal

Review  - applicant’s comments

Council Officer Comment

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.

 

This claim is not supported by the acoustic assessment report that confirms that the proposed child care centre will perform to an acceptable level and will not give rise to unacceptable acoustic impacts upon any adjoining residential property. No evidence to the contrary has been made available to support this reason for refusal.

The amended acoustic report states compliance will be achieved only if all windows are closed and mechanical ventilation is provided or the windows are left open with additional acoustic treatment to the building.

 

The plans submitted with this application do not address either option.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

a)  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.

 

Clause 5.9 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 has been repealed for some time, so self-evidently it cannot be a reason for refusal of a Development Application lodged and assessed under the provisions of HLEP2012.

 

Clause 6.4 makes reference to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area map. It is acknowledged that the site falls within the broad scenic protection area, however the site is not a foreshore location by any definition. The trees in question are not proposed to be removed in any event so the claim of significant impact is disputed.

Clause 5.9 of the HLEP2012 has been repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The existing trees on the site (three in the front and two in the rear) are to be retained as indicated in the plans submitted with the Review application, however a Landscape Plan has not been submitted and there are inconsistencies in the arborist report (discussed in further detail later in this report).

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

 

The proposed vehicular access to the site has previously been considered and agreed by Council as being acceptable. This issue is discussed in detail in the submission prepared by Traffic Impact Services.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report.

1.  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.

 

This is demonstrably not the case. The perspective and architectural drawings prepared by JMH Living Design should assist in understanding the location and heights of the recommended acoustic screens for the outdoor play area, relative to the adjoining properties.

The application fails to demonstrate the proposal (including the proposed acoustic screening) will not have an adverse acoustic impact on neighbouring residential properties despite the proposed acoustic treatment to the existing building and as such the screens are not worthy of support if it cannot be concluded thy will adequately acoustically screen the outdoor play area.

 

A Landscape Plan has not been submitted with the Review application to enable a proper assessment of the proposal as a whole.

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

 

The child care centre occupies existing lower ground floor space within the building. There is no building extension, nor change to bulk, scale or character of the building.

 

The proposed child care centre is located within the existing building, however the required acoustic privacy screens around the outdoor play area and lack of landscaping detail provided in the Review application does not enable a proper assessment to be made of the proposal as a whole.

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

 

As noted above, there are no adverse built form impacts.

In relation to social environment, rather than having adverse impacts, the contrary is more likely. Child care centres are necessary within our urban environments, including residential environments. They are generally considered positive contributors to the life of a community.

A combination of uses upon one site, including church and education uses, is not by any means an unusual or harmful combination from a social perspective - quite the opposite in fact, which is probably why there are so many examples of this type of mixed use across all forms of residential environments. What is critical is proper management and coordination of uses to avoid the potential impacts that could arise if all uses attempted to operate simultaneously. Church activities do not occur during child care centres hours and child care centre activities do not occur during church times.

The application fails to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, and as such it is considered that the proposal is not 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.

 

The proposed development provides for 11 on site spaces, compared with the minimum requirement of 7. Put another way, the development provides 160% of the DCP requirement.

It does so by utilising both existing parking areas in the most efficient fashion. It allows for short stay drop off parking at the front of the site and long stay staff parking (one movement in/one movement out) to the rear. It provides safe pedestrian movements through a well defined path of travel directly into the front reception area of the centre. The revised drawings from JHM Living Design specifically highlights this.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report (in the DCP and Council’s Referrals sections).

This has not taken into consideration the co-located uses.

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

The proposed development complies with the legislated requirements. Refer to drawings.

Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of solar access and ventilation in accordance with the Guidelines and the BCA.

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

Refer to Arborist report.

 

The existing trees on the site are proposed to be retained; however there are inconsistencies in the arborist report (discussed in further throughout this report – DCP section and Council’s Referrals section).

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

The proposed development complies with the legislated requirements. Refer to drawings.

No assessment of compliance has been provided with the Review application of the proposal against the DCP or Guidelines.

 

The assessment contained in this report indicates the proposal fails to meet a number of controls contained in the SEPP Guidelines and the DCP.

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;

 

The dominant streetscape element is the existing building that is not undergoing any external alterations and therefore remains unchanged when viewed from the street. In relation to the existing trees that are a feature of the front of the site, refer to the Arborist report.

No landscaping detail has been provided in the Review application, and therefore a proper assessment of the impacts of the proposed carpark on the streetscape cannot be made.

 

b) Provision of natural light and ventilation;

 

The work associated with the existing building to create the child care centre will be compliant with the relevant Australian Standard in terms of natural light and ventilation

Inadequate information has been provided to conclude compliance can be achieved (no BCA report provided with the application, and the existing internal layout does not appear to be compliant).

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

See comments above. The potential impact upon streetscape is related directly to existing trees.

No landscaping detail has been provided in the Review application, and therefore a proper assessment of the impacts of the proposed carpark on the streetscape cannot be made.

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

 

Council does not have any jurisdiction on specific programming and practice of any child care centre through the Development Application process. Similar with all other registered child care centres, adherence to the Education and Care Services National Regulations will be required.

No information has been provided with the application detailing whether the centre complies with the Regulations in this regard. Inadequate information has been provided for council to assess whether the childcare centre is an additional use on the site or an ancillary service to the church i.e. religious instruction rather than early education facility.

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

 

The proposed development seeks to occupy an existing building. The outdoor play area will occupy an existing concrete pad to the rear of the building. There is no diminution of landscape area from the site.

No landscaping detail has been provided in the Review application which does not enable a proper assessment to be made of the proposal as a whole.

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

 

Refer to submitted architectural plans prepared by JMH Living Design

The solar access plans submitted with this application do not adequately demonstrate that 30% of the outdoor play area receives solar access year round.

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

Refer to submitted architectural plans prepared by JMH Living Design

Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of solar access and ventilation.

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

 

Refer to submitted architectural plans prepared by JMH Living Design. There is a safe and dedicated pedestrian access way into the building.

The entry to the child care centre is located at the front of the existing building and is identifiable from the street.

 

 

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.

 

This is not a true reflection of either the existing circumstance or of the future outcomes. The front area of the site is not a landscaped area - it is a car park area already heavily utilised by the Church at those times when Church activities are being held. It does accommodate Trees 1, 2 and 3 as per the Arborist report, but the trees are not being removed.

The front setback is not currently approved for car parking.

 

No landscaping detail has been provided in the Review application which does not enable a proper assessment to be made of the proposal as a whole.

In addition, the updated arborist report submitted with the application contains conflicting data and outdated plans and site information. Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

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

 

Refer to the submitted Acoustic report. The child care centre use will not give rise to any noise impacts. This should be acknowledged on the basis of the factual report prepared by Acoustic Works and submitted in support of this application.

The measurable acoustic performance that is achievable by this proposed development must be then separated from any previous or ongoing concerns that Council may have in relation to the acoustic performance of the operation of the Church, which occurs under a different consent, within a different component of the building and at different times to what is proposed for the child care centre.

In relation to traffic and parking, refer to the submitted Traffic and Parking response from Traffic Impact Services. More than the required number of onsite car parking spaces to service the child care centre are provided. The Church activities do not overlap and therefore an appropriate number of on site spaces are available for the proposed use.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events. An analysis of the child care centre cannot be separated from the existing uses on the site for which legal action is pending in relation to noise impacts.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report. Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

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.

 

Refer to Arborist report. The area in question at the front of the site is already utilised as a car parking area being fully occupied at all times when the Church activities are happening on weekends. This area has been a car parking area for all of the time that church activities have been undertaken on the site. The trees in question remain in good health notwithstanding this. This is an issue resolvable through the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent.

The front setback is not approved for car parking.

 

The arborist report contains outdated information and fails to assess the health of the trees in their current state.

 

No landscaping detail has been provided in the Review application which does not enable a proper assessment to be made of the proposal as a whole.

 

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

 

Refer to Architectural Drawings prepared by JMH Living Design. The proposal will be compliant with AS1428.1-2009. This is also a matter that can be the subject of an appropriate condition of development consent, with compliance confirmed in Construction Certificate documentation.

Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of solar access and ventilation.

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.

 

The information submitted with the review application is accurate and consistent.

Throughout the assessment process of DA2019 /0042, the question of permissibility was never raised with the applicant and the justification for why this has been included as a reason for refusal remains unclear.

The land use zone of the site is R2 Low Density Residential. A centre-based child care facility is defined as under both the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care  Facilities) 2017 and Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, as being:

A building or place used for the education and care of children that provides anyone or more of the following:

1. Long day care,

2. Occasional child care,

3. Out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

4. Preschool care.

Under the State policy, the R2 Low Density Residential zone is a prescribed zone and therefore the proposal is permissible development. Childcare Centres are also permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone of HLEP2012.

There has never been any doubt that the proposed development constitutes a centre based child care facility. This reason for refusal should be set aside.

The plans and documentation, or lack thereof, remain inconsistent which does not enable a proper assessment of the proposal as a whole.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

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

No

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

 

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

35.      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.

 

36.      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.

 

37.      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.

 

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

 

39.      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.

 

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

 

41.      Clauses 25 and 26 of the SEPP are addressed in the table below.

 

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 centre-based 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. The applicant states in their application that the Church is working on a POM; however it has not been submitted with this application.

 

Demand is accepted.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

See table below.

 

 

See table below.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

 

 

See below

 

 

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

This clause has been considered as part of this assessment.

Noted

 

42.      Clause 23 of the SEPP requires the consent authority to consider the applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline. An assessment of the proposal against the Guidelines is provided in the table below.

 

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 the site, the car parking at front will impact the streetscape appearance and noise concerns to neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

 

 

Noted. 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

 

Noted.

 

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 are 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 allotments.

No

Comments on acoustic privacy

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

 

Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

§ the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context

 

The proposal will be accommodated within 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 meets 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.

No

 

Comments on parking

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. In summary the proposal fails to comply with access and parking standards, and proposes works on council land for which approval has not been sought.

 

Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

 

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 -

Insufficient information has been provided to make a proper assessment.

 

 

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

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

Yes

 

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

A site contamination report has not been submitted to confirm the site is suitable for the use.

No

 

§ 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 eleven (11) 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 front of the site 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

 

Comments on parking and access

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. In summary the proposal fails to comply with access and parking standards, and proposes works on council land for which approval has not been sought.

 

Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

 

§ 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 (Chivers Hill), 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 and Lime Kiln Road.

Yes

 

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

Bus stops are located along Forest and Old Forest Roads.

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.

No - The car parking will however result in the loss of landscaped area at the street front and will detract from the streetscape.

 

§ 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 not incompatible 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 as it cannot be seen from the streetscape.

Yes

 

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

The proposal relies on the existing building form with the exception of the works required to address the acoustic treatment.

No - 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.

 

§ 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 - The car parking in the front setback will replace landscaping and inadequate information has been provided on how additional landscaping will mitigate the adverse impacts of the increased hard surface area.

 

§ 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. 

No - The car parking in the front setback will replace landscaping and inadequate information has been provided on how additional landscaping will mitigate the adverse impacts of the increased hard surface area.

 

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

 

§ 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 level which is below the Church Hall and will not have a visual presence from the street to provide for passive surveillance.

No - There is no surveillance available from inside the centre to the public domain.

 

§ integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.

Landscaping is being replaced with car parking and a Landscape Plan was not submitted with the Review.

No - A landscape plan was not submitted with the Review application.

 

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 application seeks to provide another pathway from the proposed front carpark adjacent to the ramp leading up into the Church at the front of the site. This new access pathway will be adjacent to the driveway access. A new office space is to be created internally for the parents/carers to sign the children in. However the entry into the internal and external play areas associated with the child care centre requires a parent/carer to leave the Church building and then enter the childcare centre at the rear of the site. There are significant changes in levels internally which has not been appropriately detailed. Or a person needs to walk down the driveway to access ramp providing access to the child care centre.

The accessibility to the centre is poorly resolved.

No - The entry to the centre is not easily identifiable, it is convoluted and dangerous.

 

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 car park.

Noise issues are proposed to be addressed by the use of hooded screens over the play area. 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

Comments on acoustic privacy

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

 

Further discussion is provided in the council referrals section of this report.

 

§ optimise solar access to internal and external play areas

 

The CCC is located within the lower level of the building beneath 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. Solar access will be hindered by the construction of the acoustic treatment. The Applicant has not submitted any solar access analysis. 

Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of solar access and ventilation.

 

§ 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, this has already been completed.

Yes

 

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

The proposal involves no external building works on the front façade of the Church.

Yes

 

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

The proposal is located 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 that can be seen from the street, however acoustic screens are proposed over the outdoor play area which have not been demonstrated to mitigate acoustic impacts and will have an adverse visual impact from adjoining properties to the side of the subject site.

No

 

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

The overall building height is unaltered. The works where the CCC is proposed is existing.

Yes

 

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

The building position remains unaltered.

Yes

 

§ setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance

The building position is unaltered.

Yes

 

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

The building position is unaltered.

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 unaltered.

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 unaltered.

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 front setback is proposed to provide parking and vehicular access for the childcare centre. No landscape plan has been submitted with the Review application to demonstrate how the increase in hard surface will be mitigated by landscaping.

No

 

§ contributes to the identity of the place

The building position is unaltered.

Yes

 

§ retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant

The proposal seeks to retain trees on the site and within the front setback but pave the front setback for access and parking.

No

 

§ 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 the site and within the front setback but pave the front setback for access and parking.

No

 

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.

 

The rear car park access is via a ramp along the northern facade.

 

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 in this area as well as conflict with the driveway to the rear of the site as discussed in report.

No - The entry to the centre is not easily identifiable from the street.

 

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 front setback is proposed to provide parking and vehicular and pedestrian access for the childcare centre. A landscape plan has not been submitted with the Review application to demonstrate how the increase in hard surface will be mitigated by landscaping.

No

 

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.

It has not been demonstrate the car parking is integrated with the landscape design as a landscape plan has not been submitted with the Review application.

No

 

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 centre is proposed to occupy the existing lower ground level of the church building and will not overlook neighbours.

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 as a result of the recommendations of the acoustic report.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

 

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

 

 

 

§ 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 Environmental Health who raised concern that the internal areas will need to be air-conditioned rather than naturally ventilated.

No.

 

 

Comments on acoustic privacy

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a Church and associated events.

Further discussion is provided in the Council referrals section of this report.

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.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

 

 

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:

• on industrial zoned land

• where the ANEF contour is between 20 and 25, consistent with AS 2021 – 2000

• along a railway or mass transit corridor, as defined by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

• on a major or busy road

• other land that is impacted by substantial external noise.

An amended acoustic report was submitted with the Review application.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the amended acoustic report and does not support the assessment or recommendations contained within the report as it does not consider the existing use of the site for a church and associated events.

 

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 – 6.00pm Monday to Friday. Closed on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.

 

 

Yes

3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation

 

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

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

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report.

 

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

An addendum letter to the Traffic and Parking study has been submitted with the DA.

 

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report.

 

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

 

The ramp design does not cater for two prams to pass each other. In addition, visitors to the centre are required to enter the lobby then exit the building and re-enter from the ramp to access the indoor play area.

No

 

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

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report.

No

 

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

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal. Details are provided later in this report.

No

 

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 lower floor entry. Requiring safety fence and markings will result in the driveway not being wide enough to meet relevant standards.

No

 

 

43.      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. 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;

·     not easily identifiable from the street;

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

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

 

44.      With design modifications these issues may be resolvable, or improved, however, the general landscaping, car parking, accessibility, tree retention, streetscape, ventilation 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.

