AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 3 September 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)

Cameron Jones (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a)    Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street Hurstville

b)    565 King Goerges Road Penshurst

c)    58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

d)    8-8A Johnstone Street Peakhurst

 

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

 

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

 

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 September 2020

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP041-20        58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst – DA2019/626

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP042-20        565 King Georges Road Penshurst – REV2020/0016

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP043-20        Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street Hurstville – DA2020/ 0146

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP044-20        8-8A Johnstone Street Peakhurst – DA202/0307

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

 


 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 September 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP041-20

Development Application No

DA2019/0626

Site Address & Ward Locality

58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

Peakhurst Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition and construction of a four storey boarding house with basement parking, landscaping and site works

Owners

Mr M Adbul-Rahman

Applicant

58 Lawrence Street Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

Architect: Smith & Tzannes

Date Of Lodgement

18/12/2019

Submissions

31 unique submissions

Cost of Works

$3,918,363.62

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The application is for the construction of a boarding house and has received more than 10 unique submissions.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017,

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No.2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Draft Environmental State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft State Environmental Planning Policy – Remediation of Land, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020,

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

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

Architectural Plans, Statement of Environmental Effects,

Clause 4.6 Variation Request, Stormwater Plans,

Landscape Plan, Arborist Report, Traffic Report,

 Submissions, Plan of Management

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be granted deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included 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?

 

Yes  - Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, a deferred commencement approval is recommended and the conditions can be reviewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1: The site is outlined in blue

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         This development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a four (4) storey boarding house comprising of twenty (20) boarding rooms, including a Manager’s Room, communal living room with basement car parking for ten (10) vehicles, landscaping and site works, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

2.         A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted in relation to a variation to the maximum height development standard in Hurstville LEP 2012, which has been assessed in detail later in this report and is considered to be well founded and in this case is recommended for supported given the nature and degree of variation that has been applied for.    

 

Site and Locality

3.         The subject site is located on the northern side of Lawrence Street approximately 165m west of the intersection of Lawrence Street and Pearce Avenue. The subject site is known as 58 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst and is legally described as Lot 204 in DP 36317.

 

4.         The site is an irregular shape having a frontage to Lawrence Street of 17.67m, side boundary lengths of 36.8m and 36.79 a rear boundary length of 14.93m giving a site area of 598sqm.

 

5.         Presently situated on the site is a single storey dwelling house with ancillary structures in the rear yard.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

6.         The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposal involves the construction of a boarding house which is a permissible use in the zone with development consent. 

 

7.         The proposed development satisfies all relevant objectives contained within the HLEP and is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. 

 

Submissions

8.         The DA was publicly notified to neighbours between 22 January 2020 and 19 February 2020 in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP). A total of thirty one (31) submissions were received raising concerns with parking and traffic congestion, privacy, design, height, scale and the bulk of the scheme, together with the social impacts of the proposed use of the building as a boarding house. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report. 

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

9.         This application is referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel for determination as the proposal relates to a boarding house and Council delegations. It is also referred as over ten (10) unique submissions were received in response to the application under the Ministerial Directions.

 

Conclusion

10.      The proposal is an appropriate response to the zoning of the land in an area that is undergoing a transition to medium density housing including Residential Flat Buildings (RFB). The bulk and scale of the building has satisfactorily been resolved via appropriate articulation, acceptable building setbacks and a mix of materiality and textures.

 

11.      The proposal is consistent with the desired future building envelope and density for the site.

 

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

 

13.      As a result the application is recommended for approval subject to suitable conditions of consent.

 

Report in Full

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

14.      The application proposes the demolition of existing structures, removal of six (6) trees and the construction of a four (4) storey boarding house containing twenty (20) boarding rooms including a Manager’s Room over basement parking for ten (10) vehicles, landscaping and site works.

 

15.      Further details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Basement Level

-     Ten (10) car parking spaces including one (1) accessible space;

-     Four (4) bicycle parking spaces;

-     Four (4) motor bike spaces;

-     Pump room; and

-     Lift core and stairs with an annotated accessible circulation area.

 

Ground Floor Plan

-     Three (3) boarding rooms;

-     Manager’s Room and adjacent private opens space;

-     Communal living room;

-     Waste room;

-     Communal open space at the rear of the building;

-     Lift lobby with an annotated accessible circulation area and fire stairs;

-     Vehicular access from Lawrence Street located on the western side of the site; and

-     Landscaped front setback with pedestrian access on the eastern side of the site.

 

Levels 1 and 2

-     Six (6) boarding rooms; and

-     Lift lobby with an annotated accessible circulation area and fire stairs.

 

Level 3

-     Four (4) boarding rooms;

-     Lift lobby with an annotated accessible circulation area and fire stairs; and

-     Services cupboard, hot water and AC units.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

16.      The subject site is located on the northern side of Lawrence Street approximately 165m west of the intersection of Lawrence Street and Pearce Avenue.

 

17.      The subject site is known as 58 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst and is legally described as Lot 204 in DP 36317.

 

18.      The site is an irregular shape having a frontage to Lawrence Street of 17.67m, side boundary lengths of 36.8m and 36.79 a rear boundary length of 14.93m giving a site area of 598sqm.

 

19.      The land falls from the street to the rear boundary, with a level difference of approximately 2.5m.

 

20.      The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and ancillary structures in the rear yard.

 

Figure 2: Existing development on the site

 

21.      Immediately adjoining the site to the east is 60 and 60A Lawrence Street which contains a two storey attached dual occupancy.

 

Figure 3: 60 and 60A Lawrence Street (east of the site)

 

22.      Immediately to the west of the site is 56 Lawrence Street which contains a single storey dwelling house.

 

Figure 4: 56 Lawrence Street (west of the site)

 

23.      To the rear of the site is a single storey dwelling house known as 49 Gover Street and a residential flat building at 51-55 Gover Street.

 

Figure 5: 49 Gover Street (rear of the site)

 

Figure 6: 51-55 Gover Street (rear of the site)

 

24.      Properties on the southern side of Lawrence Street, opposite the subject site, consist of a mix of residential flat buildings and single storey dwellings.

 

Figure 7: 71-75 Lawrence Street (opposite the site)

 

Figure 8: 69 Lawrence Street (opposite the site)

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

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

 

Compliance with State Planning Policies

SEPP Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Yes

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

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

 

The stormwater will connect to an easement and drain to Gover Street via an onsite stormwater detention system.

 

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

27.      A BASIX Certificate has been issued for the proposed development and the commitments required under the certificate have been satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

 

29.      Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a 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.

 

30.      The site has a history of residential uses and as such, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

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

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

 

32.      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). 

 

33.      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.

 

34.      The proposed development does not involve the removal of any significant trees or vegetation. The six (6) trees proposed for removal are supported by Council’s Consulting Arborist. In this regard, the provisions of this SEPP are considered to be met.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

35.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The DA was referred to Ausgrid on 8 January 2020 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Ausgrid advised there are no issues with the proposal.

 

36.      The applicant’s electrical consultant has advised there is no need for a substation; however the applicant is seeking written confirmation from Ausgrid, but has not been provided at the time this report has completed.

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

38.      State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 aims to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing. The proposal seeks consent for a boarding house pursuant to the provisions of the SEPP, specifically Division 3 – Boarding Houses. An assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the SEPP is provided in the following table.

 

Clause

Standards

Proposal

Complies

26 – Land to which Division applies for the purpose of a boarding house with consent

·    R1 General Residential

·    R2 Low Density Residential

·    R3 Medium Density Residential

·    R4 High Density Residential

·    B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·    B2 Local Centre

·    B4 Mixed Use

Site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential

Yes

27 – Development to which Division applies

Not applicable – the site is in the R3 zone.