 

45.      On the basis of this assessment, it is concluded that the current application design/form does 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

46.      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.

 

47.      Georges River Catchment generally aims to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries. The existing development drains to the front of the site being Ponderosa Place.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

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

 

49.      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). 

 

50.      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.

 

51.      The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s consulting arborist who supports the retention of existing trees subject to the paving of the car park be a specific porous style of paving. However a Landscape Plan has not been submitted with the Review application to enable a proper assessment of the proposal as a whole.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of land

52.      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.

 

53.      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.

 

54.      A contamination report was not submitted with the Review application. The provisions of SEPP 55 have not been met.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

55.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State.

 

56.      The application was referred to Ausgrid on 11 January 2020 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. A response was received on 16 January 2020. No objection was raised by Ausgrid to the proposal.

 

57.      The provisions and requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP have been addressed and satisfied by the proposal.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Environment SEPP

58.      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;

 

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

 

Draft Remediation SEPP

60.      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.

 

61.      A contamination report was not submitted with the Review application. The provisions of SEPP 55 have not been met.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

62.      The provisions of this local environmental plan are relevant to the proposal. 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

Assessment Under HLEP 2012

Part 2 –

Permitted/ Prohibited Development

R2 Low Density Residential

The Application is for a centre based childcare 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 (refer to discussion following this table).

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.

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 front setback and is replaced with paving for car parking.

 

 

 

 

There are no views afforded to properties in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

The proposed car park at the front of the site, and the lack of landscaping detail provided in the Review application, does not result in the “dominance of landscape over built form” being achieved.

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. This is presently not supported by Council’s Traffic Engineers.

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

63.      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 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.

 

64.      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.

 

65.      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”.

 

66.      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 being permissible.  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

67.      The objective of the R2 zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

68.      The proposed use fails to satisfy the following objective of the zone:

 

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

 

69.      A CCC is a service that provides for the day to day needs of residents and the wider community. However, the plans and reports 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.

 

70.      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

·      landscaping details of the front setback.

 

71.      The proposed use also fails to satisfy the following objective of the zone:

 

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

 

72.      The use of the existing building for church activities 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.

 

73.      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.”

 

74.      The Applicant’s current acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works, dated 19 December 2019, recommends the following:

 

“8.2 Indoor play area

 

Based on the predicted noise levels and subjective assessment of the site and surrounds, noise impacts from the indoor play area at the residential receiver locations are predicted to comply on the condition that either closed windows plus alternative ventilation (Section 8.2.1) or open windows with additional acoustic treatment (Section 8.2.2) are implemented.

 

8.2.1 Option 1 – Alternative ventilation

 

All windows and doors located in the indoor play area must remain closed when being utilised by children or staff. It is recommended that the indoor play area have the provision for an alternative ventilation system (in accordance with National Construction Code 2016 requirements and AS1668.2) similar to air-conditioning or mechanical ventilation to allow doors and windows to be closed.

 

8.2.2 Option 2 – Acoustic treatment

 

To allow windows to remain open at all times, the following treatment options would be required:

 

•   The total area of open windows in the indoor play area must not exceed 10% of the total wall area.

•   Install 185sqm of acoustic treatment to the indoor play area ceiling using 12mm square hole Echostop back with 70mm thick 14k/m3 insulation within the ceiling cavity to achieve an NRC 0.8.

•   Acoustic barriers shall be constructed with the height and extent of the recommended acoustic barriers presented in Figure 4. 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/sqm and shall be free of gaps and holes.”

 

75.      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. The applicant has stated that a Plan of Management is being ‘worked on’ by the Church.

 

76.      Although reliance on air-conditioning is not a preferred outcome, (no details of where the condensers would be placed has been provided), 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.

 

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

 

78.      Additionally, the proposed development involves increased paved areas within the front setback thus reducing the potential landscaped area further. No landscape plan has been submitted with the Review application to enable a proper assessment of the proposal as a whole.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013

79.      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 accessible 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

80.      As demonstrated in the table above, the child care centre development proposes a compliant number of 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, operating concurrently the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Intensification of car parking demand

81.      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.

 

82.      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.

 

83.      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.

 

84.      The “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” dated November 2018, and the addendum letter dated 12 December 2019 submitted with the Review application, both 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” and “In the unlikely event that a church activity was to occur on a weekday, this would be restricted to the hours of 9.30am–3.30pm or 7pm – 9pm which would be outside the child care centre drop off and pick up times.”

 

85.      However timetable information provided by the Church in previous applications 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.

 

86.      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.

 

87.      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.

 

88.      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, ie no plan of management, have been provided in support of the application to demonstrate how this issue can be avoided through general agreement arrangements.

 

Summary

89.      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:

 

·      Landscaping to mitigate the paving of the front setback for the proposed car park;

·      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

90.      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.”

 

91.      The Development Application (DA2019/0042) was 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”.

 

92.      No Access Report was submitted with the Review application.

 

93.      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 child care 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 front/side 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.

 

As the adequacy of surveillance is only achieved where the church is functioning concurrently which would raise parking demand issues.

No

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

A landscape plan has not been submitted with the Review application.

No

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

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

 

Solar Access

95.      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 child care centre as this portion of the centre is underground.

 

96.      The solar access analysis submitted with the Review application does not illustrate that reasonable solar access can be provided to either the internal of the centre or the outdoor play areas.

 

Windows and cross ventilation

97.      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 area below the Church Hall 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

98.      A hydraulic plan was not submitted with the Review application.

 

99.      The hydraulic plan provided with DA2019/0042 relates to a previous design of the proposal (plans), 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 car park. 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

100.    A waste management plan was not submitted with the Review application.

 

101.    A waste management plan was provided in DA2019/0042.  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 needs to 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

102.    The architectural plans and arborist report submitted with the Review application state the trees on the site are to be retained, however as discussed in this report, a landscape plan has not been submitted and there continue to be inconsistencies within the arborist report that claims to have been updated, still contains information obtained at the site over 8 years ago. The lack of, and inconsistency between information in relation to trees and landscaping does not enable a proper assessment of the proposal as a whole, and forms part of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

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

103.    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 not 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 and current use of the site is 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. It has been assessed by Council’s Traffic Engineers as being unacceptable.

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 child care 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 areas are proposed.

The entry lobby is adjacent to the rear yards of the northern neighbours at the front of the site for sign in and to the side when entering the playroom. 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

 

 

 

 

 

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 (no change to the existing building height or setbacks).

Yes

DS6.16

Streetscape Assessment

Streetscape and the design principles used to improve the existing streetscape

The front setback is proposed to be provided as car parking and no landscape plan has been submitted to mitigate the increase in hard surface.

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, however the car park design and driveway along the northern boundary do not comply with the relevant Australian Standards (refer to Traffic Engineer comments).

No

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. The access arrangements are being requested to be altered and are not supported by Council’s Traffic Engineers.

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.

It has been assessed as unsuitable.

No

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, however it will affect the width of the driveway which would result in a non-compliance with the relevant standards.

No

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 who does not support the proposed car park design, access arrangements and changes to the road network.

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 who does not support the proposed car park design, access arrangements or changes to the road network.

No

DS7.15-DS7.16

Access for Persons with Limited Mobility

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

A landscape plan was not submitted with the Review application; however the architectural plans indicate the three trees in the front setback are to be retained.

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; it fails to demonstrate the current plans are capable of compliance as the report is based on a previous revision of plans.

No

Disabled access ramp is to be provided to the playground areas

An accessible access ramp is provided between the playground area and the entry lobby. Also along the northern side of the child care centre.

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

A landscape plan was not submitted with the Review application; however the architectural plans indicate the three trees in the front setback are to be retained.

Yes

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

A landscape plan was not submitted with the Review application; however the architectural plans indicate the three trees in the front setback are to be retained.

Yes

DS8.8.7

Drainage

Play areas must be capable of rapid clearance of surface water

A hydraulic plan was not submitted to enable assessment.

 

No

DS11.1-11.3

 Hours of Operation

Max. 7.00am – 6.30pm

Monday – Friday: 7.00am – 6.00pm.

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

A hydraulic plan was not submitted with the Review application.

The proposal does not provide sufficient information to facilitate assessment.

Proposed Stormwater System

As existing. However the car park and the outdoor play area has not been assessed or considered.

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.

However no consideration has been given to the hard surfaces that result from this application.

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

 

Developer Contributions

104.    The proposed development, if approved, would not require the payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal has a value less than $100,000.

 

105.    Note: The applicant has indicated the cost of development as $10,000, which is questionable given the extent of the works proposed and the fit-out work necessary to operate a compliant child care centre.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

106.    The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposal will not result in adverse impacts to the natural environment with respect to the existing trees on the site. A landscape plan was not submitted with the Review application, inadequate information is provided with respect to the likelihood of survival of the site trees given the proposed porous paving in the car parks. The arborist report submitted with the Review application, dated December 2019, contains references to site information from over 8 years ago, references incorrect plans and cannot be relied upon for a proper assessment of the proposal currently before the Panel.

 

Built Environment

107.    The documentation submitted with the application fails to demonstrate the proposal will not have adverse impacts on the built environment with respect to acoustic and traffic impacts.

 

Social Impact

108.    The documentation submitted with the application fails to demonstrate the proposal will not have adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Economic Impact

109.    There is no apparent adverse economic impact that is likely to result within the locality in relation to the proposed child care centre.

 

Suitability of the site

110.    The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone. However the Review application fails to demonstrate how the child care centre can be accommodated on site without adversely impacting the acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties, provide adequate and compliant vehicular access and parking, and provide landscaping to mitigate the increase in hard surface area within the front setback.

 

SUBMISSIONS

111.    The application was notified between 20 January 2020 and 17 February 2020 in accordance with the provisions within the Hurstville DCP No. 1. In response, eighteen (18) submissions were received. All submissions have been read and considered as part of the assessment of the application and a summary of the issues raised, relevant to the Review application, in the submissions include:

 

Traffic and Parking

112.    Concerns regarding safety, congestion, conflict between church and child care uses.

 

113.    Comment: Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has reviewed the plans and documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal as it fails to comply with relevant Australian Standards for access and car parking. In addition, the application fails to adequately address the community and council concerns regarding the multiple existing and proposed uses on the site and competition for car parking.

 

Acoustic Impacts

114.    Concerns regarding the accuracy of the acoustic report and effectiveness of the acoustic screens proposed.

 

115.    Comment: Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the plans and documentation submitted with the Review application and does not support the proposal as it fails to adequately demonstrate how the proposal can meet the required acoustic limitations for the proposed use and sufficiently mitigate the impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and the future occupants of the childcare centre.

 

Solar access

116.    The internal area will not receive sufficient solar access.

 

117.    Comment: The application fails to demonstrate the internal and external play areas of the childcare centre will receive the required amount of solar access.

 

Ventilation

118.    The internal areas cannot be naturally ventilated.

 

119.    Comment: The application fails to demonstrate the internal areas of the child care centre can be adequately ventilated.

 

Use of the site for many purposes

120.    Concern is raised that despite the applicant claiming no church uses will occur while the childcare is open, many other services are provided on site seven (7) days per week.

 

121.    Comment: The application fails to adequately address the community and Council concerns regarding the multiple existing and proposed uses on the site.

 

REFERRALS

Council’s Referrals

 

Building Surveyor

122.    Council’s Building Surveyor has carried out an assessment of the proposal. A BCA report has not been provided with this application for the purposes of a thorough assessment; however compliance with the BCA could be achieved subject to upgrade works and appropriate documentation provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

Traffic Engineer

123.    Council’s Traffic Engineer has carried out an assessment of the proposal and provided the following comments:

 

Works on Council’s assets without approval

The Traffic Section cannot accept the one way configuration that is proposed at the front of the site along Ponderosa Place as the applicant has not completed the required authorisation from Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Section.

 

A Section 138 application for the proposed treatment on Ponderosa Place has not been submitted to Council’s Assets and Infrastructure department. The traffic section will simply not consider this treatment until detailed survey and designs of this channelization conforming to Australian standards and RMS technical directions is submitted to Council’s design section (located within the Asset and Infrastructure Department) for review and approval. 

 

The applicant had five years to submit his plans and work with Council in investigating if the channelization will be feasible and to explore if it will conform to the required Australian Standards and RMS technical direction. The Traffic Advisory’s agreement was for the channelization to be considered, it is not the final approval. Accordingly until the applicant submits the section 138 for the channelization treatment in Ponderosa Place and receives approval from Council’s Design section, the traffic section will refuse to allow the drive in drive out configuration at the front of the site and will demand that it be removed from the architectural plans as this constitutes to illegal work on Council’s assets.

 

Furthermore the applicant needs to be made aware that all works associated with the channelization if approved will be a condition of consent that the applicant pay for all the works, including final designs and construction/line marking to Council’s specification.

 

Australian Standards

The aisle width of the car parking spaces at the front of the site are not sufficient, it needs to be a minimum of 5.8m or 6.1m if the other side is confined by a high vertical obstruction to the nominal edge of the aisle ( such as the trees that are located at the front of the site). Current drawings did not clarify the proposal.

 

AS2890.1:2004,3.2.2 requires that on long driveways, passing opportunities should be provided at least every 30m. The proposed driveway leading to the rear parking spaces is more than 50m long without any passing opportunities. This could result in cars reversing along the driveway.  Reversing manoeuvres are not favoured in particular in developments where young children are involved such as in child care centres.

 

Safety

The rear parking spaces are directly outside the outdoor Play Space. A crash barrier such as crash Omni-STOP ENERGY Absorbing Bollards would be required to be installed at a spacing no more than 1.2m apart (measured centre to centre) to protect the outdoor play area from accidental crashes of vehicles from the parking lot.

 

Space 6 at the rear of the site can cause cars to reverse into the proposed pedestrian pathway.  Once more this is not a favourable outcome as reversing around children is not encouraged.

 

Consultant Arborist

124.    Council’s Arborist has carried out an assessment of the proposal and has identified inconsistencies within the Arborist Report, dated 1 October 2015 (updated December 2019) as follows:

 

·      The dates have changed on the front page, the photos used within the latest plan are referenced as being on the 9/10/2012, some eight years ago and of interest is the tree assessment “tree health and condition assessment schedule, page 20” has exactly the same heights, spreads, DBH and comments as the first arborist report some eight years ago. It appears and I assume that the arborist has only changed the arborist report details and hasn’t attended the site of late.

 

·      The arborist report still references the plans from 2012.

 

·      Apart from the inconsistencies and out of date Arborist report, my recommendations are:

 

-      The three trees at the front of the site need to be retained protected and growing conditions improved.

-      The proposal shall retain the location of the existing driveway entrance close to the southern boundary.

-      The utilisation of a permeable turfpave or similar product NOT paving that eventually clogs up and restricts air and moisture movement through to the roots and subsequent decline in mature trees.

-      The reconfiguration of driveway and parking spaces between the building and trees, so as to maximise free open garden bed under and around the three trees to be retained and allowing a workable traffic solution.

-      If amended material is forwarded, that updated landscape plans and arborist reports are synchronising and changes have been made to place a higher priority on the retention of trees that contribute to the locale generally.

 

Environmental Health Officer

125.    Council’s Environmental Health Officer has carried out an assessment of the and provided the following comments:

 

Background:

The proposal is attached to a building which consists of church and church hall.

In addition to church services, the Church hall is used for the following:

-     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.

 

The above activities can be on any weekday or weekend. The use of the hall which is on the first floor above the proposed child care centre has been known to cause a noise nuisance to adjoining residents.

 

Due to the ongoing noise nuisance Council is involved in legal action against the church.