N/A

NA/

29 - Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Council cannot refuse a development application for a boarding house under the ARHSEPP 2009 on any of the following grounds:

Floor Space Ratio

If the density and scale of the buildings as a FSR is not more than the existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted (1.5:1 inclusive of additional permitted 0.5:1)

Permitted: 897.6sqm

 

Proposed: 684.2sqm

Yes

Height

If the building height is not more than the maximum height permitted under another EPI for any building on the land:

Maximum of 12m under the HLEP 2012

13.135m

No – refer to discussion in LEP section of this report

Landscaped Area

If the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located

Landscaped front setback area is consistent with the character of the streetscape.

Yes

Solar Access

Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

3 hours of direct sunlight is achieved as it is located with a northern aspect.

Yes

Private Open Space

If at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

 

(i)  one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for the use of the lodgers,

 

 

(ii)  if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to that accommodation.

 

 

 

 

 

Located within the rear setback. The area and dimensions comply.

 

 

Located on the western side of the development accessed directly from the manager’s room. The area and dimensions comply.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Accommodation size

if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least—

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

 

Room 1 - 14.8sqm

Room 2 - 19.9sqm

Room 3 - 16.5sqm

Room 4 - 24.3sqm Managers Room

Room 5 - 15.1sqm

Room 6 - 20.2sqm

Room 7 - 16.7sqm

Room 8 - 22.3sqm

Room 9 - 25sqm

Room 10 - 23.6sqm

Room 11 - 15.1sqm

Room 12 - 22.7sqm

Room 13 - 20.2sqm

Room 14 - 22.3sqm

Room 15 - 25sqm

Room 16 - 22.9sqm

Room 17 - 15.1sqm

Room 18 - 22.8sqm

Room 19 - 18.4sqm

Room 20 - 22.9sqm

Yes

Parking

0.5 parking spaces provided for each boarding room (19 x 0.5 = 10 spaces)

 

Not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site

10 spaces provided

 

 

 

A Manager space is not nominated on the plans – a condition of consent is recommended that one (1) space be sign-posted for use by the Manager.

One space shortfall – refer to comments below

 

Comments on Parking

The proposal is one (1) space short of the required eleven (11) parking spaces. Due to the limited on street parking available on Lawrence Street and within the surrounding street network and the lack of justification for the shortfall by the applicant, it is considered that the car parking is required to meet the minimum standard in the SEPP. As a result a deferred commencement condition has been recommended for the deletion of Room 303 from Level 3 and the roof over the level two (2) development form is to be consistent with the remainder of the development. This roof form is to be non-trafficable.

Clause 30 – Standards for Boarding Houses

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

Communal living

(a) If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided

One (1) communal room provided at the rear on the ground floor.

Yes

Size of boarding rooms

(b) No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25sq

Room 1 - 14.8sqm

Room 2 - 19.9sqm

Room 3 - 16.5sqm

Room 4 - 24.3sqm

Room 5 - 15.1sqm

Room 6 - 20.2sqm

Room 7 - 16.7sqm

Room 8 - 22.3sqm

Room 9 - 25sqm

Room 10 - 23.6sqm

Room 11 - 15.1sqm

Room 12 - 22.7sqm

Room 13 - 20.2sqm

Room 14 - 22.3sqm

Room 15 - 25sqm

Room 16 - 22.9sqm

Room 17 - 15.1sqm

Room 18 - 22.8sqm

Room 19 - 18.4sqm

Room 20 - 22.9sqm

Yes

Maximum occupancy

(c) No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers

Complies – condition imposed to reinforce this.

Yes

Kitchen and bathroom facilities

(d) Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger

All rooms have a kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Yes

Boarding house manager

(e) If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager

Boarding house manager’s room provided.

Yes

Bicycle and motor cycle spaces

(h) At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms (20/5 = 4 spaces)

Four (4) motorcycle spaces and four (4) bicycle storage spaces provided in the basement.

Yes

 

Character assessment

39.      Under clause 16A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, a consent authority must not consent to a development if the design is incompatible with the character of the local area. No guidelines were developed to inform how to apply the compatibility test. A number of court cases have provided some guidance as to how to assess the “character” of a local area and what to consider ensuring an affordable housing development is suitable.

 

40.      In considering compatibility with neighbouring character, in Sterling Projects v The Hills Shire Council [2011] the Commissioner said that “character is not limited to a consideration of streetscape but includes the wider context of the site, in particular the characteristics of the properties which adjoin the site”.

 

41.      In the recent decision of Louden Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] clause 16A played a prominent role in Commissioner Gray’s judgement. Commissioner Gray stated that all buildings of all typologies must be incorporated into the assessment of the local area character. This assessment concurs with Commissioner Roseth SC who in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] stated that “compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.” Therefore in order to establish a local character in a mixed, diverse area the plans should reasonably match other structures in the vicinity and should consider such aspects as building forms, setbacks and scale.

 

42.      The subject site is located within a precinct that is undergoing change and transition from a lower scale residential environment to a medium density landscape. This transition is evident in the immediate locality on Lawrence Street where land is zoned R3 and multi-storey Residential Flat Building (RFB) developments are under construction or complete, with other boarding houses approved in the precinct. The locality can be described as diverse in its character as it comprises of small scale residential developments in the form of detached dwelling houses, dual occupancies and a medium density residential development with 3-4 storey residential flat buildings and affordable housing.

 

43.      There is a DCP control for residential flat buildings that requires a minimum site width of 24m. The subject site has a width of 17.6m however the site width control does not apply to boarding houses. In establishing whether the proposal is in keeping with the character of the area, site width can impact the resultant built form and the opportunity to provide separation to site boundaries. The proposal provides suitable setbacks to the site boundaries which achieves both separation of built form from adjoining buildings and privacy for residents and neighbours through window placement, size and treatment.

 

44.      The proposal is considered suitable for the site and the locality for the reasons discussed in this report and meets the aims of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 which include facilitating the delivery of new affordable rental housing.

 

45.      The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the character of the locality and the future character envisaged by the planning controls. The scale and form of the development is consistent with newly constructed RFB’s and other affordable housing within the immediate and wider context of the site. The development also satisfies the objectives of the R3 zone which include:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

46.      The proposal is well located and is within walking distance of Riverwood. The proposed built form is considered to be a sympathetic and a desirable response for this site in terms of its scale and design intent and will be in keeping with the anticipated development outcome for the precinct.

 

47.      The four (4) storey built form is in keeping with existing residential developments in the immediate locality. The setback to Lawrence Street contains deep soil planting (OSD tank is provided under driveway ramp) and private open space at ground level, with small Juliette balconies at the upper levels to provide casual surveillance of the street and a height that complements the predominant built form of the existing development in the street.

 

48.      The height and scale of the building is in keeping with the predominant built form of residential flat and affordable housing buildings in Lawrence Street and in the wider precinct including Gover Street, Trafalgar Street and Peake Parade. As such the proposal satisfies the objectives and intent of Clause 16A.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

 

Draft Environment SEPP

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

 

50.      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

 

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

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

53.      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.

 

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

 

55.      The site has a history of residential uses and as such, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012)

 

Zoning

56.      The subject site is zoned Zone R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012). Refer to zoning map below. The proposed development is defined as a boarding house which is a permissible land use in the zone.

 

Figure 9: Zoning map subject site outlined in blue

 

57.      The objectives of the zone are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

58.      The proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 Zone as it will provide for the housing needs of the community in a medium density residential environment.

 

59.      The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

HLEP2012 Compliance Table

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

R3 Medium Density Residential

The proposal is defined as a boarding house which is a permissible use within the zone.

Yes

 2.3

Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

Consistent with zone objectives.

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

12m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The maximum height is 13.135m

 

The building exceeds the maximum height permitted, with the height exceedance equating to only the lift overrun and a small section of the roof.

 

A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted and is addressed in detail later in this report.

No – refer to discussion following this table.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

1.143:1 complies with the ARHSEPP.

Bonus FSR utilised pursuant to the SEPP – refer to SEPP compliance table.

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The FSR has been calculated accordingly.

Yes

4.6 –

Exceptions to Development Standards

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

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

The building exceeds the maximum height permitted, this height exceedance relates to the lift overrun and a small section of the roof.

 

A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted for the height variation.

Refer to the assessment following this table.

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 proposal does not adjoin any environmental heritage item nominated under HLEP 2012.

 

 

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 not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils under HLEP 2012.

 

N/A

6.2 Earthworks

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

The proposed development includes excavation and associated earthworks to accommodate a single level of basement car parking.

Yes subject to conditions.

 

Exception to Development Standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

60.      The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows

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

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

 

61.      The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to height (Clause 4.3). The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP) identifies a maximum height of 12m for the Site and the proposed development will exceed the height by 1.135m which comprises the lift overrun and a small section of roof. The remainder of the building is below the 12m height limit. This height breach amounts to a 9.5% variation of the control.

 

Figure 10: Section plan showing height non-compliance

 

Figure 11: Height blanket diagram showing height non-compliance

 

62.      Any variation to a statutory control can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the HLEP. An assessment of the proposed height against the survey plan levels was conducted to indicate the Applicant’s calculations are generally accurate.

 

63.      Clause 4.6(3) states that:

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

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

-      that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard”

 

64.      To support the non-compliance, the applicant has provided a request for a variation to Clause 4.3 in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP. The Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed as follows:

 

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

65.      Height of Buildings control under Clause 4.3 of the HLEP 2012 is a development standard. The maximum permissible height is 12m.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

66.      The objectives of Height of Buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of HLEP 2012 are:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3)(a))

67.      There have been several Court cases that have established provisions to assist in the assessment of Clause 4.6 statements to ensure they are well founded and address the provisions of Clause 4.6. In Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ set out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

69.      The Clause 4.6 Statement was prepared in consideration of the recent court cases and their judgements.

 

70.      Applicants comment: “When considering whether strict compliance with a development standard is reasonable and/or necessary, the consent authority must consider the nature of the proposed variation, the site-specific context and the design of the proposed development. In this instance it is considered unnecessary to require strict compliance with the standard as:

 

•      the particular context and circumstances of the site and arrangement of the plan that provides a better outcome.

•      the proposal achieves the objectives of the standard and the zone notwithstanding the non-compliance

 

CONTEXT

In utilising the bonus incentive provisions of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing it is anticipated that in the provision of affordable housing under the SEPP that parts of the development may exceed controls intended for traditional medium density residential development identified in the LEP and DCP. There is an indicator to this effect in clause 29(4) of the SEPP. This is in part because the height controls were calibrated assuming the FSR permissible under HLEP.

 

The site has a significant slope along the length; this provides particular site specific circumstance contributes to the challenge of keeping the full building below the height limit. The proposed development has responded to this step by carefully managing the levels to provide accessible path of travel, minimise impacts and keep the majority of the development below the height limit.

 

The only potion of the building that exceeds the height limit is the lift overrun and a small portion of the roof around the lift area. The overall height and view from the street is comparable to other recent development in the vicinity.

 

Georges River have an established practice of providing consent to development where the lift over run exceeds the height limit. This proposal is no different to other consents issued previously.

 

CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONE

The site is located within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential. The relevant objectives of the zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

Despite the non-compliance the proposal the development remains of a scale compatible with a built form expected in a medium density environment. This is demonstrated by the height being consistent with the adjacent residential flat buildings.

 

The development enables a different form of housing than the dominant apartment types that are provided in the area contributing to housing diversity. In providing for this ‘boarding house’ style accommodation it meets the objective of the zone in that it contributes to a diverse range of housing in the area meeting the needs of the community. This is in the public interest.

 

The proposed development retains a high level of amenity for the neighbouring properties and provides a high level of amenity for the future occupants. This is demonstrated through the accompanying application documents.

 

CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES OF CLAUSE 4.3

Despite the non-compliance with the development standard the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of cl. 4.3 In particular:

 

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

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

(c) -

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

(e)

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

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

 

The proposal is consistent with these objectives in that:

-      The height increase is not perceived from the majority of the public domain – particularly when compared with the adjacent development that has a greater height.

-      The height exceedance is located towards the centre of the building/site.

-      The development provides diversity in the scale of development by providing a smaller scale site development in an area defined by larger developments.

-      The difference in the extent of impact between a development that achieves strict numerical compliance would not materially alter the overshadowing, privacy or visual impacts on adjoining properties.

 

The public interest is maintained even though the standard is varied as the development achieves the housing diversity desired by the objectives of the clause in a form and height of building that is compatible with the adjacent context.

 

The site slope, incorporation of the bonus floor space provided under the SEPP and consistency of the development with the objectives of both the zone and the development standard support justification of the contravention of the height standard an that it is unnecessary and unreasonable to require strict compliance.”

 

Clause 4.6(3)(b) are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard

71.      Having regard to Clause 4.6(3)(b) and the need to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, it is considered that there is an absence of any negative impacts of the proposed non-compliance on the environmental quality of the locality and amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or view loss.

 

72.      Applicants Comment:

“Site context

Site context is a key consideration when determining the appropriateness and necessity of a development standard. Lawrence Street is undergoing a period of change from the single storey dwelling house to 4 storey multi dwelling housing – generally comprising residential flat buildings with basement car parking. From the street, the height non-compliance is imperceptible as the proposed building lift overrun and part of roof is located away from the street frontage.

 

The site has a fall from the front to the rear – resulting in approximately a 2.66m level difference across the site. The ground floor plate is set lower than the street which allows for the development to step with the topography of the site but is also constrained by the length of the basement parking ramp. If the building was to be lowered for the lift overrun to comply with height, the basement would have non-compliant – ramp grades and number of car parking.

 

While the development standard in the LEP apply to medium density development contemplated by the LEP, it does not expressly contemplate medium density residential development containing affordable rental housing with the additional floor space incentives intended to encourage such housing. As is common in many LEP’s the height and FSR in the LEP have been calibrated to work with each other.

 

Impacts

The height non-compliance does not result in additional overshadowing impacts. The additional height caused by the lift overrun and part of roof does not overshadow any neighbouring windows or private open space during mid-winter,

 

Amenity improvements

A boarding house is only required to have a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m. This could conceivably be accommodated within a 2.75-2.8m floor to floor height. The proposal provides for a 2.876-2.962m floor to floor height. This will enable a ceiling height of at least 2.55-2.6m ceiling height providing improved amenity for the future occupants.

 

Over the five floors this contributes to an additional approx. 700mm height – a significant proportion of the non-compliance.”

 

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out

73.      Clause 4.6(4) states that:

 

“Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)   the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

74.      Applicants Comment: “It is considered that compliance with the standard is unnecessary in these particular circumstances as

 

-      the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone

-      the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the standard

-      is compatible with the height of the adjacent development – such that the height non-compliance is generally imperceptible from the public domain

-      the additional floor space contained in the height allows for the housing diversity through the provision of a different dwelling type and the provision of affordable rental housing.