 

Assessment:

 

Food handling assessment:

Minimum details showing on the plan this can be conditioned at the Construction Certificate stage.

 

Ownership confirmation:

The name of Council records and previous application differ slightly from the name on the review application.

 

On the application is Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney.

 

On Council record system – The Congregational Christian Church of Samoa Parish of Sydney Incorporated.

 

Previous application and ABN searches show: Congregational Christian Church in Samoa.

 

Evidence of ownership is required to ensure documents are issued to the correct identity.

 

Noise Assessment Report:

Acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works dated 19 December 2019 received with the application addresses the use of the ground floor as a child care centre and did not mention the use of the rest of the building as church and church hall.

 

The introduction of the child care centre will increase the percentage of hours each day that residents are subjected to the use from this property, whether it is minor in nature or not. Given this, it is not comprehensible to assess the child care centre without consideration to the use of the building wholly.

 

Currently there are legal actions taken against the church for noise nuisance from the use of the church building including the church hall on the first floor at the top of the proposed childcare. This matter has been going on for a number of years now and a resolution has yet to be achieved. The most affected adjoining resident is No. 3 Tara Place Lugarno, identified as receiver no. 5 in the acoustic report.

 

Applicant needs to provide evidence and commitments that the use of the building as whole will not have a negative impact of adjoining residential properties.

 

The supporting statement attached to the application acknowledge that there is current noise nuisance issues “To be clear, the Church has confirmed that there is not and will not be, any organized Church activities between 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. To this effect, an appropriate condition of consent can be imposed upon a consent if a consent is to be granted. This is possible event to extent that any previous consents relevant to the Church use are overridden or require some for modification to ensure no inherent conflicts between development approvals.

 

It also refers to Management Plan previously submitted to Council. This management plan was a template given to Mr Malifa (the applicant) to use as reference and was partly completed and send back to Council. The management plan wasn’t satisfactory and also did not prove it was working as noise complaints are still received from adjoining residents.

 

Matter for discussion:

Considering all the above and operating approval (06/DA-372) for the church building has the following condition:

 

Condition 75 of the DA 06/DA-372 - consent stated,

“75. ZC14 - Amplified music/public address systems must not be audible outside the premises, unless approved by Hurstville City Council. “

 

I recommend considering the proposal and the supporting documents received with the current consent and request a modification to current consent when realistic measurable conditions can be used to solve this ongoing matter as whole.”

 

The Public Interest

126.    The application fails to demonstrate how the proposed centre based child care centre will not have adverse impacts on the natural and built environment and therefore is not in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

127.    The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 8.2 Review and Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and relevant statutory provisions. The proposal is found to be unsuitable for the site. The application fails to demonstrate compliance with vehicular access and car parking standards, natural ventilation, solar access, landscaping controls, acoustic impacts and will have adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring residential properties.

 

128.    The proposal fails to satisfy the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017.

 

129.    The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of both Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1. The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of the zone and a number of objectives and controls in the DCP.

 

130.    Inadequate information has been submitted with the Review application to enable a proper assessment of the proposal.

 

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

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

132.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·      The proposal fails to satisfy the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017.

·      The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of both Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1. The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of the zone and a number of objectives and controls in the DCP.

·      Inadequate information has been submitted with the Review application to enable a proper assessment of the proposal.

·      The proposal is unsuitable for the site and would establish an undesirable precedent in the area. Its approval is not in the public interest.

 

Determination

133.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse development consent to Review Application REV2020/0001 for the fitout and use of the ground floor of an existing church building for use as an early childhood education centre for 34 children, landscaping and car parking works at Lot 2 in DP 405732 known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno, for the following reasons:

 

1.      Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is inconsistent with 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 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.

 

2.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land as a preliminary site contamination report was not submitted with the application.

 

3.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in terms of the following:

 

a)    The proposal does not ensure a high level of residential amenity is achieved and can be maintained, and

b)    Visual amenity of the site is not enhanced through landscaping in keeping with the landscaped residential setting of the site.

 

4.         Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 with respect to:

 

a)    Section 3.1 Car Parking – insufficient car parking, vehicular access and pedestrian safety are 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 5.3 Child Care Centres – the proposal does not comply with various specific requirements for child care centres.

 

5.         Adequacy of Information - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with relevant standards and controls in relation to:

 

a)    Acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties;

b)    Safe and adequate vehicular access and car parking;

c)    Solar access and natural ventilation; and

d)    Permissibility of the use on the site with regard to the existing approved uses.

 

6.         Impacts on the Environment - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the following aspects of the environment:

 

a)      Natural environment:

i. The proposal fails to provide adequate and consistent information in relation to the retention of the existing trees on the site and provision of additional landscaping on the site to maintain the landscaped residential setting of the site.

 

b)               Built environment:

i. The proposal fails to adequately demonstrate the building is suitable for the use of child care centre.

 

7.         Suitability of Site - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

a)      The 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 an inadequate setback and screen landscaping is proposed adjacent to the acoustic fence.

 

8.         Public interest - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest and is likely to set an undesirable precedent within the locality.

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan - 977 Forest Rd Lugarno

Attachment 2

Elevations - 977 Forest Rd Lugarno

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 5 March 2020

LPP007-20              977 Forest Road Lugarno

[Appendix 1]          Site Plan - 977 Forest Rd Lugarno

 

 

Page 77

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 5 March 2020

LPP007-20              977 Forest Road Lugarno

[Appendix 2]          Elevations - 977 Forest Rd Lugarno

 

 

Page 78

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 5 March 2020

Page 79

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 05 March 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP008-20

Development Application No

DA2017/0408

Site Address & Ward Locality

655-659 Princes Highway Blakehurst

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of all structures, site consolidation and the construction of shop top housing development including three (3) retail tenancies and a residential flat building containing a total of 50 apartments with basement car parking for 118 vehicles, roof top communal open space and associated site works

Owners

Cro Developments

Applicant

Cro Developments

Planner/Architect

Planning Ingenuity and Peter Dunn Architects

Date Of Lodgement

14/09/2017

Submissions

Nine (9) submissions to the original proposal with a submission containing 39 signatures and a further three (3) submissions to the latest amended plans.

Cost of Works

$20,510,837

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The development falls within the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy, Design of Residential Flat Development. The application has also received more that ten (10) unique submissions.

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 No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index: 2004), State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy –Remediation of Land

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012

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

Statement of Environmental Effects – Planning Ingenuity Amended Architectural Plans – Peter Dunn and AssociatesUpdated, Traffic Impact Assessment – Terraffic P/L

Landscape Plan – Stuart Noble Associates

Ecological Assessment – Cumberland Ecology

Updated Clause 4.6 Statement – Planning Ingenuity

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Yes

The proposal exceeds the height (Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings)

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

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

 

Site Plan

The subject site outlined red

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.      Council is in receipt of a development application (DA2017/0408) which originally sought planning permission for site consolidation and the construction of a part eight (8), part seven (7) storey mixed use development containing fifty five (55) apartments, three (3) retail tenancies and basement car parking for one hundred and twenty one (121) vehicles with access off a new service lane, a rooftop area of communal open space and associated landscaping and site works at the subject site being 655-659 Princes Highway, Blakehurst. A photomontage of the original scheme is shown in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: Photomontage of the proposed development as originally proposed (courtesy Peter Dunn Architects)

 

2.      The proposal has been amended on two occasions. On 6 June 2019 the Applicant amended the design by reducing the number of units from fifty five (55) to fifty three (53) with a total reduction in the overall floor space from 6,663sqm to 6,354sqm to now be compliant with the maximum FSR of 2.5:1. The design included changes to accommodate the RMS required road widening acquisition along the Princes Highway. The amendments included an additional area of rooftop as communal open space, and removed the two (2) points of access at the rear, making the rear a service lane as the only point of access. The photomontage of this amended scheme is provided at Figure 2.

 

Figure 2: Photomontage of the amended development (first set of amended plans May 2019) (courtesy Peter Dunn Architects)

 

3.      The first set of amended plans were reviewed by Council Officers and there were still concerns relating to the architectural treatment and merit of the building and the amount and degree of exceedance with the height limit. On 26 September 2019 Council wrote to the Applicant outlining the main planning and environmental issues which included the following;

-      The architectural design of the building along Princes Highway required further refinement and improvement. The enclosure of balconies acting as winter gardens was considered to add unnecessary visual bulk.

-      The Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculations required to be updated to include enclosed balcony areas and ensure all areas within the building were included in accordance with the definition of GFA in the Kogarah LEP.

-      The design of the proposed rear service lane was of concern given its design is not at grade and its inclusion will remove the existing trees onsite.

-      The proposed removal of the significant and mature trees onsite required further justification. An Ecological report was required to consider the status of the Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalytus Saligna) as it could potentially be part of a threatened and Endangered Ecological Species (EEC).

 

4.      The Applicant made further amendments to the design and lodged the modified plans on 23 October 2019 (these plans are identified as Issue 3). The changes that have been made include the following;

The height of the building has been reduced by one (1) storey.

Improving the appearance and articulation of the building in particular the front façade facing Princes Highway.

Increasing the amount of soft landscaped area within the central courtyard.

Increasing the separation distances between the two buildings onsite by increasing the central area of communal open space.

Reduction in the overall density from 53 units to 50 units.

Reduction in the GFA to be below the 2.5:1 maximum.

 

5.      The most recent plans are relied on as part of this assessment. A photomontage of the latest scheme is provided as Figure 3 below.

 

 

Figure 3: Photomontage of the proposed development as recently amended (October 2019 Issue 3) (courtesy Peter Dunn Architects)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy – State and Regional Development 2011 (SRD SEPP)

6.      The proposed development was originally classified as “Regional” development as it had a Capital Investment Value (CIV) of $20,510,837. This exceeded the $20 million threshold as outlined in Clause 2 of Schedule 7 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 for this type of development at the time of lodgement. The CIV threshold pursuant to the SEPP increased to $30 million on 18 October 2017 as a result of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2017 being passed. Given the application was lodged prior to the Bill being passed the previous CIV provisions applied.

 

7.      However, Planning Circular (PS 10-008) issued 10 May 2010 defines the Capital Investment Value and clearly states that GST is excluded as part of the CIV. The application was accompanied by a detailed Quantity Surveys report prepared by MMD Construction Consultants and the total CIV included GST. By excluding the GST the CIV value of the project will be $18,646,215 which is below the $20million threshold. As a result the assessment of the application is therefore delegated to the Local Planning Panel. This was confirmed in writing by the South Sydney Regional Planning Panel Secretariat on 15 January 2020.

 

Site and locality

8.      The subject site comprises of four (4) parcels of land known as 655-659 Princes Highway, Blakehurst. 655 Princes Highway is legally known as Lot 4 DP13988. Existing onsite is a two storey commercial/retail brick building with driveway access along the northern side off the Princes Highway with access to a rear brick garage. This site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage of 13.41m to Princes Highway, depth of 49.96m and total site area of 673.7sqm.

 

9.      The Applicant originally relied on an outdated Survey Plan dated 25 February 2013 prepared by Burton and Field Surveyors. Council’s Intramap system includes an updated Survey Plan prepared by Paul Davis-Raiss, dated 8 August 2018 which was formally registered on 13 September 2018. The Applicant lodged an updated survey which was amended on 24 October 2018 to capture the proposed road acquisitions and dedications along the of Princes Highway frontage required by RMS (refer to Figure 4 below). This survey plan was submitted with the second set of amended plans which ensured the building is now sited to consider the RMS road dedication and required works along Princes Highway. The survey was prepared by Burton and Field and dated 25 February 2013 with the boundary dimensions adjusted (the survey reference details remained unaltered).

 

10.    The updated survey is relevant when considering the three (3) allotments known as 659 Princes Highway. These remaining three (3) allotments are known as Lots 29, 30 and 31 in DP1246418 and have respective areas of 654.7sqm, 624sqm and 597sqm. These three allotments have restrictions on their title identifying parts of the front of the site as an area to be acquired by RMS and dedicated as public road under Section 10 of the Roads Act, 1993 after any construction is completed on site. 659 Princes Highway was previously occupied by a Caltex Service Station however the site has been remediated and a Site Validation Report accompanies the application. These sites are currently vacant as can be seen in the site plan.

 

Figure 4: Extract from the updated survey plan showing the subject sites (courtesy Burton and Field February, 2013 with updated boundary dimensions)

 

11.    The total site area of the subject site is 2,549.4sqm.

 

12.    The site adjoins smaller scale residential developments to the west; to the east is Todd Park and a Caltex Petrol Station located on the corner of Princes Highway and Bunyala Street. To the north are smaller scale two storey retail/commercial properties fronting Princes Highway with a new seven storey shop top housing development nearing completion at 621-635 Princes Highway, Blakehurst. To the south is Church Street Reserve which includes a public car park. The locality comprises of a mixture of land uses.

 

Zoning and Kogarah LEP 2012 (KLEP) Compliance

13.    The site is zoned B2 Local Centre and the proposed “shop top housing” and “residential flat building” development is permissible pursuant to the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP).

 

14.    The proposal meets the definition of a “residential flat building” (RFB) which is “a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing” for the rear section of the development and the front part of the building facing Princes Highway is defined as “shop top housing” which is defined as “one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises”. Both land uses are permissible within the zone. The proposal also satisfies the objectives of the B2 zone. However the rear RFB could also be considered as “shop top housing” given that the building sits above some retail parking and the loading dock area it could be considered as fulfilling this definition.

 

15.    The site has a height limit of 21m in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4.3 of the KLEP. The height of the building has been reduced however still exceeds the height limit. The application is accompanied by a Clause 4.6 Statement which seeks to justify the exceedance of the control. The variation to the height control comprises of the lift overrun, pergola feature on the roof, planter boxes and WC which are structures associated with the rooftop area of communal open space. A detailed assessment of the Clause 4.6 Statement is provided later in this report. In summary, the variation is considered to be generally acceptable however the Clause 4.6 Statement cannot be supported as there is a lack of appropriate information provided in justifying that the variation satisfies the objectives of the height control. There is a lack of evidence produced to ensure there are no amenity impacts generated by the non-compliance. Unfortunately in this case the Clause 4.6 statement is not considered to be well-founded.

 

16.    The floor space ratio (FSR) for the site is 2.5:1 in accordance with Clause 4.4 of the KLEP. Originally the floor space exceeded the maximum Floor Space Ratio control. Council clearly stipulated that it will not support any exceedance in the GFA. The development was modified on two occasions and is now compliant with the maximum GFA being 2.47:1 which is below the max FSR.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

17.    The proposal has been considered to be satisfactory in regards to the following policies which have been considered in respect to the application:

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

·    State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land.

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

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index: 2004).

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

·    State Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment.

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

 

18.    A detailed assessment of the proposal against the provisions of these policies is provided in the body of this report.

 

Outstanding Planning and Environmental Issues

19.    At the time of preparing this report there were a series of unresolved issues and insufficient information provided in order to assess the proposal. The following issues remain outstanding;

 

·     Transmission lines exist at the front of the site along the Princes Highway. These are managed and owned by State Rail as they are classed as rail infrastructure. State Rail concurrence is required in accordance with the Infrastructure SEPP to ensure the location of the building and its design, construction and ongoing use does not interfere with the operation of these lines. A series of plans, a Blow Out report, and additional information that was initially required by State Rail has been submitted for their consideration. As of Thursday 13 February 2020 State Rail provided the Applicant with a register of outstanding matters that need to be addressed and then re-referred to State Rail’s Engineers to ensure compliance is achieved. Given the sensitive nature of this matter concurrence is required prior to determination being issued, given the time delays to date Council needs to determine the matter.