-      an improved amenity outcome is achieved through providing ceiling heights that are higher than the minimum standard without undue diminution in the amenity of surrounding development.

 

Approval for the minor departure from the development standard will not be detrimental to the surrounding area and results in the housing diversity intended by both the objectives of the zone and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.”

 

75.      The proposal meets the objectives of the standard as follows:

 

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

76.      Officer Comment: The site and surrounding land is zoned R3 with a height limit of 12m. The proposal is consistent with the existing and desired future of the locality in terms of scale and height.

 

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

77.      Officer Comment: This objective relates to considering the amenity impacts associated with the non-compliance. In terms of visual impact the structure is centrally located which reduces its visual appearance from the immediately adjoining streetscapes.

 

78.      The objective seeks to “minimise” the visual impact, it is not requiring it to be eliminated or totally negated, and as such seeing the structure is not a reason for refusal, it’s the impact of the visual interference of this structure that is to be controlled. The breach relates to a small scale ancillary structure which will not be highly visible or an intrusive element given the scale and proportions of the building. It will not be visible from immediately adjoining properties or the streetscapes given that it is centrally located. There will be no adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing or overlooking to adjoining properties from the part of the building where the height is exceeded.

 

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

79.      Officer Comment: The proposal will not impact on any items of heritage significance.

 

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

80.      Officer Comment: The site and surrounding land is zoned R3 with a height limit of 12m. The proposal is consistent with the existing and desired future of the locality in terms of scale and height.

 

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

81.      Officer Comment: This objective is not relevant to the subject site.

 

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

82.      Officer Comment: The site and surrounding land is zoned R3 with a height limit of 12m. The proposal is consistent with the existing and desired future character of the locality in terms of scale and height.

 

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

83.      Officer Comment: There will be no adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing or overlooking to adjoining properties or the public domain from the encroaching element as the roof area does not contain any useable areas.

 

84.      The exceedance of the control generally satisfies the objectives of the zone for the following reasons:

 

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

85.      The development is providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment with nineteen (19) boarding rooms provided.

 

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

86.      The development incorporates adaptable rooms within the nineteen (19) boarding rooms proposed.

 

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

87.      The development is residential in nature and does not include any additional land uses. This objective is offering some greater flexibility in the provision of land uses within this zone and is not a mandatory requirement.

 

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

88.      The boarding rooms achieve a high level of residential amenity through natural ventilation and solar access. The height non-compliance will not result in unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, overshadowing, visual or acoustic impacts.

 

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

89.      The proposal does not preclude the use of the boarding rooms for small home businesses.

 

90.      The area of non-compliance is considered to be reasonable and will not establish an undesirable precedent. It will not have any adverse impacts on the surrounding locality, which is emerging which is characterised by residential development of comparable character. The proposal promotes the economic use and development of the land consistent with its zone and purpose. The Panel is requested to invoke its powers under Clause 4.6 to permit the variation proposed.

 

91.      The public benefit of the variation is that it will appropriately facilitate the provision of medium density housing on a R3 zoned site and provide for a range of housing stock. It is noted that in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ clarified what items a Clause 4.6 does and does not need to satisfy. Importantly, there does not need to be a "better" planning outcome resulting from the non-compliance.

 

92.      The second matter was in cl 4.6(3)(b), where the Commissioner applied the wrong test in considering this matter by requiring that the development, which contravened the height development standard, result in a "better environmental planning outcome for the site" relative to a development that complies with the height development standard (in [141] and [142] of the judgment). Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly establish this test. The requirement in cl 4.6(3)(b) is that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, not that the development that contravenes the development standard have a better environmental planning outcome than a development that complies with the development standard.

 

93.      The shadow diagrams submitted with the architectural plans demonstrate the non-compliance does not result in any additional shadow beyond a compliant built form due to the central location of the lift overrun and the shadow being cast from the topmost wall on the south western elevation of the building.

 

94.      In this case the proposal seeks to establish the preferred and appropriate design and built form outcome for this site with the building complying in large with the height standard. There will be no adverse amenity or visual impacts generated by the variation and the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and the development standard. In this case the justification to vary the height control is considered to be a reasonable and well-founded request.

 

Clause 4.6(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

95.      Concurrence from the Secretary has been obtained and can be assumed in this case.

 

96.      It is considered that the Clause 4.6 Statement lodged with the application addresses all the information required pursuant to Clause 4.6 and the statement is considered to be well founded as there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that in this case the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and development standard (Clause 4.3, building height control).

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

97.      In relation to this development site the zoning is proposed to change from R3 Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential. The height and floor space ratio are unchanged.

 

98.      Consideration is given to the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 in the assessment this application.

 

99.      In this regard, the provisions have no determining weight as a result of proposed operation of Clause “1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications” of the Draft Plan which provides “If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”  

 

Development Control Plan

100.    Boarding houses do not have any DCP specific controls for assessment, as a result the assessment criterion in Chapter 4.1 of the HDCP No. 1 for residential flat buildings for areas of assessment not covered by the SEPP have been used as a guide for assessment given the predominance of the surrounding development is residential flat buildings and streetscape consistency is of relevance.

 

Hurstville DCP No. 1 Compliance Table – Chapter 4.1

Control

Proposal

Complies

Setbacks and building separation

DS6.1 The minimum setback to a primary or secondary street is 6m.

 

Note: Setbacks to the side and rear boundary and building separations are to be provided in accordance with the design criteria in the Visual Privacy section of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

DS6.2 An articulation zone allowing for lightweight elements such as eaves, sun-hoods, blade walls, battens and the like may intrude up to 1m within a road boundary setback for a maximum of 25% of the horizontal distance of the total facade.

 

The building is setback between 5.689m and 6.41m from Lawrence Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The building does not propose these elements in the articulation zone.

 

Supported on merit – refer to comments below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Comments on front setback

The proposed setback of the development to Lawrence Street is supported despite the minor numerical non-compliance for part of the building. The angle of the front boundary in relation to the side boundaries is uneven and results in the south western corner of the building encroaching the 6m setback by up to a maximum of 300mm at Levels 1, 2 and 3. The ground floor complies with the 6m setback as front courtyards are partly recessed below Level 1.

 

This minor numerical non-compliance will not adversely impact the streetscape or neighbouring properties. The area of encroachment is over the driveway ramp and will therefore not reduce opportunity for landscaping in the front setback.

Landscaped open space

DS8.1. The minimum amount of landscaped open space is 20% of the site area.

 

 

DS8.2. The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m in any direction.

 

DS8.3. Landscaping between the front of buildings and the street boundary achieves a balance between reducing the visual impact of building when viewed from the street and facilitating passive casual surveillance of the street.

 

DS8.4. A development application is to be supported by a landscape plan prepared by a qualified person addressing the performance criteria and design solutions and in particular addressing areas of communal open space and areas that are visible from the street.

 

19% (119sqm).

 

 

 

 

Landscaping consists on a mix of deep soil and planter boxes.

 

 

Suitable deep soil landscaping is proposed in the front setback. The OSD tank is located under the driveway ramp not impacting the landscaping.

 

 

The landscape plan submitted with the DA has been reviewed by Council’s Consultant arborist and is satisfactory.

 

Minor non-compliance supported on merit

 

Acceptable

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Solar Access

DS9.1. Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 June.

 

Note 1: development applications are to be supported by shadow diagrams demonstrating compliance with this design solution.

 

Note 2: Exemptions will be considered for developments that comply with all other requirements but are located on sites with an east-west orientation.

 

Neighbouring properties will continue to receive at least 3 hours of sunlight to their private open space and living area windows.

 

Yes

Noise

DS10.1. Windows of adjacent dwellings are separated by a distance of at least 3m Note: this can be achieved by an offset.

 

DS10.2. Site layout separates active recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access-ways and service equipment areas from bedroom areas.

 

DS10.3. Dwellings are designed so that the internal noise level from outside sources does not exceed the parameters established by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

 

DS10.4. Habitable rooms located within 60m of a railway or facing a classified major road satisfy the acoustic criteria contained within the NSW Government’s Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline (2008), or the most recent version

 

DS10.5. Where development is likely to be subject to noise from a railway line, arterial or state road or Sydney airport flight path, council may require the submission of a report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer to demonstrate that internal noise levels will be acceptable.

 

All windows of the proposed rooms are located a minimum of 3m from the side boundaries.

 

The proposal is suitably design to avoid conflict between active areas and bedrooms.

 

 

The site is not affected by any external noise sources.

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

Streetscape

DS11.1. Development on corner sites addresses both street frontages and provides opportunities for passive casual surveillance of the public domain from main living areas and principal private open space through the use of large transparent windows and other openings.

 

Note: Large expanses of blank, unarticulated walls on any street frontage is not supported.

 

DS11.2. In more urban streetscapes, development emphasises corners by increased scale or massing treatments compared to the remainder of the building. Note: compliance with maximum building height under the LEP must be achieved in these situations.

 

DS11.3. Roofs:

a. have a pitch of up to 350 , or up to 450 where an attic is involved

b. provide a varied shape with hips, gables or other forms

c. mark the entrance to a building by the use of a porch, portico or similar element.

 

DS11.4. The maximum internal width of dormer windows is 2m.

 

DS11.5. To reduce the appearance of building bulk and provide visual interest through articulation, maximum wall length in one plane is 6m at the street frontage

 

Note: Lengths greater than this may be acceptable where the elevation incorporates visually significant changes in massing and form and the use of articulation such as recesses, projections, balconies, blade walls and similar

 

The site is not located on a corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is not located on a corner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A flat roof is proposed which is consistent with more recent construction in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

The front façade of the building is articulated by balconies and a mix of finishes and materials. No wall exceeds 6m in length without articulation.

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Stormwater

 

DS12.1. Stormwater management is in accordance with section 3.7 of this DCP.

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a deferred commencement condition in relation to acquiring an easement to drain water to the rear of the site, through a downstream property to Gover Street.

Yes, by condition

 

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

101.    The proposed development requires payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The required contribution is 1% of the development cost, which equates to $39,183.63.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

102. The proposed development will not adversely affect the natural environment subject to the site being planted with replacement trees as shown on the approved landscape plan. The removal of existing trees has been reviewed by Council’s Consultant Arborist and is deemed acceptable.

 

103. The proposal includes excavation that has been assessed as being reasonable in the context of the site and consistent with the extent of excavation expected in an R3 Medium Density Residential area that has seen uplift in building height and FSR, i.e. to permit construction of basement car parking. Excavation impacts will be managed with standard conditions of consent which have been recommended to be imposed to protect the environment with respect to contamination and impact onto adjoining allotments and the public domain.

 

Built Environment

104. The proposal represents a good planning outcome for the site with respect to its bulk, scale and density, façade articulation and expression and is an appropriate response to the context of the site and its R3 Medium Density Residential zoning.

 

Social Impact

105.    No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment. The proposed development, in principle, will cater for a cross-section of the community and will assist with providing for additional housing in the area. The construction of a boarding house on the site is consistent with the residential zoning of the land.

 

Economic Impact

106. There is no apparent adverse economic impact that is likely to result within the locality due to the construction of a boarding house. It is likely there will be a small positive economic impact as a result of the construction of the development.

 

Suitability of the site

107.    The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone and has been designed to reflect the context of the area as it evolves and exists. This immediate precinct is going through a process of change and transition and the proposal is in line with the intentions of Council’s zoning of this area.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

108.    The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville DCP No. 1 between 22 January and 19 February 2020. A total of thirty one (31) submissions were received as a result of the notification period. In summary the following issues and concerns were raised.

 

The development is out of character for a single lot

109.    Comment: There is no minimum lot width control applicable to boarding houses as there is for residential flat buildings. The four (4) storey built form is in keeping with existing residential developments in the immediate locality. The setback to Lawrence Street contains deep soil planting (the OSD basin is under the driveway ramp) and private open space at ground level, with small Juliette balconies at the upper levels to provide casual surveillance to the street and a height that complements the predominant built form of existing development in the street.

 

The development creates isolated lots

110.    Comment: There is no requirement for adjoining lots to be acquired as a minimum lot width control does not apply to boarding houses as there is for residential flat buildings. The lots adjoining are of a similar size and a development consistent with this application could be accommodated in the future.

 

The building will overshadow neighbouring properties

111.    Comment: In accordance with the DCP control, the proposal ensures a minimum of 3 hours sunlight is retained to the living area windows and private open space areas of adjoining properties in midwinter. The uplift in this area would ultimately result in additional overshadowing, however provisions are in place so an acceptable level of sunlight is afforded to the impacted allotments in accordance with the design criterion.

 

The development will result in increased pressure on street parking

112.    Comment: The proposal is one (1) space short of the required eleven (11) car parking spaces. A condition has been recommended for the deletion of Room 303 from Level 3 to ensure compliance with the minimum car parking criterion. The removal of this unit will be replaced with roofing to level 2 consistent with the remainder of the development. This roofing will be non-trafficable.

 

The elevations are incorrectly labelled

113.    Comment: Amended plans were submitted with the correct elevation labels.

 

Privacy impacts from stair windows and bay windows

114.    Comment: A condition of consent has been recommended for the stair well windows (which are fixed glass windows unable to be opened) to be frosted glass. The bay windows referred to in the submission appear to be a reference to the void windows. These are glass louvres for light and ventilation and the condition also requires the glass to be obscure and the louvres to be fixed at an upward angle to prevent a downward line of sight.

 

Noise and light pollution on neighbouring properties

115.    Comment: A Plan of Management has been prepared for the operation of the boarding house, including use of the communal indoor and outdoor areas to limit the number of people using the area at any one (1) time, and limiting the hours of use of the communal areas.

 

116.    A boarding house, as a residential use, is not expected to result in unreasonable noise or light impacts to adjoining properties that is indifferent to that generated by a residential flat building.

 

Height non-compliance is not justified

117.    Comment: An assessment of the height variation was undertaken as part of this assessment of the application and the height non-compliance is considered justified as the non-compliant section of the building (the lift overrun and part of the roof) meets the objectives of the zone and the building height development standard therefore not resulting in unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Excessive bulk and scale due to lot width

118.    Comment: The proposed built form is considered acceptable for the size of the allotment. The floor space is well below the maximum floor space permitted for any development on the site and the built form incorporates setbacks to side boundaries to provide an acceptable level of separation from adjoining buildings.

 

Impacts on the health and safety of the community due to proposed use as a boarding house

119.    Comment: This matter is not a planning consideration pertinent to the assessment of the subject application.

 

The proposal will reduce property values

120.    Comment: Property values are not a consideration under the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979.

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

Development Engineer

121.    The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers Services for comment. A deferred commencement condition has been recommended for the acquisition of an easement to drain water to the rear of the site, through a downstream allotment to Gover Street.