 

·     Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) were also notified of the proposed development in accordance with the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP as the development fronts the Princes Highway which is a classified road. RMS have acquired a small section of the Site for future road widening purposes and have provided draft plans for the Applicant to include as part of any future design so that the road widening is catered for. Amended details were submitted to RMS for their concurrence. To date no response from this agency has been received.

 

·     659 Princes Highway was a former service station and the site has, to date, been remediated and validated. Council’s Environmental Services Unit has confirmed that the validation and remediation has occurred and is satisfactory. However no contamination details have been provided for the building and land at 655 Princes Highway which forms part of this development site. In accordance with the provisions of SEPP 55 a Phase 1 contamination report needs to be prepared to assess the degree (if any) the site is affected. The report will confirm the site is clear of any contamination or may require further detailed assessment to occur. Prior to determination the consent authority needs to be satisfied that the site is suitable for its intended use. This report has not been received. Given the length of time the application has been under assessment no further extensions in time have been provided.

 

·     The Clause 4.6 Statement which was amended and updated in December 2019 to address the changes in the height and density of the development. The statement is not considered to be well founded as the statement does not reflect the accurate variations in the height control and fails to provide a clear, accurate and supportable argument in respect to degree of non-compliance. The report fails to justify that the breaches and non-compliance satisfies the objectives of the height control (Clause 4.3) in KLEP.

 

·     In terms of the overall built form and massing the most recent design is considered to be satisfactory and reflect a modern aesthetic that is consistent with the anticipated form and scale for development in this area. The internal amenity of apartments is very good and the separation distances between apartments and neighbouring properties is considered acceptable and reasonable. One area of concern remaining is the transition of the rear building and its relationship to the small scale residential buildings to the west.

 

·     Council’s Landscape Officer is not supportive of the removal of the mature trees that exist across the site/s and strongly suggests the retention of Trees 1, 4 and 5. There are no solid grounds to support the removal of these trees as they are in good condition and good vigour, form part of an existing green corridor and make a significant visual contribution to the streetscape and immediate surrounds. They also act as a buffer, screen and delineate the transition from the business zone to the residential zone immediately to the west.

 

20.    Although the Design Review Panel was not supportive of the original design and first set of amendments, the Panel wanted to see an alternative built form. They were critical of the rear service lane and removal of the large Sydney Blue Gum (now identified as a Flooded Gum) and associated mature vegetation on site. The Panel felt the performance of the proposed internal communal courtyard would be poor as it would be largely overshadowed by both buildings. The DRP comments have been considered in detail and the final design has not been referred to the Panel as it is felt it still would not adequately address their concerns. The alternative built form that could be considered would be one single building on the site which is not considered the best design solution from a planning and design perspective. The two built forms substantially improve the amenity of apartments especially fronting Princes Highway as these are dual aspect apartments with two balconies and acoustic impacts are substantially improved by this layout and arrangement.

 

·     The overall design changes to the front façade facing Princes Highway create a more harmonious and balanced building with strong, defined bays. There are several additional design changes that could be implemented to improve the aesthetics and visual appearance of the building and these could be conditioned if consent was to be granted. These issues are addressed in more detail in the SEPP 65 (ADG Table) section of the report.

 

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP)

21.    The provisions of Part B (General Controls) and Part D1 (Development in the B1 Neighbourhood Centres and B2 Local Centre zones) and Part D2 (Commercial Locality Guides) are applicable to this development as the site is located within the Blakehurst precinct. A detailed assessment of compliance with these provisions is outlined later in this report.

 

22.    The built form in general is considered to be an acceptable urban design and planning response for this Site subject to the reconsideration of other issues (i.e. tree retention and the treatment and transition of the scale and form of the building at the rear). The proposal generally satisfies the applicable provisions contained within the Kogarah Development Control Plan (KDCP).

 

Submissions

23.    In response to the public exhibition period, nine (9) submissions were received, in addition to a submission containing 39 signatories. The final amended plans were renotified and generated a further three (3) submissions. The issues raised in the submissions have been summarised as follows:

 

·    Development exceeds permitted maximum building height and will establish a poor precedent for future development. The development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site in terms of bulk and scale, and is not compatible with the low density character of surrounding development.

·    The proposed scale and form of the development will detrimentally affect the small scale residential properties immediately to the west along Water Street and the development will overlook and overshadow these neighbouring homes.

·    Traffic impacts:

o   Significant traffic impacts will be created by the development on the surrounding road network. Existing traffic is extremely congested at the Water Street intersection and the development creating in excess of 121+ vehicles will increase this congestion and cause significant delays and traffic queuing.

o   The traffic report prepared with the DA is not accurate and has referred to the old petrol station on the site which has not been in operation for over 10 years.

o   The driveway entrance on Water Street is not located in an appropriate position as traffic is already queued up in this area in peak hours.

o   Water Street is too narrow to accommodate a development of this scale;

o   The development would impact upon the existing commuter/customer car park on Water Street as there would be no car parks available as they would be used by residents of the development;

o   That the carpark on Water Street would be occupied by residents of the development and there would be no spaces available for customers of the nearby businesses as the Princes Highway is already a clearway along that section of road;

o   That the development will require the closure of the pedestrian footpath on Princes Highway, how will customers parking in the Water Street carpark access the business along Princes Highway – there is no alternative access.

 

24.    These issues have been addressed in greater detail later in this report.

 

Conclusion

25.    Having regard to the matters for consideration Section 4.15 and Section 4.16(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment of the proposed application, DA2017/0408 is recommended for refusal as insufficient information has been provided. The reasons for refusal are referenced as the end of this report.

 

Report in Full

Site and Locality

26.    The subject site comprises of four (4) allotments which are legally identified as follows;

 

·     655 Princes Highway – Lot 4 DP 13988

27.    This site has an area of 673.7sqm and contains a traditional two storey commercial brick and fibro building with a detached garage structure at the rear. The property has a formal driveway along the northern side providing direct vehicular access to the rear of the site from Princes Highway.

 

The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 13.41m to Princes Highway and depth of 49.96m.

 

·     659 Princes Highway – Comprises of Lots 29, 30 and 31 in  DP 1246418

28.    These three (3) allotments have respective areas of 654.7sqm, 624sqm and 597sqm. Each allotment has a restriction on their title identifying parts of the front of the site as an area to be acquired by RMS and dedicated as public road under Section 10 of the Roads Act, 1993 after any construction is completed on site. The proposal has been designed to consider the required RMS dedications and RMS have confirmed formally that no objection is raised to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

29.    These sites are currently vacant (previously the site accommodated a Service Station) with some small insignificant features on each such as a few low brick retaining walls. The most significant feature is the Sydney Blue Gum Tree which I located along the south west corner of the site.

         

30.    Combined the site has a frontage of some 52.08m and varying depths of 47.99m to Water Street and 49.96m along the northern boundary with a total site area of 2,549.4sqm. The whole site has a gradual fall from the rear (west) to the front (east) by approximately 2m.

 

Photo 1: Subject sites when viewed from Water Street

 

To the east

31.    Immediately to the east of the site is a Service Station located on the corner of Princes Highway and Bunyala Street, together with Todd Park.

 

Photo 2: Properties to the east of the site including Todd Park

 

To the west

32.    Immediately to the west are a series of lower scale residential properties comprising predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses and dual occupancy developments.

 

33.    3, 5 and 7 Water Street are a series of detached single storey dwelling houses with 1 Water Street located on the corner of Water and Vaughan Street comprising of a two storey detached dwelling house.

 

34.    The properties along Vaughan Street at the rear of the subject site being 12, 14 and 16 Vaughan Street comprise of single storey detached weatherboard cottages.

 

Photo 3: 5 and 7 Water Street immediately to the west of the site

 

To the north

35.    Properties immediately to the north comprise of mixed uses and commercial/retail tenancies which form part of the small Blakehurst Neighbourhood commercial centre.

 

36.    This small scale centre comprises of a variety of shops and commercial/retail premises including two storey modern style shop top housing developments.

 

37.    621-635 Princes Highway comprises of a newly constructed and completed seven (7) storey “shop top housing” development which was approved on 11 May 2017 (DA2016/0157).

 

Photo 4: 655 Princes Highway and adjoining retail/commercial properties to the north within the small Blakehurst Commercial centre.

 

To the south

38.    To the south of the site is Church Street Reserve which includes a designated public car park which accommodates some thirty (30) car parking spaces that are accessed off Water Street and Church Street.

 

Photo 5: Public car parking area to the south with access off Water Street and Church Street

 

Photo 6: Church Street Reserve to the south

 

39.    The immediate locality comprises of a variety and diversity of land uses. The site is well located and accessible to a variety of large areas of open space including Carss Park and Todd Park and retail/commercial uses although the neighbourhood centre at present does not include a shopping centre or supermarket of a viable scale and size to accommodate the local community.

 

40.    The proposed development includes a large retail/commercial tenancy which could introduce this land use. Alternatively the newly constructed shop top housing development at 621-635 Princes Highway may be able to accommodate or facilitate this use as it seems some of its spaces are still vacant.

 

41.    The site is within close proximity to bus stops which provide direct access to the larger commercial centres such as Hurstville and Kogarah.

 

Proposal

42.    The amended proposal seeks approval for the amalgamation of the existing sites and construction of a part six (6) part seven (7) storey “shop top housing” development and “residential flat building” designed as two separate built forms containing a total of fifty (50) apartments with two and a half levels of basement car parking accommodating one hundred and eighteen (118) car parking spaces, with access off Water Street through a service lane including roof top communal open space and associated landscaping and site works at the property known as 655-659 Princes Highway, Blakehurst. 

 

43.    The proposal has been amended and its design and layout improved. More specific details of the current design (based on Issue 3 plans) and layout are provided below.

 

Lower Basement Plan

·     A total of fifty eight (58) car parking spaces allocated in the following way;

- 1 x visitor space No.11 which doubles up as a carwash bay.

- 57 x resident spaces (including 2 x accessible spaces, 2 x small car parking spaces (No.s 111 and 115)

·     A designated motorbike parking area

·     Three (3) lift lobbies

·     Garbage and recycling room

·     Four (4) x Individual storage areas

·     Electrical and plant and pump rooms and

·     Fire stairs towards.

 

Upper Basement Plan

·     A total of forty six (46) car parking spaces allocated in the following way;

- 10 x visitor spaces

- 8 x retail spaces

·     28 x resident spaces (including 6 x accessible spaces)

·     A designated motorbike parking area

·     Secure bike storage room

·     Bulky good storage area

·     Rainwater tank

·     Garbage and recycling room

·     Three (3) lift lobbies

·     Seven (7) x Individual storage areas

·     Electrical and plant and pump rooms and

·     Fire stairs.

 

Ground Floor Plan

·     Vehicular access off the western side of the site via a newly designed service lane.

·     Retail space No.1 with total GFA of 81sqm

·     Retail space No.2 with a total GFA of 410sqm

·     2 x formal lift lobbies off Princes Highway

·     Loading Dock with associated garbage holding bay

·     Lobby No.3 with access off Water Street

·     Stormwater detention tank

·     Bicycle Parking areas and

·     A total of fourteen (14) car parking spaces allocated in the following way;

- 13 x retail spaces (including 1 x small car space and 1 x accessible space)

- 1 x residential space

 

Level 1 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Retail space No.3 with access off Water Street and includes a GFA of 35sqm

·     Forty one (41) independent residential storage spaces

·     Switch room, electrical substation

·     Three lift lobbies

·     Stormwater detention tank, switch room and plant rooms and

·     Central courtyard space and landscaped area with direct access off Water Street.

 

Level 2 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Building 2 (rear building)

- 5 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

 

Level 3 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartments

·        Building 2 (rear building)

- 3 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 2 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 2 x 3 bedroom apartments

 

Level 4 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Building 2 (rear building)

- 1 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Three (3) separate garden terraces at the rear.

 

Level 5 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 3 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Building 2 (rear building)

- 1 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 2 x 3 bedroom apartment

 

Level 6 Plan

·     Building 1 (facing Princes Highway)

- 2 x 3 bedroom apartment

·     Building 2 (rear building)

- 1 x 1 bedroom apartments

- 1 x 2 bedroom apartments

- 2 x 3 bedroom apartment

 

Level 7 Plan

·     Three (3) separate of communal rooftop terrace area for common use.

·     Photovoltaic solar panels located on the roof of the rear building.

 

The proposed fifty (50) residential apartments comprise the following mix:

·     11 x 1 bedrooms (22%);

·     25 x 2 bedrooms (50%) and;

·     14 x 3 bedrooms (28%)

 

Statutory framework

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A) Act 1979

44.    The proposal has been assessed and considered against the provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the objects of the EP&A Act, and the principles of ecologically sustainable development as follows.

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

45.    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.

 

Table 1: Compliance with the objects of the EP and A Act

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 results in the urban infill development of a “shop top housing” development and a “residential flat building” within this neighbourhood business precinct that is currently in a process of transition to medium density developments.

Yes

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

The design considers the principles of ESD. The building has been designed to comply with all BASIX commitments.

Yes

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

The development has been designed to largely satisfy the key planning controls for this site. The built form as proposed is considered to reflect the desired future character for development within the locality and for this precinct, subject to some further design changes and concurrences from government agencies.

Yes

(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing

The development does not accommodate any affordable housing component as part of the scheme however it does include a mix of accommodation styles and types with eleven (11) smaller one bedroom units.

Yes

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

The site includes a large and significant Sydney Blue Gum Tree. Although sitting in isolation on the site it could be considered to be part of the remnant vegetation and part of the assemblage of trees along Church Street Reserve and if it forms part of this vegetation then it could be considered to be part of an EEC as the Sydney Blue Gum Forest is identified as a Threatened species. The Applicant has been requested to provide an ecological assessment of this tree and its association with adjoining vegetated areas. This report is forthcoming.

Yes

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

The Site is not a designated Heritage Item nor is it located within a Heritage Conservation Area.

Yes

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

This report assesses the proposal’s design and amenity against SEPP 65, the ADG Guidelines and KDCP.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the design of the original scheme and first set of amended plans. The massing, bulk, scale and proportions of the building were considered to be unacceptable. The current set of amended plans (Issue 3 plans) provide more verticality and balanced articulation to the front façade and reconsideration of the massing and reduction in scale by reducing the height of the building. This is considered to improve the visual appearance of the building when viewed from Princes Highway in particular.

Yes

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

The proposal will achieve this object by complying with Council’s recommended consent conditions relating to the construction phase of the development.

Yes

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

The proposal does not fall into the category of regionally significant development and therefore the Georges River Local Planning Panel is the consent authority.

 

Yes

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

The submissions section of this report outlines Council’s public exhibition of the proposal, including an assessment and consideration of all public submissions.

 

The original plans and final set of amended plans were notified to adjoining properties in accordance with the advertising and notification requirements of the KDCP.

Yes

 

Section 4.15 Assessment

46.    In accordance with Clause 4.15 of the Act the following assessment has been conducted;

 

(1)  Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

(a)  the provisions of:

(i)  any environmental planning instrument

 

47.    The proposal has been considered under the relevant statutory provisions as per below:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index: 2004).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

State Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment.

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

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy.

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

48.    The development has been assessed against these provisions.

 

Draft Environment SEPP

49.    The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018.

 

50.    This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. The SEPP’s intent is to create a systematic and integrated approach for the protection and management of the natural environment across the State.

 

51.    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.

52.    The proposed development will not affect the intentions of the Draft SEPP in relation to the management and protection of catchments, waterways, bushland or any protected areas. However, there are a series of mature, established and significant trees on site that are proposed to be removed and assessment of their condition and reasoning for their removal needs to be accounted for as part of this assessment.