 

Traffic Engineer

122.    The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment. The proposed car parking and access arrangements are considered to be compliant with Council’s controls and are satisfactory. Standard conditions are included to ensure compliance will be achieved with Australian Standards during and after construction.

 

Environmental Health Officer

123.    Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being imposed if approval is granted.

 

Building Surveyor

124.    Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being imposed if approval is granted.

 

Consulting Arborist

125.    Council’s Consulting Arborist has raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being imposed if approval is granted.

 

External Referrals

Ausgrid

126.    The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No objection was raised by Ausgrid.

 

CONCLUSION

127.    The proposal has been assessed using the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is considered to be a reasonable intensification of site and the proposed additional scale, bulk and height is considered to be an acceptable planning and design outcome for this site and will be consistent with the existing and desired future character of development in the R3 zoned land in this location and immediate locality.

 

128.    The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1. The proposal satisfies the key planning controls in the Local Environmental Plan apart from exceeding the height limit. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted with the application justifying the variation in this case.

 

129.    The proposed development design satisfies the objectives of both the height control and the zone and the Clause 4.6 Statement is considered to be well founded as there will not be any direct or adverse environmental impacts generated, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the HLEP.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

130.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

·     The proposal is an appropriate response to the zoning of the site.

·     The proposed development complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan except in the height of the development which is considered acceptable having regard to the justification provided in the report above.

·     In this case the Clause 4.6 Statement is considered to be well founded and the non-compliance with the height control is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

·     The proposed design has been sensitively considered to be consistent with the existing and desired future character for development in this area.

·     The proposal has effective façade modulation and wall articulation that will serve to provide visual interest and reduce the bulk of the building.

·     The proposal aims to provide a high-quality building that will establish a positive urban design outcome.

 

131.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Georges River Local Planning Panel, grants development consent to Development Application DA2019/0626 for tree removal,  demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey boarding house with basement car parking and associated landscaping and site works on Lot 204 in DP 36317 known as 58 Lawrence Street, Peakhurst, subject to the following conditions of consent:

 

This Development Application is a Deferred Commencement Consent under Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (as amended) 1979. Strict compliance is required with all conditions appearing in Section A within thirty six (36) months from the Determination Date of this consent. Upon confirmation in writing from Georges River Council that the Section A Conditions have been satisfied, the consent shall commence to operate as a Development Consent for a period of five (5) years from the Determination Date of this consent.

 

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

 

SECTION A – DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

A.        Deferred Commencement - Pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 <http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/>, this consent will not operate until such time as the following requirements are satisfied:

 

(a)    The applicant must acquire an Easement to Drain Water of 1 metre (minimum) width.  The easement must allow for a piped, gravity fed system of drainage of stormwater from the subject site with direct, underground connection to a proposed extended kerb inlet pit in Gover Street with outlet pipe (375mm diameter (min.)) to be constructed that will extend to Council’s drainage system, with all costs borne by the developer.

 

        Evidence of registration of the easement to drain water benefitting the subject site and burdening the title of the property on which the easement is located is to be provided to Council.

 

(b)    The applicant must obtain separate Development Consent for all drainage works to be carried out within the Easement to Drain Water.  The written consent of each of the owners of the property/ies burdened by the Easement will be required for each development application to carry out the drainage works on the burdened lot/s.

 

(c)    The following design changes are to be made and approved by Council:

 

i. To bring the proposal into compliance with the minimum parking controls, Room 303 on Level 3 of the development is to be deleted. The removal of this room is to be replaced with roofing over level two (2) to be consistent with the remainder of the development in style, form and finish. This roof area is to be non-trafficable.

 

Documentary evidence as requested or the above information must be submitted within 36 months of the granting of this deferred commencement consent.  Commencement of the approval cannot commence until written approval of the submitted information has been given by Council.

 

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

 

SECTION B – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

 

Development Details

 

1.         Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

 

Description

Reference No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Site Plan

19_061 DA-A-010

11/8/20

A

Smith & Tzannes

Level C1

19_061 DA-A-100

6/7/20

C

Smith & Tzannes

Level 0 (Ground)

19_061 DA-A-101

1/7/20

C

Smith & Tzannes

Level 1

19_061 DA-A-102

9/7/20

A

Smith & Tzannes

Level 2

19_061 DA-A-103

9/7/20

A

Smith & Tzannes

Level 3

19_061 DA-A-104

9/7/20

A

Smith & Tzannes

Roof

19_061 DA-A-105

9/7/20

A

Smith & Tzannes

South Elevation

19_061 DA-A-200

9/7/20

C

Smith & Tzannes

North Elevation

19_061 DA-A-201

11/8/20

C

Smith & Tzannes

East Elevation

19_061 DA-A-202

9/7/20

B

Smith & Tzannes

West Elevation

19_061 DA-A-203

9/7/20

B

Smith & Tzannes

Section A

19_061 DA-A-204

6/7/20

C

Smith & Tzannes

 

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

 

2.         Vehicular Crossing - Major Development - The following vehicular crossing and road frontage works will be required to facilitate access to and from the proposed development site:

 

(a) Construct a 1.5m wide footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in Lawrence Street in accordance with Council’s Specifications applying at the time construction approval is sought.

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

(c)  Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant.  The work shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s specification, applying at the time construction approval is sought.

Constructing a vehicular crossing and/or footpath requires separate approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 <http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/>, prior to the commencement of those works.  

 

3.         Section 138 Application to Extend Council’s Drainage System - A drainage application under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 must be submitted to Council, and evidence of approval provided to the Certifying Authority, for the extension of Council’s drainage system in Gover Street, with the Application for a Construction Certificate. The works will include the laying of a 375mm (min.) diameter pipeline terminating in an extended kerb inlet pit in the vicinity of Nos. 49 and 51-55 Gover Street properties to provide an underground outlet for all stormwater runoff from the subject development site.

 

4.         Below ground anchors - Information to be submitted with S68 Application under LGA 1993 and S138 Application under Roads Act 1993 - In the event that the excavation associated with the basement carpark is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways, an application must be lodged with Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 <http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/> and the Roads Act 1993 <http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/> for approval, prior to commencement of those works. The following details must be submitted.

 

a)      That cable anchors will be stressed released when the building extends above ground level to the satisfaction of Council.

b)      The applicant has indemnified Council from all public liability claims arising from the proposed works, and provide adequate insurance cover to the satisfaction of council.

c)      Documentary evidence of such insurance cover to the value of $20 million.

d)      The applicant must register a non-terminating bank guarantee in favour of Council for the amount of [$50,000].

          The guarantee will be released when the cables are stress released. In this regard it will be necessary for a certificate to be submitted to Council from a structural engineer at that time verifying that the cables have been stress released.

e)      That in the event of any works taking place on Council’s roadways/footways adjoining the property while the anchors are still stressed, all costs associated with overcoming the difficulties caused by the presence of the ‘live’ anchors will be borne by the applicant.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Placing or storing materials or equipment;

 

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

 

(c)     Erecting a structure or carrying out work

 

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

 

(e)     Pumping concrete from a public road;

 

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

 

(g)     Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

 

(h)     Establishing a “works zone”;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

 

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

 

8.         Connection to the network will be required prior to the release of any Occupation Certificate - Where works within the road reserve are to be carried out by the developer, a Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre before commencement of work.

 

9.         Electricity Supply to Development - The electricity supply to the Development must be underground.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

      

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

      

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

 

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

 

Full details shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Longitudinal sections, with gradients designed in accordance with the Australian  Standards AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

 

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

 

(a)     construction vehicle routes;

 

(b)     anticipated number of trucks per day;

 

(c)     hours of construction;

 

(d)     Access arrangements; and

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

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

Builders Damage Deposit (footpaths and roadworks) (calculation based on $1,236.00 per metre of street frontage, Lawrence Street of 17.672m)

$21,842.59

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit (minimum of two (2) inspections at $371 per inspection

$742.00

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017

$39,183.63

 

General Fees

 

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

 

Development Contributions

A Section 7.12 contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017.

 

Timing of Payment

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

 

Further Information

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

 

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

 

a)      Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $21,842.59

 

b)      Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $742.00

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)      location of protective site fencing

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

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

d)      provisions for public safety;

e)      dust control measures;

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

g)      details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

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

i)       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

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

k)      details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

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

m)     construction and demolition traffic management details.

 

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

 

20.       Landscape Plans - All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by  Discount Landscape Plans, Ref Rev C, Architectural and Landscape Amendment and dated 04/06/20. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity, subject to the following -

 

a)   The proposed trees shall be a minimum 75 litre pot/ bag size, with all plants, shrubs and groundcovers at the specified pot size and quantities reflected upon the landscape plan.

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

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

 

21.       Tree Protection and Retention  - In accordance with AS4970 -2009, Protection of trees on development sites and in accordance with;

 

-     The Arboricultural Impact Assessment provided by Raintree Consulting, Ref No RTC – 1820 and dated 11 May, 2020

-     Exploratory Tree Root Investigations Arboricultural Report, Ref No RTC – 9620 and dated 21 May 2020.

 

The following trees shall be retained and protected:

 

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres) TPZ as per AS4970 - 2009

Fencing distance from trunk

Tree1 - Lophostemon confertus

Councils street tree

7.2 metres radially out from its trunk

Tree 5 – Annona atemoya

Rear yard of 49 Gover Street

2.4 metres radially out from its trunk

Tree 6, 7, 9 and 10 Pyrus calleryana

Side fence of No 56 Lawrence Street

2.0 metres radially out from its trunk

Tree 8 – Dypsis lutescens

Side fence of No 56 Lawrence Street

2.0 metres radially out from its trunk

 

The client shall engage a qualified Arborist who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current practicing and financial member of an Arboricultural Association or Affiliation.

 

            Tree Protection Measures

a)   Tree Protection measures must be implemented as per Arboricultural Impact Assessment, referenced as - 2. Conclusions and recommendations, 2.2 (2.2.1 – 2.2.11) with all items signed off for compliance and forwarded to the nominated PCA.

 

b)   All trees on Council property, subject site and adjacent sites, to be retained shall be protected before site set up and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site.

 

c)   Although trees may be on adjacent sites, the tree protection fencing must be placed on the nominated distances as per table above, out from the trees trunk, within the subject site to minimise impacts to neighbours trees and kept for the entirety of the project.

 

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

 

e)   Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a qualified Arborist who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current practicing and financial member of an Arboricultural Association or Affiliation.

 

f)    The engaged AQF 5 Consulting Project Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of site set up, excavation, demolition and construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone of each tree.

 

g)   In accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, a protective fence consisting of 2.4 x 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence shall be used. The distance of the fence out from the base of each tree is to be in accordance with the TPZ listed in the table above. A layer of organic mulch 100 millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and no soil or fill should be placed within the protection area.

 

h)   In accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, Ground Protection must be installed for entry and exit of machinery and truck movements within the TPZ of tree 1, being 7.2 metres radially out from its trunk. Mulch, geo woven fabric and hardwood boards must be used and held together using metal framing bands and kept in place for the entirety of the project and signed off by the AQF 5 Consulting arborist.

 

i)    No strip footings for the purposes of front fencing is permitted within the 7.2 metre radius and TPZ of tree 1, being councils street tree. Post and rail type construction methods only.

 

j)    The engaged AQF 5 Arborist must be in attendance before, during and after the installation of the proposed OSD located within the driveway and close to tree 1.

 

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

 

l)    No building products, materials, site sheds, toilets or services shall be installed within the TPZ of tree 1 and 5. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone – DO NOT ENTER’ attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

 

            Excavation works near tree to be retained  -

m)  Excavations around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the AQF 5 Project Arborist to ensure that the root system and canopy will not adversely be affected and signed off to the nominated PCA.

 

n)   Where the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees on site or adjoining sites become compromised by any excavation works, the AQF 5 Project arborist shall be consulted to establish the position of any major roots and determine the necessary measures to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist shall be submitted to Council prior to any further demolition or construction works taking place.

 

o)   Tree Protection Zones around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes, raised soil or removed soil.

 

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

 

22.       Tree Removal & Replacement - Tree removal in accordance The Arboricultural Impact Assessment provided by Raintree Consulting, Ref No RTC – 1820 and dated 11 May, 2020

 

Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees:

 

Tree Species

Number of trees

Location

Tree 2 - Ligustrum lucidum

X1

Within site along east side fence

Tree 2.1 – Nerium oleander

X1

Within site along east side fence

Tree 3 – Plumeria Spp

X1

Within site along east side fence

Tree 3.1 – Cestrum nocturnum

X1

Within site along east side fence

Tree 3.2 – Brunsfelsia australis

X1

Within site along east side fence

Tree 4 – Archontophoenix cunninghamiana

X1

Rear back north east corner of site

 

            General Tree Removal Requirements

a)   All tree removal shall be carried out by a minimum certificate Level 3, Licenced and insured Tree Surgeon/Arborist to ensure that removal is undertaken in a safe manner and complies with the AS 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees and Tree Works Industry Code of Practice (Work Cover NSW 1.8.98).

 

23.       BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. 1059648M must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

24.       Required hydraulic design changes

 

Drawing Reference

Drawing Date

Revision

Drawing Description

Author

A9260-SW02

18/11/19

C

Level C1 Drainage Plan

Alpha Engineering & Development

A9260-SW03

18/11/19

C

Ground Floor Drainage Plan

Alpha Engineering & Development

A9260-SW06

18/11/19

C

Stormwater Sections and Details

Alpha Engineering & Development

A9260-SW07

18/11/19

C

Easement Pipe Long Section

Alpha Engineering & Development

 

The following changes are required to be addressed in Architectural and Detailed Hydraulic Plans, as appropriate, to accompany the Application for a Construction Certificate

 

i.    Council’s drainage system in Gover Street is to be extended to provide an underground outlet for all stormwater from the subject development site via a proposed kerb inlet pit, with all costs borne by the developer.

ii.   A full hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is to be provided for the total catchment contributing stormwater runoff into the proposed stormwater drainage pipeline in the easement to drain water to which the subject development site will dispose runoff. This analysis will include an Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis.

 

25.       Required design changes – The following changes are required to be addressed in Architectural Plans to accompany the Application for a Construction Certificate

 

i.    The glass windows to the stairwells on the eastern and western (side) elevations must be opaque glass.

ii.   The glass louvre windows to the void area must be fixed in an upward position and be opaque glass.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(e)     All erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition, excavation and/or development works

 

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

 

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

 

(h)     Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004.

 

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

 

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

 

(a) All stormwater shall drain by gravity to the easement to drain water in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

 

(b) All stormwater shall drain by gravity to the upper level of Council’s proposed kerb inlet pit in Gover Street via the easement to drain water in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

 

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

 

28.       Stormwater Drainage Plan Details - Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a professional engineering specialising in hydraulic engineering shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

These plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council's Hurstville Development Control Plan 1 which includes Appendix 2.