 

53.    The application was accompanied by an Aboricultural Assessment report prepared by TALC dated 2013. It acknowledged that there are six (6) trees existing on site, all of which will be affected by the proposed development. Figure 5 below shows the location of all the existing trees on site.

 

Figure 5: Location and siting of all existing trees on site (courtesy TALC, April 2014)

 

54.    Tree No.1 is identified as a Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) in all reports. This tree is classified as mature, in fair condition with no diseases and good vigour. This is a large and significant tree that provides a visual contribution to the immediate area. Much of the contribution this tree makes is accentuated by the fact the site is vacant and as such this feature is visually dominating.

 

55.    The other five (5) trees on site are clustered and located on 655 Princes Highway. They include a Cheese Tree (T2) in poor condition, Avocado Tree (T3) in poor condition, 2 x Lemon Scented Gum Trees (T4 and T5) in fair condition and achieving heights of approximately 18m and a Mango Tree (T6) which is in poor condition. The trees that are rated poor are due to the supressed nature of the trees. The arborist assessment supports the removal of these trees as “it is considered that the amenity the trees provide is minimised due to the number of trees present within neighbouring lands and could be replaced through the replanting of trees, shrubs and ground covers as part of landscape works for the development”.

 

56.    An updated Arboricultural Report was provided to Council dated 6 February 2018 prepared by TALC and provided some additional information as to why the Gum tree cannot be retained. The reasoning is based on the location of the service lane and basement being too close to the trunk of the tree/s, the Gum tree has “developed a spreading form due to its open growing location with production of a predominately horizontal branching habit.

 

Pruning in accordance with 4373-2007 “Pruning of Amenity Trees” of the tree to accommodate the elevation of development would remove 50% of the trees crown area introducing an imbalance further impacting upon the trees structural integrity.” The Arborist also believes the existing green environment will not be adversely affected by the removal of this tree.

 

57.    Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the Arborist assessments and considered the visual qualities and character of the Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) as significant and the amenity offered by this tree is high. Despite this species sitting essentially on its own it could form part of a remnant species as the site adjoins Todd Park and more immediately the Church Street Reserve which are areas of open space and include a number of trees that look to include similar species. The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final Determination to list the Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, as a critically endangered ecological community in Part 2 of Schedule 1A of the Biodiversity Act, and as a consequence omit reference to the Blue Gum High Forest in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Listing of critically endangered ecological communities is provided for by Part 2 of the Act. This tree may form part of an assemblage of trees that make up the EEC located at Todd Park or Church Street Reserve. Due to the potential significance of this tree the Applicant has been requested to prepare and submit an Ecological report which will detail the importance and provide a detailed assessment of the tree in respect to its immediate setting and current condition.

 

58.    Cumberland Ecology has prepared an Ecological assessment of the proposed tree with their report dated 7 February 2020. One of the key findings of the report confirms that the tree in question is not a Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) but in fact a Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum). There is a fine distinction between the two species based on the fruit characteristics. The report states that the “Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) is distinct from Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) in having fruit with four to five (predominately five) broad-triangular, incurved valves when dehisced. The latter species consistently has fruit with four narrow-acuminate, erect valves when dehisced.”

 

59.    The ecological assessment has made a detailed assessment of the tree and its immediate environment and made the following conclusions:

 

·     The tree in question was planted after 1943. In 1943 a structure was located where the tree now exists (refer to Figure 7 below). It was individually planted.

·     This species is not endemic to the area and occurs more commonly in the North Coast in taller wet forests or rainforest margins. “As such this species is not considered to be naturally occurring within the subject land, or the adjoining Todd Park and Church Street Reserve”.

·     OEH vegetation mapping has mapped an area of the Church Street Reserve as Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest. This community is a tall open eucalypt forest with an understorey of dry sclerophyll shrubs with ferns…it is commonly encountered on the upper slopes and dry gullies of Sydney Urban Areas.

·     Trees and vegetation within Todd Park comprises of non-endemic species and exotic species.

 

Figure 7: Location and siting of all trees on site as existing (left) and in 1943 (right) (courtesy Cumberland Ecology, February 2020)

 

60.    Based on the conclusions of the Ecological assessment the existing tree does not form part of a Threatened species, namely the Blue Gum High Forest and the tree is not endemic to the area. Given these findings its removal is warranted and the provision of a minimum of three (3) street trees along Water Street will compensate for the loss of some existing vegetation on site.  

 

61.    Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed this report and all the arboricultural assessments conducted in association with this application. Like the Design Review Panel, Council’s Landscape Officer does not support the removal of several trees across the site and believes the assessments do not adequately justify their removal. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this report however in summary the following concerns are raised;

·     The existing trees on site are in very good condition and good vigour.

·     The trees add to the visual quality and amenity of the streetscape and immediate area.

·     The trees form part of an existing green corridor and canopy linkage.

·     There is limited potential for compensatory planting across the site given the development will not cater for any substantial deep soil areas.

·     Trees No.1, 4 and 5 should be retained and form part of the redevelopment of the site/s.

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

62.    The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is considered to be consistent with the Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment. The site is not located within a flood prone area.

 

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

 

64.    Council’s Development Engineers have not raised any issues with the proposed method of stormwater disposal subject to the imposition of standard conditions if approval is to be granted.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy no. 55 – Contamination of Land (SEPP 55)

65.    SEPP 55 applies to the land and Clause 7 stipulates that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered matters for consideration contained in Clause 7.

 

66.    659-661 Princes Highway, Blakehurst which comprises of three allotments used to be a Caltex Service Station and in 2010 the site was formally remediated and site validation works undertaken by Coffey Environment Pty Ltd. A Site Validation Report accompanies the site which was prepared by Coffey Environments Pty Ltd and dated 30 September 2010.

 

67.    Remediation of the site included the removal of the existing five (5) UST’s, associated pipework and contaminated soils. Validation of the site was completed through the collection and laboratory analysis of representative soil samples from excavation faces, text pits and stockpiled soils. The report concluded that “the results of the site validation program indicated that identified soil contamination has been excavated from the site and the site validated”. Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health is satisfied with this process.

 

68.    The process of validation included soils excavated from the site which were stockpiled and classified to enable either off-site disposal or on-site re-use. All stockpiled soils were assessed as being suitable for re-use to backfill excavations on-site. Stockpiles were disposed of as either General Solid Waste in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (NSW, DECC, 2009) or disposed of as Hazardous Waste. Imported fill soils were similarly classified to ensure their suitability on site.

 

69.    In terms of groundwater, tests found that most concentrations of the contaminants in the water were within acceptable levels with the exception of traces of copper and zinc captured in a few monitoring wells. Coffey stated that in relation to these contaminants “concentrations of copper and zinc are considered likely to be representative of naturally occurring concentrations in regional groundwater rather than on-site activities associated with the former occupation of the site as a service station.”

 

70.    The report concluded that “based on the results of soil and groundwater validation works, Coffey Environments considers that the site has been remediated to a standard which does not prevent the use of the property for any use expressly permitted under the current zoning of the property which is 3(a) Business, permitting the development of child care centres.

 

71.    In 2010 the site was zoned Business 3 (a) - Business (Local Centre) Zone pursuant to the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 1998. The objectives of the zone were to “provide opportunities for retail and other business development and to encourage multi-unit housing to be developed in conjunction with businesses, where appropriate”. This zone permitted a variety and mixture of land uses including residential uses, child care centres and shop top housing. The KLEP 1998 was comprehensively updated in 2012 and the Kogarah LEP 2012 zoned the site B2 Local Centre which is very similar to the previous Business 3 (a) zone. The validation results would still be applicable to this zone as similar uses are permissible.

 

72.    655 Princes Highway includes a two storey traditional commercial building with a detached brick garage structure at the rear. The historical uses associated with this site are unlikely to generate any contamination but given it adjoined a Service Station some contaminants could have infiltrated this site. The Applicant has approached EI Australia to prepare a Detailed Site Investigation. On 7 February 2020 correspondence confirms that the preparation of this report is ongoing and that it is unlikely that the site is contaminated given the adjoining site has been remediated. At this stage with insufficient information in relation to this matter it is unclear whether No.655 Princes Highway is suitable for its intended land use and as such does not satisfy the provisions and requirements of SEPP 55.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy – Remediation of Land

73.    The Department of Planning and Environment (‘DPE‘) has announced a Draft Remediation of Land SEPP (‘Draft SEPP‘) which will repeal and replace the current State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (‘SEPP 55‘).

 

74.    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.

 

75.    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.

 

76.    As discussed above the proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of SEPP 55 and therefore will also fail to satisfy the provisions of the Draft Remediation of Land SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index BASIX– 2004 (SEPP BASIX) 2004

77.    The objectives of this Policy ensure that the performance of the development satisfies the requirements to achieve water and thermal comfort standards that will promote a more sustainable development.

 

78.    A current BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) certificate No.999501M was prepared and is dated 21 February 2020 which assesses the most recent set of amended plans (Issue 3) against the provisions of BASIX and found the proposal to be compliant.

 

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

79.    The aim of the Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State.

 

Clause 101 (Development with frontage to a Classified Road)

80.    Division 17, Subdivision 2 of the Infrastructure SEPP relates to Development that is in or adjacent to road corridors and road reservations. The Pacific Highway is a Classified Road and in accordance with Clause 101 concurrence from the Roads and Maritime Services Authority (RMS) is required.

 

81.    The original application was referred to RMS and the agency’s initial response on 24 October 2017 stated that “The subject property is affected by the proposed Princes Highway from King Georges Road to Torrens Street Tidal Flow Removal Project, as shown in PINK on the attached Sketch – "5R4948".

 

However, Roads & Maritime would raise no objections on property grounds to the submitted application provided any new building or structures (other than pedestrian footpath awnings), together with any improvements integral to the future use of the site, are erected clear of the land required for road (unlimited in height or depth).

 

The submitted proposal does not comply with the Roads and Maritime requirement that any proposed improvements (including buildings & structures) in respect of a development application must be clear of the land required for road (unlimited in height or depth). Roads and Maritime would be prepared to further consider the subject application upon receipt of amended plans that clearly show all proposed buildings & structures, together with any improvements essential to the future use of the site are not within the land required for a road (unlimited in height or depth).

 

82.    RMS have acquired small sections of the front of 659 Princes Highway for road widening purposes (refer to the most up to date Survey plan provided at figure 4). The original design did not facilitate or include the road dedication. RMS in its response also provided the applicant with detailed plans of the proposed road works and associated design that is required to be accommodated by any development on the subject site (refer to plan at Figure 8).

 

83.    The most recent amended plans (Issue 3) have included the design changes and acquisition requirements of the RMS in accordance with their requirements. These plans were referred to RMS. To date no response has been received and formal concurrence from RMS is required in accordance with the Infrastructure SEPP provisions. As such Clause 101 of the Infrastructure SEPP has not been satisfied.

 

 

Figure 8: RMS Design Plan for the road dedication at the subject site (courtesy RMS, 2018)

 

Clause 102 (Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development)

84.    Clause 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP relates to impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development. This clause applies to development for any of the following purposes that is on land in or adjacent to the road corridor for a freeway, a tollway or a transit way or any other road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles (based on the traffic volume data published on the website of RMS) and that the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration on residential accommodation.

 

85.    Princes Highway generates traffic volumes of over 40,000 vehicles daily near the subject site and as such the development will need to consider these acoustic impacts. A Noise Impact Assessment was prepared by Acoustic Logic and dated 4 September 2017. Although the development scheme has been redesigned the built form and general layout has remained unaffected and the original acoustic report and its findings is considered to still be applicable to the currently amended scheme. The main acoustic standards that need to be met by the development are stipulated in both the KDCP and the Infrastructure SEPP. Clause 102(3) of the Infrastructure SEPP states the following;

 

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

 

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

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

 

86.    Noise monitoring was conducted on site with three (3) acoustic monitoring locations selected being one location point being the closest point along the boundary with 7 Water Street, the front of the site along the Princes Highway frontage and one central location (refer to Figure 9 for exact locations). Loggers reported anticipated background noise impacts (predominantly attributed to traffic noise) exceeding 72dB(A) for a 24 hour period. The report concluded that noise transmission through window and door openings is the greatest whilst transmission will not be significant through masonry elements.

 

Figure 9: On site noise logger locations (courtesy Acoustic Logic, 2017)

 

87.    In order for the proposal to comply with the required standards, some additional construction treatments and finishes will be required to reduce acoustic impacts internally within apartments. Construction measures to be implemented include double glazing to windows, increasing door thicknesses and seals, specific requirements for roof design and materials. The recommendations of the acoustic report will be included as a condition if consent was recommended.

 

88.    In relation to mechanical ventilation the report states that “With respect to natural ventilation of the dwelling, the NSW Department of Planning document “Development near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors - Interim Guideline” dictates that:

 

 If internal noise levels with windows or doors open exceed the criteria by more than 10dB(A), the design of the ventilation for these rooms should be such that occupants can leave windows closed, if they so desire, and also to meet the ventilation requirements of the Building Code of Australia.”

 

89.    On that basis with windows open, the allowable internal noise goal of 10dB(A) higher than when the windows are closed is permitted and this translates to an allowable level of 45dB(A) in bedrooms and 50dB(A) in living rooms.  Internal spaces within the rear building facing Water Street will achieve the levels as these spaces will be screened and buffered by the front building, however, habitable spaces facing Princes Highway will exceed the noise limits and will need to rely on mechanical ventilation. The building has been designed to consider the impacts of noise from Princes Highway and as a result the Applicant has created “winter gardens” or enclosed balconies in the form of sunrooms.

 

90.    These spaces adjoin the living room and bedrooms to some apartments at most levels. These spaces could potentially improve the internal amenity of spaces within apartments but they will impact on the visual bulk and appearance of the building when viewed from the Princes Highway. In addition, these elements need to be included as floor space in accordance with the Gross Floor Area (GFA) definition within the KLEP. There are a number of concerns with the design of these areas, namely;

 

·    The enclosed balconies are divided (partitioned) into two separate spaces being a “winter garden” and an “enclosed balcony” which reduces the size and limits the functionality of the space.

 

·    The enclosed balconies become protrusions to the built form and increase the visual bulk.

 

·    The disadvantage to the design is that there is additional glazing required and limits the opportunity to have access to an open style balcony, even if most of the time the internal spaces may rely on mechanical ventilation. Flexibility in the use of this space is restricted.

 

·    The spaces may assist in improving noise transmission but the reliance on mechanical ventilation is not reduced by the implementation of these enclosed balconies.

 

·    Most of the apartments facing Princes Highway have a dual orientation with a small balcony off the Princes Highway frontage and the rear of the units looking into the central courtyard.

 

91.    For the reasons noted above, it is not considered that these design features add value to the design nor do they improve internal amenity of the apartments. It is suggested if approval is considered that a condition be imposed that the “enclosed balconies” are opened up and not enclosed with the winter gardens to remain. This will further improve the visual appearance of the façade and create indentations in the building which will reduce the visual bulk and improve articulation.

 

92.    The noise transmission impacts and reliance on mechanical ventilation will remain the same as anticipated by the acoustic report. In order to minimise impacts of noise transmission to adjoining residential properties to the west, and if the development is recommended for approval a condition will require the location of mechanical ventilation to be sensitively sited away from common residential boundaries. In addition a condition should require validation and certification that the recommendations of the acoustic report have been implemented prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Clause 103 (Excavation in or immediately adjacent to corridors)

93.    The proposed development relies on two levels of basement parking which amounts to over 6m of excavation along all boundaries. Given the extent of earthworks, Clause 103 of the Infrastructure SEPP is relevant to consider. Subclause 2 of the SEPP states that;

 

Before determining a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must—

(a)  give written notice of the application to RMS within 7 days after the application is made, and

(b)  take into consideration—

(i)    any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given, and

(ii)   any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette, and

(iii) any implications of the ground penetration for the structural integrity of the road or project, and

(iv) any cost implications for the road or project of the ground penetration.

(3)  The consent authority must provide RMS with a copy of the determination of the application within 7 days after the determination is made.”

 

94.    RMS has not provided formal concurrence to the development and to date the proposal fails to satisfy Clauses 101 and 103 of the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

Clause 86 (Excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors)

95.    Whilst the development is not adjoining a rail corridor in accordance with Clause 86 of the Infrastructure SEPP it adjoins rail infrastructure and assessment in accordance with Clause 45 is required.

 

96.    This section of the Princes Highway includes a 33kV High Voltage Aerial Transmission Line which immediately adjoins the proposed development and is operated by RailCorp.

 

97.    RailCorp has provided State Rail with delegation to act as the electricity supply authority and to process the review for this development application which adjoins the rail electricity power line. State Rail required the following information from the Applicant;

 

·    Cross Section drawing showing the proposed development in relation to the Sydney Trains electrical asset, including: ground surface, sub soil profile, electrical asset (High Voltage aerial line/conductors and pole); proposed basement excavation and structural design. All horizontal and vertical measurements must be accurate to Sydney Trains satisfaction.

 

·    Pending review of the above cross section, Sydney Trains may also require a blow-out report for review. The blow-out report must show the proposed development in relation to the Sydney Trains electrical asset, blow-out design and calculations, and compliance with all relevant Safety and Electrical Standards including AS7000 and ISSC 20, Work Cover requirements and the Safe Approach Distances (SADs) in the Sydney Trains Document titled “SMS-06-GD- Working Around Electrical Equipment”. In addition, the report must take into account the construction methodology for the proposed development, including unloading of building materials and/use of equipment.

 

98.    The Applicant provided the additional information to satisfy State Rail standards and therefore should not adversely impact upon the electrical asset. However, to date their concurrence has not been received and therefore the proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 86 of the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

99.    On the 4 February 2020 State Rail confirmed that they were still in the process of assessing the information. The one issue State Rail raised was the scheduling of proposed construction works at the site and timing of the RMS Tidal Flow road works. If HV (high voltage) lines are still active when works are to begin on site that will influence the need for any isolation of the Sydney Trains/RailCorp lines. If the lines are already removed by RMS when the development site works begin, then there is no need for isolation. Further correspondence received by Council on 6 February and on 13 February 2020 confirmed State Rail has progressed the matter, however are waiting on the Applicant to address the additional plans and documentation that is required.

 

100.  To date no conditions or formal concurrence has been provided. Given the technical issues, concurrence in this case cannot be assumed.

 

Subdivision 2 Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

101.  Clause 45 of the Infrastructure SEPP applies to development that “involves penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole or within 10m of any part of an electricity tower or within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists), or immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line”

 

102.  The application was referred to Ausgrid for comment in accordance with the requirements of Clause 45(2) of the Infrastructure SEPP.  On 13 October 2017 Ausgrid raised objection to the proposed development on the following grounds;

 

“Proximity to Existing Network Assets - Overhead Powerlines

There are existing overhead electricity network assets in Princes Highway and Water Street.

 

The proposed awning over the Princess Hwy footpath area extends into Ausgrid’s pole allocation area. The drawing shows the awning as being cut out around the existing poles however; when these poles need to be replaced the new pole is typically replaced approximately 2m away from the existing pole in the same alignment. The proposed awning will significantly impact on Ausgrid's ability to replace these poles when required.

 

Safework NSW Document – Work Near Overhead Powerlines: Code of Practice, outlines the minimum safety separation requirements between these mains/poles to structures within the development throughout the construction process. It is a statutory requirement that these distances be maintained throughout construction. Special consideration should be given to the positioning and operating of cranes and the location of any scaffolding.

 

The “as constructed” minimum clearances to the mains should also be considered. These distances are outlined in the Ausgrid Network Standard, NS220 Overhead Design Manual.

 

The proposed development may encroach the statutory clearances of nearby powerlines as per the requirements set out in AS7000 and Ausgrid Standard NS220.

 

The developer is required to either:

•      Engage an Accredited Service Provider Level 3 (ASP3) to confirm that the development does maintain the statutory clearances to the powerlines (this must include wind impacts), or

•      Make suitable arrangements to have powerlines relocated so that statutory clearances are not encroached.”

 

103.  In order to address and satisfy Ausgrid requirements, the overhead power lines would require relocation to allow for minimum safety clearances and sufficient clearance distances will need to be maintained in perpetuity.  The Applicant has prepared a report by a Level 3 service provider (Shelmerdines) which states that State Rail power lines and Ausgrid power lines are to be located below ground. Although it seems that the revised layout will not impact on the location of the one existing Ausgrid pole at the northern end of the sites and the proposed setback from this pole and cabling comfortably exceeds Ausgrid’s requirements. Formal confirmation that this arrangement is satisfactory from Ausgrid has not been received.

 

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

104.  The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 replaces Clause 5.9 of KLEP 2012 (Preservation of Trees and Vegetation).

 

105.  The intent of this SEPP is “to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation”.

 

106.  The tree initially identified as a Sydney Blue Gum tree which has since been formally identified as a Flooded Gum by the Ecological Assessment confirmed that this tree is not a threatened or endangered species (EEC).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)

107.  SEPP 65 is applicable to the proposed development and the extent to which the proposal complies with the controls and principles of the SEPP and the Apartment Design Guide are outlined in the tables below.

 

Table 2: Compliance with Part 1 - Application of SEPP 65

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

3. Definitions

Complies with definition of “Residential Apartment Development” (RAD) and “Shop top housing”

The proposed development complies with the definitions.

Yes

4. Application of Policy

Development involves the erection of a new RFB, shop top housing or mixed use development of (at least 3 storey’s and the building contains more than 4 dwellings)

The proposal is for the erection of a new residential flat building and shop top housing development which satisfies the definition of the policy.

Yes

5. Development Applications

Design verification statement provided by qualified designer

 

Registered Architect Name and Registration No.

A Design Verification Statement has been provided by Registered Architect Peter Dunn (Nominated Architect No.4470).

Yes

 

108.  Council’s Design Review Panel considered the original design on the 17 November 2017 and later reviewed the first set of amended plans at its meeting held on 12 September 2019.

 

109.  The Panel raised concerns regarding the design and built form of the development on both occasions. A detailed Request for Information (RFI) letter was sent to the Applicant on 24 September 2019 highlighting outstanding design issues focusing on the need to address the visual appearance and improve the design of the building.

 

110.  Other issues raised included the non-compliance with the height and it was made clear that Council cannot support the degree of non-compliance and that the bulk and scale of the development needs to be reconsidered. In addition, the Applicant was requested to address the issue of removing the Sydney Blue Gum Tree (as it was identified at the time) and to outline the intention and purpose of the proposed Service Lane.

 

111.  The Applicant modified the proposal and the final set of amended plans were not presented to the Design Review Panel (DRP) as the plans did not alter the built form and massing of the development and therefore did not address the main concerns of the Panel. It is Council’s assessing staffs opinion that the current plans improve the overall appearance and presentation of the building and reasonably address the issues of statutory non-compliance.  Table 3 below summarises the DRP comments. Comments in italix reflect the Panel’s initial comments and those in bold reflect the Panel’s comments in regard to the first amended scheme.

 

Table 3: Compliance with Part 2 - Design Quality Principles under SEPP 65

Principle

Panels Comments

Council’s comments

Context and Neighbourhood character

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal is for a major mixed use development of eight (8) levels to the highway and six (6) levels Water Street and the rear of the site. The form of the proposal creates a very substantial building element which in future will be replicated to some degree on nearby sites along the highway.

 

The building form fits more comfortably with the highway frontage than the adjacent sites on Water Street. A central courtyard with perimeter development is proposed. The courtyard itself is highly complex in its planning and would provide visual amenity, but very limited use as a communal space. The proponent argues that adequate levels of solar access can be provided to all units.

 

The proposal has been resubmitted with an increased setback to the Princes Highway.  This impacts significantly on the courtyard which is greatly reduced in width, especially at its southern end.  Now, the proposal is plagued by building separation and privacy issues across an inadequately sized courtyard and to sites on the west. Together with the issues around the aforementioned trees and unresolved lane proposal, the proposed courtyard typology appears not to work.  The Panel recommends that alternative built form options are investigated.

 

As proposed development largely complies with the LEP height control except for the corner element which exceeds the control, but is considered to be acceptable due to lack of offsite impacts.

 

It appears that the 8 storey “corner element” now extends for roughly 70 percent of the Princes Highway elevation.  This is not acceptable to the Panel.

 

In order to address the major concerns (tree retention and vehicle access in particular) it would be necessary to address the following:

 

·   Retention of at least the most significant tree adjacent to Water Street

·   Provision of service access from service lane (possibly with turntable), rather than as proposed from Water Street

·   Provision of parking access either from dedicated service lane or from Water Street north of the tree to be retained

·   Possible relocation of units lost due to tree retention to the east corner of Water Street and the highway (this will cause penetration through the height plane, however it is considered that no unacceptable impacts should result)

·   The RMS requires an increased setback to the highway from the corner Water Street. This needs to be clearly understood and complied with.

·   Access to roof top communal space from all buildings (see

·   comments below under ‘Social issues’ and ‘Landscape’)

 

In order to resolve these issues it is considered that some additional height in excess of the LEP height control would be reasonable on the highway frontage block, provided that other issues are resolved and the design complies with the FSR control.

 

These issues have not been adequately addressed and require resolution as set out above.

On both occasions the Panel felt that the proposed built form which proposes two distinct buildings separated by a central courtyard is not considered to be an appropriate design solution for the site and an alternate built form should be investigated.

An alternative design could be to create one traditional building at the site similar to the form reflected at 621-635 Princes Highway (north of the site). The built form at this site is one L-shaped building with a rear area of open space. This site has the benefit of three road frontages and adjoins a laneway to the rear which provides additional separation distances.

The proposed building form is considered to be a reasonable design response for this site as it creates a rear service lane which could provide benefits for the future redevelopment of sites to the north and the central courtyard establishes apartments with a dual aspect and will have better amenity than single aspect apartments especially fronting the Princes Highway.

The issue of tree retention has been addressed earlier in this report. The Panel on two occasions have accepted additional height along the corner of the site however the exceedance in the height of habitable areas is not supported by Council Officers and the Applicant has amended the design and reduced the height and scale so that the encroachment is minimal and only affects the lift overrun and the roof top area of communal open space.

The Panel also requested the retention of the existing significant trees. Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed and considered the condition of the trees. It is agreed that the trees are attractive and significant. Council’s Landscape Officer does not support the removal of a series of trees across the site.

The Panel suggested that to address some of the issues some additional height may be able to be captured. Council Officers do not encourage the utilization of any additional height for habitable areas. The latest amended design reduces the height of the development and now the only encroachments are the lift overruns and some areas of communal open space located on the roof.

The proposed service lane has been retained and could offer an alternative point of access to properties further to the north and remove access off Princes Highway.

The latest plans aim to address and satisfy the RMS and State Rail requirements.

Access to rooftop open space is provided at both buildings and every central lobby area provides access to the roof.

Built Form and Scale

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

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

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

The proposal is for a major mixed use development of eight (8) levels to the highway and six (6) levels Water Street and the rear of the site. The form of the proposal creates a very substantial building element which in future will be replicated to some degree on nearby sites along the highway.

 

The building form fits more comfortably with the highway frontage than the adjacent sites on Water Street. A central courtyard with perimeter development is proposed. The courtyard itself is highly complex in its planning and would provide visual amenity, but very limited use as a communal space. The proponent argues that adequate levels of solar access can be provided to all units.

 

The proposal has been resubmitted with an increased setback to the Princes Highway. This impacts significantly on the courtyard which is greatly reduced in width, especially at its southern end.  Now, the proposal is plagued by building separation and privacy issues across an inadequately sized courtyard and to sites on the west. Together with the issues around the aforementioned trees and unresolved lane proposal, the proposed courtyard typology appears not to work.  The Panel recommends that alternative built form options are investigated.

 

As proposed the development complies with the LEP height control except for the corner element which exceeds the control, but is considered to be acceptable due to lack of offsite impacts.

 

It appears that the 8 storey “corner element” now extends for roughly 70 percent of the Princes Highway elevation.  This is not acceptable to the Panel.

 

In order to address the major concerns (tree retention and vehicle access in particular) it would be necessary to address the following:

 

·   Retention of at least the most significant tree adjacent to Water Street

·   Provision of service access from service lane (possibly with turntable), rather than as proposed from Water Street

·   Provision of parking access either from dedicated service lane or from Water Street north of the tree to be retained

·   Possible relocation of units lost due to tree retention to the east corner of Water Street and the highway (this will cause penetration through the height plane, however it is considered that no unacceptable impacts should result)

·   The RMS requires an increased setback to the highway from the corner Water Street. This needs to be clearly understood and complied with.

·   Access to roof top communal space from all buildings (see comments below under ‘Social issues’ and ‘Landscape’)

 

In order to resolve these issues it is considered that some additional height in excess of the LEP height control would be reasonable on the highway frontage block, provided that other issues are resolved and the design complies with the FSR control.

These issues have not been adequately addressed and require resolution as set out above.

The increased setback to Princes Highway has been required by the RMS who have acquired a section of the front of the site for road widening. The amended plans reflect the requirements of the RMS.

 

The central courtyard is irregular in shape with the central section achieving an average separation distance of some 9m with a lesser separation distance at the entry to this space between Lobby 2 and 3 of some 6m.

Further to the north this area opens up to become larger and have a separation distance of over 12m. This is generally considered acceptable as the perspective of the space opening up to the north will provide a greater sense of space and separation. The intention is to landscape this area and create an attractive space with mounds and planter boxes as well as seating and a large water feature. Despite the separation distances being less than the 12m requirement along the southern side this space is still functional and the units have been designed so there is no opportunity for overlooking between units.

The Panel supported an exceedance in the height of the building however Council Officers will not support any habitable area above the height limit. The current amended plans have removed a level of the building and this involves deleting three (3) apartments. This reduces the physical scale and height of the building and now only the lift overruns exceed the height.

In respect to the proposed service Lane, the Applicant has justified its design and purpose for the following reasons;

·    It aims to assist in facilitating the future redevelopment of sites that are isolated and have no rear lane access to the north.

·   Alternate access to the basement can be provided and the retention of the tree achieved however the access point would be sited closer to the east and this could affect the intersection with Princes Highway. The access point would be located too close to the intersection and queuing and conflicts could occur.

 

Communal open space on the roof has been integrated as part of the most recent changes.

 

Density

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

 

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

The density as proposed is marginally above the LEP 2.5:1 control. This needs to be reviewed in the context of addressing the recommendations above.

With the required RMS setbacks and complex challenges raised by the existing trees and the rear lane it appears that the density proposed is not able to be achievable on the site.

 

The current amended plans have reduced the density of the development and removed a further three (3) apartments which existed on the top level of the building. The GFA calculation has been confirmed and the development in its amended form complies with the maximum FSR of 2.5:1 with a GFA of 6,294sqm which amounts to an FSR of 2.47:1. This calculation includes the winter gardens and enclosed balconies.

 

Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

 

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

Subject to BASIX, however it is expected that a development of this scale would exhibit best sustainability initiatives including:-

 

·   Rainwater harvesting and reuse

·   Deep soil planting

·   Solar energy capture

·   Reuse of stormwater from toilet flushing

It is noted by the Panel that the revised proposal is liable to create a very dark courtyard with limited amenity and/or landscape potential.  The proposal does however provide useful roof top communal open space and solar collectors on one of the buildings.

The scheme does not retain the significant existing trees which is very negative environmental outcomes.

 

 

The proposal includes an updated BASIX Certificate which confirms compliance.

The latest set of amended plans have significantly improved the environmental outcomes and improved sustainability for the future of the scheme by including a series of photovoltaic solar panels on the roof.

The Applicant has justified why it is impossible to retain the trees on the site. A significant TPZ would need to be included which would render the site undevelopable and the majority of the trees on site are not considered to be in good condition. The provision of a minimum three (3) street trees along Water Street as part of the development would improve the streetscape outcome.

 

A rainwater reuse tank is designated within the upper basement in the north-western side of the basement area.

Landscape

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

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

 

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

The site design has ignored the constraint presented by the existing mature trees on the site. These trees appear, upon limited visual inspection, to be healthy. They make a strong contribution to the visual environment and would offer significant amenity to residents if retained, especially in the context of a busy highway. The trees also contribute to level of canopy cover which delivers a variety of benefits to the environment both above and below ground and the deep soil area required to retain these trees is valuable both on site and beyond the site itself. The trees will help mitigate the scale of the building to the west where it interfaces with a lower density residential area, as well as contribute to solar passive performance by providing shade. In the case where the adjoining sites are developed, retention of the trees will provide a visual buffer and separation. It is critical to develop environmentally responsible design options to retina these trees.

 

This is the critical issue that has not been addressed in the site planning or building design.  As noted above, this requires an alternate building form to at a minimum retain the 3 very large existing site trees as noted in “context”.

Likewise, the design must consider the likely form, habit and soil requirements of street trees as they mature and this must be accommodated in the design. For example, awnings must have sufficient cut-out, space must be allowed to accommodate tree guards without impacting pedestrian movement, conflict with other street elements must be minimised and the trees must be located in a position that maximises available soil volume and passive watering.

The current built form significantly impacts on capacity to provide adequate space for street trees.  The awning could be largely removed / reduced on Water Street and set back on the Princes Highway to allow for tree growth.

The communal open space on level one is inadequate for a development of this scale.  Its long narrow layout limits capacity for use and will create privacy issues.  It may also be noisy and could be largely overshadowed with future development.

There is an excellent opportunity to create a high quality communal open space with deep soil that retains the existing site trees on the rear of the site.  This would contribute significantly to the amenity for residents, as well as supporting wider neighbourhood.

The Panel in their comments acknowledged that large, mature street trees could be introduced which will improve the visual appearance of the development whilst creating a greener streetscape. If consent is recommended a condition will require the implementation/integration of a minimum four (4) street trees along Water Street.

There is scope for street trees along Princes Highway is limited given that this roadway is under the jurisdiction of RMS a condition could include the provision of a minimum 4 street trees to be planted along this side subject to the type, style, form and location satisfying relevant government agencies i.e. State Rail and Roads and Maritime Services if approval is recommended.

The Panel raised concerns regarding the potential for overlooking between apartments. It is acknowledged that there may be some overlooking between units but on the whole the design has limited and reduced this impact through window openings, room location and layout and balconies being offset so that living spaces don’t overlook each other.

Issues outlined by the Panel in relation to the type, style form and design of awnings along Water Street and Princes Highway can be conditioned appropriately to ensure they satisfy Council’s requirements.

Amenity

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

 

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

Generally well considered. The impact of the highway in relation to noise and pollution is a major challenge which has been addressed by way of glazing and louvers to the balcony facades. This should in principle resolve concerns with the exception that this then will necessitate mechanical ventilation to bedrooms fronting the highway. Other options should be explored, for example it may be that acceptable acoustic conditions could be a result - at least at upper levels - if adequate acoustic treatment were to be provided to balcony soffits and end walls. Note that the use of louvres to enclose private open spaces for the purpose of sound attenuation SHOULD NOT result in enclosed balconies being included in floor space calculations.

The Panel has concerns about the design and program for the central courtyard communal open space and recommends that adequate communal spaces be provided as roof terraces accessible from each block.

 

While roof terraces have been provided, the courtyard has now been reduced in width and has become a space that is liable to be dark and overshadowed.  The building separation across this space is also compromised and is liable to lead to a poor residential outcome. 

 

The communal space program must include recreational opportunities for children and families. This area should include shade, change facilities and elements that engage children such as pattered paving, interactive elements and areas where a scooter or similar could be used (not necessarily fixed play equipment). Passive surveillance and safety in design must be considered.

 

This should be provided at roof level.  As noted above, there is capacity to provide a landscape garden incorporating remnant trees for communal outlook and amenity at ground level.

The Panel was concerned about the design of apartments facing Princes Highway and the impact of noise for internal areas.

Most apartments that are located along the Princes Highway frontage have been well designed as dual aspect apartments and include winter gardens/partially enclosed balconies which will mitigate traffic and noise from the highway. As previously discussed the proposed “enclosed balconies” along the Princes Highway frontage are proposed to be “opened up” if approval is recommended. This will still allow for the winter gardens to exist  Despite the Panel’s recommendations not to include enclosed balconies in the GFA both the winter gardens and enclosed gardens have been included as per the definition. The GFA definition in the KLEP does not offer flexibility in its calculation. If the enclosed balconies are opened up they will be excluded for the calculation and the FSR will be further reduced.

Although the central courtyard isn’t very large, it offers a secondary space for some passive recreation and also allows for a green space that will improve the visual connection of the built forms on site. Communal open space has been integrated on the roof level which will also improve the amenity of the development for future occupants.

Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

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

Acceptable.

The “rear lane” is in fact an open sunken driveway lacking in activation or passive surveillance.  Therefore, this space could become an unsafe environment.

 

The proposed rear lane will act as a service lane. It is functional and could create benefits for future development to the north which could link up and connect to this roadway.

The entry to the lane is at grade from Water Street; however it then ramps down so as to connect to the basement parking levels.

Objection has been raised in relation to the subterranean nature of the lane. The siting of the lane will still allow for the redevelopment of the adjoining sites which could have their basement levels connecting through to this lane.

If approval is granted a condition will be required so that the laneway will become an easement for access and in future will allow for the potential connection for development further to the north.

It is not proposed as a laneway dedicated to Council.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

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

Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

 

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

Appears appropriate in relation to the residential units.

Toilets will need to be provided to serve ground floor commercial tenancies.

The design of communal open spaces will require reconsideration. It is recommended that two (2) separate spaces be provided serving the northern and southern blocks respectively and accessible directly by lifts from those blocks. Each should be provided with attractive landscaped deck/terrace, small enclosed space fitted with kitchenette and toilet, and a children’s play space.

 

See notes above.

The building has been designed to include a diversity of apartment types, forms and styles. No affordable housing is proposed.

Aesthetics

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

 

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

It is suggested that the large relatively bland façade to the highway be further articulated to express inherent structure, and as well include some additional variation in colours and finishes.

While the aesthetic presentation of the building is promising, a substantial number of issues described above must be resolved before its aesthetics can be substantially addressed.

 

The Applicant has substantially improved the front façade and dominant elevation to Princes Highway.

Council Staff was concerned about the visual bulk of the building and the undefined bays. Council Staff felt the façade wasn’t well articulated and could be improved by creating better defined recessive elements, and by reducing the number of enclosed balconies.

The modified scheme has created distinct ‘broken up’ vertical bays or wings with the sections being defined with varying materials, colours and finishes. 

 

112.  The proposal has been amended to create a more reasonable planning and design response for the Site. The issue of the service lane, its functionality and design is discussed in more detail in the section of the assessment against the provisions of the KDCP.

 

Consideration of Apartment Design Guide (ADG) under Clause 30 of SEPP 65

 

Table 4: Compliance with Design Provisions in Part 3 and Part 4 of the ADG

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

Part 3 – Siting the development

3D-1

Communal and public open space

 

 

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

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

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

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

• provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

There are two areas of communal open space within the development;

i)   Central Courtyard – 400sqm.

ii)  Roof top area of open space – 3 separate areas totalling 395sqm.

The total area of communal open space is around 795sqm which amounts to 30%.

The central courtyard includes seating and planting and a water feature. The roof top areas of open space also includes seating and planting as well as a WC.

There is a bridge at the roof level which connects the rear building to the area of roof top communal open space at the front (and vice versa).

It is recommended that this bridge element be removed and the buildings read as two (2) independent/separate built forms when viewed from the southern side if approval was recommended. There is no need for the connection as every building has its own designated roof top area of open space.

A condition would ensure that each space on the roof includes some seating. A WC is provided on communal roof terrace No.2 and all residents should be able to access this space (via Lobby 2) if they utilise the area for a longer period of time. Providing WC’s in the other spaces is not encouraged as it would add undue bulk to the roof space.

 

The landscape plans prepared by Stuart Noble (refer to Fig 10) show well designed landscaped areas within the development that would be visually attractive. The provision of larger planter boxes in the central courtyard should be able to cater for larger trees within this space. Conditions could be imposed to ensure the courtyard includes mature trees if the application was to be supported. The rooftop areas of open space will receive full solar access throughout the day.

All roof top areas of open space will receive very good solar access given their elevated location and orientation.

Yes

 

3E-1

Deep Soil Zones

 

 

1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

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

Deep soil = 7%

Achieving the design criteria may not be possible on some sites including where:

• the location and building typology have limited or no

space for deep soil at ground level (eg central business district, constrained sites, high density areas, or in centres)

• there is 100% site coverage or non-residential uses at ground floor level

Where a proposal does not achieve deep soil requirements, acceptable stormwater management should be achieved and alternative forms of planting provided such as on structure.

The proposal requires a minimum of 7% of the site comprising of deep soil area.

There is no deep soil area proposed. This fails to satisfy the minimum requirements.

The central courtyard has been designed so that there are large sections and planter boxes and mounds which are raised to accommodate deeper soil profiles to allow for dense planting and the planting of trees or taller palms etc. in this space. Although these spaces could accommodate some deeper soil profiles and accommodate some larger trees and vegetation as they are above structure they cannot be classified as deep soil. In addition not all areas have a minimum width of 3m and as such would fail to satisfy the definition of “deep soil”.

The design guidance provisions within the ADG do make allowances for some instances where deep soil areas are not able to be achieved. The ADG states that;

 “achieving design criteria many not be possible on some sites including where:

-    The location and building typology have limited or no space for deep soil ground level (e.g. central business district, constrained sites, high density areas, or in centres)

-    There is 100% site coverage or non-residential uses at ground floor level.

Where a proposal does not achieve deep soil requirements, acceptable stormwater management should be achieved and alternative forms of planting provided such as on structure.”

The proposed development fits within the category stipulated above being located as it is within Blakehurst Centre.

The built form, and the need to provide retail floor space and the service lane, restricts the capacity to create a deep soil zone.

Without the presence or integration of the service lane at the rear a deep soil area could be included however this would create adverse traffic and access issues, and the provision of the access lane could provide future benefits to developments further to the north.

The development has created a central courtyard space which will be well landscaped (refer to Figure 10 below) and include plantings on structure. This courtyard space has been well designed and treated with a variety of plants and species, seating, planter boxes and includes a large water feature. It will allow for passive recreation, a pleasant meeting space and will improve the visual quality of the development by focusing the outlook of the rear units to look down on this area. Given that the site is opposite Todd Park and Church Street Reserve and within close proximity to Stuart Park the lack of deep soil areas will not adversely affect or compromise the functionality of the areas of open space within the development.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10: Landscaping proposed within the central courtyard space (courtesy Sturt Noble, 2019)

3F-1

Visual Privacy

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

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

-Up to 12m (4 storeys)

Habitable rooms and balconies = 6m

Non-habitable rooms = 3m

 

North – Nil side setback as this property adjoins retail/commercial developments as part of the Blakehurst Commercial Centre and a nil side setback is required to ensure continuity of mixed use developments and encourage active frontages, and an appropriate street-edge along the Princes Highway.

There are no openings along the northern side of the front building facing Princes Highway. This is satisfactory and complies with the ADG. The rear building however is setback some 3m from the northern boundary and includes a series of windows along Levels 1-5. The intention for these windows is to capture solar access up until the adjoining site to the north redevelops. These windows could quite easily be redesigned to become snorkel windows and this elevation becomes a defensive wall so that no potential for future overlooking occurs. Balconies can include privacy screens or blade walls. Also along the upper levels (5 and 6) the balconies along the northern side could become non-trafficable. Design changes could easily be adopted to satisfy the ADG provisions and achieve no window openings within 6m of the boundary.

South – The site adjoins Water Street and across the road is Church Reserve which includes a public parking area. The building hugs the corner of Princes Highway and Water Street and is setback between 3m - 5.5m on the ground floor with the upper level balconies located on the boundary.

Given the ground floor commercial components and the provision of an awning the siting of the upper levels on the boundary are generally consistent with the character and nature of development within a commercial zone.

East - The eastern part of the building is located on the front boundary and aligned with the Princes Highway frontage which is consistent with the character and nature of development on main roads. The development will include an awning above the ground floor shops.

West – The western, rear side of the development includes the service lane which is setback 8m at the ground floor level. The upper level units are setback a minimum of 6m at Levels 1 - 4 with the building wall setback 9m for Levels 5 and 6 in accordance with the ADG separation distances.

A few additional conditions would be imposed if the application was to be supported to improve privacy between properties including:

-  The staircase along the western side of Lobby 3 shall include obscure glazed openings to reduce the potential for overlooking to the residential lots to the rear.

-  All western facing balconies shall include a sliding privacy screen along each balcony to reduce the potential for overlooking and also provide additional solar protection.

-  The proposed garden terraces on Level 4 located along the western side which are dedicated to Units 31, 32 and 33 are to become non-trafficable landscaping areas that are communal and will be open style spaces which include a series of low scale plants.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3J-1

Bicycle and car parking

1. For development in the following locations:

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

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

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

This section of the ADG is not applicable to this development.

The proposal is not located in an “accessible” area and the parking provisions to be relied upon are the provisions within the Kogarah DCP.

Parking rates are assessed later in this report.

Appropriate designated bike parking has been provided.

 

N/A as the site is not located within an “accessible” area

4A-1

Solar and daylight access

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

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

The development has been designed to comply with the solar access provisions of the ADG.

A total of 35 apartments out of 50 receive a minimum of 2 hours of solar access in accordance with the ADG requirements which amounts to 70%.

Most apartments will have dual orientation and therefore will achieve the minimum solar access requirements with a couple of the southern facing apartments not complying due to their orientation.

Also apartments in the rear wing which face east and look onto the central courtyard will be partially overshadowed by the front building.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4B-3

Natural Ventilation

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

Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed

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

Since the design has created two built forms and separate buildings the building depth complies with the 18m maximum depth from glass line to glass line.

The eastern building facing Princes Highway has a maximum glass line to glass line building depth of 15m.

The western building is wider and has a depth of some 18m which satisfies the ADG provisions.

In terms of cross ventilation, most apartments have dual aspect and therefore comply with the minimum cross ventilation requirements. Thirty five (35) apartments are designed to allow for cross-ventilation which amounts to 70% of the development which exceeds the 60% minimum requirement.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4C-1

Ceiling heights

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

Habitable rooms  = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m

Ground floor heights for commercial/retail uses are 3.3m to promote future flexibility

The floor to floor heights are 3.05m which is slightly lower than the 3.1m suggested by the ADG however this is only a small non-compliance and the development will still be able to achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m with appropriate servicing solutions.

 

Retail area No.2 on the ground floor has a floor to ceiling height of 3.3m which satisfies the provision.

This tenancy is located on the corner of Princes Highway and Water Street and due to the existing ground levels and topography (sloping from north to south) part of this tenancy will be located below the ground level.

There is an internal ramp providing access to this space. It is a relatively large tenancy 410sqm and this arrangement and design will not compromise its use and functionality.

Retail Unit No.1 faces Princes Highway and has a floor to ceiling height of 3.248 which is marginally short of the 3.3m minimum. The non-compliance is not considered to adversely affect the operation of this space.

The retail tenancy which is designated as a “coffee shop” located along Water Street is only a small space some 35sqm in area. It has a floor to ceiling height of 3m. Although this is below the 3.3m requirement given the size and location of this small retail tenancy the floor to ceiling height is acceptable in this case as it will act as a small retail or potentially commercial tenancy for the future. The space will likely be used for a small local business and the necessity to comply with the floor to ceiling height provision is not necessary.

The exact location and form of the proposed mechanical plant has not been designated on the plan.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partial non-compliance

 

4D-1

Apartment size and layout

1. Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

1 bedroom = 50sqm

2 bedroom = 70sqm

3 bedroom = 90sqm

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

The design and internal size of each apartment has been designed to comply with the minimum provisions of the ADG as noted below.

1 bedroom = 54sqm and above

2 bedroom = 90sqm and above

3 bedroom = 115sqm and over

The one bedroom apartments have one bathroom. Two bedroom apartments include ensuites, this clarifies why these apartments are larger than the minimum required. This also applies for the three bedroom apartments

 

At least one window is provided to each room.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

4D-2

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5m x the ceiling height

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Within range.

 

 

Open plan layouts are 8m or less from window or balcony.

The depth of all kitchens do not exceed 8m from a window, balcony or opening.

The apartments facing Princes Highway have been designed to consider the acoustic implications generated by this busy roadway.

The design includes balconies which are generally enclosed (partially as winter gardens).

To improve the visual appearance of the balconies and reduce their visual bulk the winter gardens should be maintained but the “enclosed balcony” elements should be ‘opened up’ and include a consistent balustrade with the winter gardens.

This can be imposed as a condition if the proposal was to be supported. This would create some additional recessive features rather than the majority of the façade being enclosed and solid which increases the visual bulk. Opening up parts of the balcony will lighten and soften the eastern (front) façade.

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

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

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

-3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom

 

- 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

Every master bedroom has a minimum area of 10sqm.

 

 

 

 

Bedrooms are well proportioned and sized, having minimum dimensions of 3m.

 

The width of living/dining spaces for one-bedroom apartments have a minimum width of 3.6m.

 

 

 

The width of living/dining rooms for the two and three-bedroom apartments is a minimum of 4m.

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 4E-1

Private Open space and balconies

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

 

 

 

- one-bedroom = 8sqm/2m depth

 

 

 

 

 

- two-bedroom = 10sqm/2m depth

 

 

 

 

 

-  3+ bedroom = 12sqm/2.4m depth

 

 

 

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

 

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

All balcony areas are at or greater than the minimum specified and the minimum dimensions are observed for primary balconies as required.

 

All one bedroom apartments comply with the minimum 8sqm balcony size if the winter gardens are included along the front elevation facing Princes Highway.

 

All two bedroom apartments have balconies with minimum areas of 10sqm when including the winter gardens along Princes Highway frontage.

 

The three bedroom apartments have minimum balcony sizes of 12sqm if winter gardens are included.

 

There are no balconies with depths of 1m or less.

 

 

 

There are no ground floor apartments. Apartments on Level 1 in the front building have balconies facing Princes Highway and courtyards that face the central courtyard space. They have access to two sets of external spaces which is a benefit to the design and provide these units with better internal amenity than most apartments which face busy arterial roadways as these largely only have one orientation.

 Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4F-1

Common circulation spaces

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight

There are three lift cores.

Lift Lobby 1 provides access to two (2) apartments at every level of the building.

 

Lift Lobby 2 provides access to two (2) apartments at every level of the building.

 

Lift Lobby 3 provides access to eight (8) apartments (Level 2) five (5) apartments on Level 4 and three (3) apartments on Levels 5 and 6.

Yes

4G-1

Storage

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

1 bedroom = 6m³

2 bedroom – 8m³

3 bedroom – 10m³

All apartments have storage cupboards that comply with the requirements with dedicated independent storage rooms for 51 apartments in the basement. The provision of storage in association with this development is considered to be appropriate and compliant.

Yes

 

4H

Acoustic Privacy

Noisy areas within buildings including building entries and corridors should be located next to or above each other and quieter areas next to or above quieter areas

 

The development has been sensitively designed to respect the context of the area.

This application is accompanied by an Acoustic report and the noise assessment and findings of the report were discussed earlier in this report.

The benefit of this design is that the creation of two (2) buildings mitigates noise impacts from the roadway to internal spaces ie the front building will act as a barrier and shield to a large degree noise from Princes Highway to the rear building. Most apartments within the front building have dual aspect so the courtyards facing the internal communal open space will be quieter spaces than the front balconies.

The noise impacts have been largely mitigated and minimised through the design of the development.

Yes

4J

Noise and Pollution

Design solutions to mitigate noise include:

limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources

providing seals to prevent noise transfer through gaps using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (wintergardens) using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties e.g. solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits

This has been discussed above and is considered to be acceptable from a design perspective.

Yes

4K

Apartment Mix

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future

The development provides a variety and mix of apartment types.

·   11 x 1 bedrooms (22%);

·    25 x 2 bedrooms (50%) and;

·   14 x 3 bedrooms (28%)

Yes

4L

Ground Floor Apartments

Direct street access should be provided to ground floor apartments

Privacy and safety should be provided without obstructing casual surveillance.

Not applicable to this form of mixed use development where retail/commercial uses dominate the ground floor. This is the preferred land use for this site and within this zone in accordance with the KLEP provisions for “shop-top” housing development.

N/A

4M

Facades

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

The front façade of the building has been redesigned on three (3) occasions and the most recent amended design (refer to Figure 9 below) is considered to be an improvement particularly in respect to the buildings visual presentation to Princes Highway.

The front façade is more ordered and balanced. It includes defined bays which break up the bulk and length of the built form.

The reduction in the height and scale of the building also improves its visual appearance to the street. The corner element remains a strong feature which distinguishes the retail/mixed use element (fronting Princes Highway) and the more residential form and character facing Water Street.

Contemporary materials and finishes have been employed and the colour palette is consistent with the character of modern developments in the street and immediate locality.

The development relies on a number of architectural elements which enhance its visual appearance and break up the mass and form of the buildings. It is proposed to further soften the front façade by “opening up” the “enclosed balconies” which will introduce some recessive elements along the front façade whilst also reducing the visual bulk and prominence of the these elements which will be protrusive.

Yes

Figure 11: Final front façade to Princes Highway (courtesy Peter Dunn and Associates, 2019)

4N

Roof

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

 

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

The proposed roof is a standard flat roof form with the inclusion of roof top areas of open space.

 

 

The roof has been amended to include a series of photovoltaic panels and also the inclusion of a ventilation system on the roof which is considered to be environmentally sustainable.

Yes

4O

Landscape Design

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

A detailed Landscape design has been prepared and included as part of this assessment prepared by Sturt Noble. The planting and landscaping area and arrangement is considered to be well designed (see Figure 12 below).

Yes

Figure 12: Landscaping proposed around the development and within the rooftop (courtesy Sturt Noble, 2019)

4P

Planting on structures

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

Landscaping includes planter boxes in areas where deep soil cannot be achieved and where there is a podium. This is largely within most of the site but in particular within the central courtyard area.

There are substantial planter boxes proposed in this space and include a variety of other features (water features and spaces for seating). This space even though in the future with development occurring to the north will be overshadowed could still be an attractive space that adds amenity to the utilisation of apartments. It is essentially a private space for the exclusive use of the development and the lack of sunlight is compensated by the use of the roof top areas which will have good solar access throughout the day.

Yes

4Q

Universal Design

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

The various sizes and designs of apartments allows for use by differing lifestyles.

The design of apartments is flexible and considered to be appropriate. There are two (2) adaptable units (7 and 18) proposed which adds to the flexibility of the design.

Yes

4R

Adaptive Reuse

New additions to existing buildings are contemporary and complementary and enhance an area's identity and sense of place

This is a purpose built building.

N/A

4S

Mixed Use

Mixed use developments are provided in appropriate locations, provide active street frontages, residential levels of the building are integrated within the development and safety and amenity is maximised for residents

The development is classified as a mixed use development and satisfies the provisions of the ADG in respect to these types of developments.

Yes

4T

Awnings and signage

Awnings and signage – awnings are well located and compliment and integrate with the building design, signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character

An awning is proposed along the Princes Highway frontage.

The design complies with Council’s requirements however if approval is recommended standard conditions will ensure the awning and associated public works (footpath detailing, street tree location and type) will be compliant and in accordance with Council’s requirements.

Consideration will also be given to the requirements of the RMS and Rail Corp given the infrastructure within Princes Highway frontage. 

Yes

4U

Energy Efficiency

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

The development incorporates BASIX commitments in the design to provide appropriate energy efficiency features. A compliant BASIX certificate accompanies this application.

The development has been amended to include a series of environmentally sustainable initiatives which is considered to satisfy the intention of the ADG.

Yes

4V

Water management and conservation

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

Development incorporates appropriate stormwater measures and Council’s Development Engineers are satisfied with the design.

Yes

4W

Waste Management

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

Waste facilities are provided in the basement. There are a number of designated garbage rooms for both the residential and the retail/commercial component included within the design.

Council’s Waste/Sustainability Officer is satisfied with the number and arrangement of bins. The development also caters for a bulky goods storage room and ample space to store garbage next to the loading bay.

Yes

4X

Building maintenance

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

The design incorporates a mix of external finishes that require minimal maintenance.

The proposed finishes and materials are considered to be durable and the inclusion of brick finishes and simple materials will require less maintenance in the longer term.

Yes

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zoning

 

113.  The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan (KLEP) 2012. Refer to Figure 13 below.

 

Figure 13: Zoning of the area with the site outlined in blue.

 

114.  The proposal is defined as “shop top housing” which is defined as “one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises”. The rear building is designed as a residential flat building (RFB) as it doesn’t include retail uses on the ground floor. However this part of the building sits above retail car spaces and the loading zone which services the retail/commercial component. An RFB is also a permissible land use in the zone.

 

115.  The proposal generally satisfies the objectives of the zone which include;

 

·     To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

·     To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

·     To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

Table 5: Compliance with KLEP2012

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

B2 Local Centre zone

The proposal is defined as shop top housing and a residential flay building which is a permissible use within the zone.

Yes

 2.3 Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

Consistent with zone objectives as discussed above.

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

21m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The building exceeds the 21m height limit and achieves an overall height at the highest point of 24.74m. The lift overrun and the rooftop area of communal open space are the only elements which exceeds the height control.

The non-compliance at the highest point is a 23% non-compliance with the control however this only relates to one lift overrun. The other structures are lower and about 2.4m above the control (11% variation beyond the control) and 1m for planter boxes (4% non-compliance).

No – see discussion below regarding Clause 4.6 Statement which has been submitted.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

2.5:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

The proposed FSR is 2.5:1. The proposal complies with a maximum GFA of 6,373.5sqm. The proposal provides a GFA of 6,294sqm which amounts to a total FSR of 2.47:1

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The GFA calculations provided by the Applicant are accurate and in accordance with the definition of GFA in accordance with the KLEP provisions.

There are in fact some areas the Applicant has included which should be “excluded” in accordance with the GFA calculation including the “switch room” on Level 1, “plant room” on the ground floor, the “retail garbage” area which is partially below ground (basement). These elements should be excluded. The winter gardens and enclosed balconies have been included in accordance with the definition.

The rooftop WC has been excluded but this element should be included. It amounts to some 8sqm and its inclusion would increase the GFA calculation marginally and the FSR would stay at 2.47:1. If the proposed “enclosed balconies” were ‘opened up’ to become traditional balconies the gross floor area would be further reduced.

Yes

5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of

this clause are;

(i) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

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

The site is not a designated item of heritage nor is it within a Conservation Area. The closest item is I131 which is “Carss Park”. This item is physically separated from the site by the highway and Todd Park. The proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the integrity, aesthetics and historical importance of this item.

Yes

6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)

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

The site is located within the Class 5 ASS zone. Class 5 relates to “works within 100m of adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1m Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land.

Subclause 3 states that Development consent must not be granted under this clause for the carrying out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority.”

The subject site adjoins Class 3 ASS and therefore an Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan is a mandatory requirement pursuant to the provisions of the KLEP. The Applicant has justified why a detailed management plan is not required;

-    Extensive testing of soils during the process of remediation did not suggest the presence of any Acid Sulphates.

-    The Botany Bay Acid Sulphates Soil Risk map does not show the presence of any acid sulphate soils (ASS).

-    The method of basement construction (fully sealed, tanked basement) will not impact or lower the water table.

Despite this justification which may be accurate and reasonable an Acid Sulphate Soils management plan needs to be provided which would potentially support these arguments.

The wording within the LEP requires this report to be submitted.

Yes

6.2 Earthworks

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

The proposal includes the provision of two levels of basement car parking.

This is a standard amount of excavation and site works to accommodate a development of this scale and density and is similar to the basement car parking arrangement that has been constructed at 621 Princes Highway.

The proposed earthworks are not considered to be unreasonable.

Yes

6.3 Flood Planning

The objectives of this clause are as follows—

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

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

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

The site is not affected by any flood planning restrictions.

Yes

6.5 Airspace Operations

The consent authority must not grant development consent to development that is a controlled activity within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 of the Commonwealth unless the applicant has obtained approval for the controlled activity under regulations made for the purposes of that Division.

The height of the proposed development is above the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) level of 15.24m.

The application was referred to Sydney Airports for their formal concurrence.

To date no response has been received. If a response has not been received within 21 days then concurrence can be assumed.

The proposed RL at the highest point of the building is at RL35.90 (lift overrun).

The roof parapet sits at approximately RL27.8 and approximately RL30.9

The assessment needs to ensure the height of the building does not exceed the “prescribed airspace” which is governed by the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). In Kogarah closer to the airport the OLS is 51m. The proposed development is well within the OLS so there should be no penetration within the prescribed airspace.

Yes

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

116.  The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to building height, Clause 4.3(2) of the KLEP. The LEP identifies a maximum height of 21m for the Site (refer to Figure 14 below). The height of the building has been determined by complying with the definition of building height which means;

 

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

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

 

117.  Taking this definition into account, the proposed development will exceed the height control by approximately 4.8m (at the highest point) which comprises of the lift overrun, open style pergola, planter boxes and WC which are located on the roof top and forms part of the communal area of open space. This is a 23% variation above the control. Although the exceedance seems substantial it only affects the lift overrun to that degree. The pergola and WC structures only exceed the control by some 2.4m- 2.6m which amounts to an 11%-12% variation and the fixed planter boxes exceed the control by approximately 1m, a 5% variation.

 

118.  These variations to the height can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the KLEP. The area and degree of non-compliance with the height is shown in Figure 12 below. The amended Clause 4.6 Statement was based on the plans as noted in Figure 12 however the heights of structures were not included  and plans have been updated after Council wanted plans showing the RL’s of the structures on the roof (