 

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

 

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

         

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)      Set out before commencing excavation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

e)      Completion of any Pool Formwork - Before concreting of pool shell, detailing the location of the pool relative to the adjacent boundaries and its height relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

During Construction

 

37.       Physical connection of Stormwater to site - No work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system from the land the subject of this consent to Council's proposed kerb inlet pit in in Gover Street.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

Restrictions on Use of Land

 

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

 

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

 

Positive Covenants

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a) The location of the detention tank and all relevant internal dimensions for determination of the storage capacity;

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

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

(d) The orifice size/s;

(e) Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

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

 

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

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

(c)  Construct any new vehicle crossings required.

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

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

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

(g) The construction of the extension of Council’s drainage system in Gover Street shall be completed in accordance with the conditions and specifications of the Section 138 Roads Act Activity Approval.

 

50.       Vehicular crossing & Frontage work - Major development - The following road frontage works shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications issued under the ‘Application for Driveway Crossing and Associated Works on Council Road Reserve’ approval issued by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Division:

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

(c)  Removal of redundant driveways and vehicular crossings;

(d) New footpaths within the road related area;

(e) New or replacement street trees;

(f)   New footway verges, where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the footpath and the kerb or site boundary over the full frontage of the proposed development must be turfed.  The grass verge must be constructed to contain a uniform minimum 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of turf predominant within the street. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Section must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. [Note: The damage deposit paid to Council will not be released until the works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Council must advise in writing that they are satisfied with the Works-As-Executed for the extension of Council’s drainage system in Gover Street prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

53.       Completion of Landscape Works

a)   All landscape works and the planting of all trees proposed upon the landscape plan must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate and to the satisfaction of Councils Tree Management Officers

b) An AQF 5 Horticulturist shall be engaged and in writing certify that all trees and shrubs, their pot / bag size and quantities have been planted as per these Conditions of Consent and forwarded to the PCA – Principal Certifying Authority, for compliance.

 

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

            Tree Protection Measures

a)   A final certificate of compliance letter, once all building and landscape works have been completed, from the engaged AQF 5 Consulting Arborist, that tree protection measures have been installed and maintained for the entirety of the project and report on the condition of the trees that as part of this Consent, were to be protected and retained, for compliance.

 

            Tree Replacement within subject site

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

 

A copy of the Hurstville City Council’s Tree Removal and Pruning Guidelines and Kogarah City Council, Street Tree Management Strategy, Masterplan, and Tree Management Policy 2019, can be downloaded from Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au .

 

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

 

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

 

57.       Notice to Council - Allocation of street addresses - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, ‘as-built’ drawings detailing the installed and allocated street/unit address and numbering must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Operational Conditions (On-Going)

 

58.       Entering & Exiting of vehicles - All vehicles shall enter and exit the premises in a forward direction.

 

59.       Boarding House Operation - The following restrictions apply to the approved development:

 

(a)     The development approved under this consent constitutes a ‘Boarding House’ as defined under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and shall not be used for the purposes of permanent residential accommodation nor hotel, motel, serviced apartments, private hotel, tourist accommodation or the like.

 

(b)     Not more than two (2) lodgers shall occupy the boarding rooms which are to contain no more than two beds.

 

(c)     The total number of lodgers residing in the boarding house at any one time shall not exceed thirty eight (38) lodgers.

 

(d)     The lodgers must be subject to an occupancy agreement for a term of no less than three months.

 

(e)     The boarding house must always be operated and managed in accordance with the provisions contained within the Plan of Management, prepared by Smith and Tzannes and dated 5 November 2019.

 

(f)      The use and operation of the premises must comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 (Standards for Places of Shared Accommodation) of the Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005 under the Local Government Act 1993, the Public Health Act, 2010 and Regulations thereunder.

 

(g)     The operation of the Boarding House shall be in accordance with the Boarding Houses Act 2012 at all times. This includes the registration of the Boarding House, as required by the Act.

 

Subdivision of the boarding house is not permitted in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

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

 

61.       Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

 

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

Advice

 

69.       Review of Determination - Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application the right to lodge an application with Council for a review of such determination.  Any such review must however be completed within 6 months from its determination.  Should a review be contemplated sufficient time should be allowed for Council to undertake public notification and other processes involved in the review of the determination.

 

Note: Review provisions do not apply to Complying Development, Designated Development, State Significant Development, Integrated Development or any application determined by the Sydney South Planning Panel or the Land & Environment Court.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       Lapsing of Consent - This consent will lapse unless the development is physically commenced within 5 years from the Date of Operation of this consent, in accordance with Section 4.53 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

 

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

 

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

 

(b) In the Application Form, quote the Development Consent No. (eg. DA2019/0626) and reference this condition number.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan and Elevations - 58 Lawrence St Peakhurst

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 September 2020

LPP041-20              58 Lawrence Street Peakhurst

[Appendix 1]           Site Plan and Elevations - 58 Lawrence St Peakhurst

 

 

Page 64

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 September 2020

Page 104

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 September 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP042-20

Development Application No

REV2020/0016

Site Address & Ward Locality

565 King Georges Road Penshurst

Mortdale Ward

Proposed Development

Review of Determination of DA2019/0545 for demolition and construction of a boarding house, on-grade parking, landscaping and site works

Owners

Mrs A O Hanna

Applicant

Azzam Yousef

Planner/Architect

Planner: Azzam Yousef, Architect: Azzam Yousef

Date Of Lodgement

12/06/2020

Submissions

One (1) submission and eight (8) signatures within a petition

Cost of Works

$820,000 (cost of original works)

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Georges River Council Local Planning Delegations for Boarding Houses

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

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 BASIX: 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55,  State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-rural Areas) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007,

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, Draft Environment SEPP, Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020,

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1, Georges River Interim Policy 2019

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

 Statement of Environmental Effects,

 Survey Plan, Plans,

 Traffic Reports,

 Plan of Management

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, as the application is recommended for refusal. The refusal reasons will be able to be viewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Aerial photograph of the site (565 King Georges Road, Penshurst) is outlined in blue.

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of a Section 8.2 Review application (REV2020/0016) which seeks the review of refused development application DA2019/0545. This application sought the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a two (2) storey boarding house comprises of eleven (11) boarding rooms, one (1) Manager’s Room, communal living room and at grade car parking for seven (7) vehicles and associated works.

 

2.         DA2019/0545 is referred to within this report as the ‘original application’. This was considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) on 21 May 2020 and was refused 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 does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in terms of the following:

 

(a)     Cl.29(2)(b) – the landscape treatment of the front setback is incompatible with the streetscape existing and what is envisaged by the planning controls. The streetscape of the immediate locality is landscaped front yards of dwelling houses, with a single driveway providing vehicular access to each site. The front setback of the proposal contains concrete pathways, ramps, landings and fencing around the Manager’s private open space area which is incompatible with the existing and desired streetscape for the locality.

(b)     Cl.29(2)(c) – where a communal living room is provided, it must receive more than 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm during midwinter. One communal living room is proposed on the ground floor at the rear of the building. The room has one west-facing window that will be overshadowed year round by the overhang of the first floor of the subject development which extends 5m past the western wall of the ground floor.

(c)     Cl. 29(2)(d)(ii) – the Manager’s private open space area must not be located within the front setback. The Manager’s private open space area is located within the front setback which adjoin King Georges Road.

(d)     Cl.30A – the proposed development is not consistent with the existing or desired future character of the locality with respect to the lack of landscaping and extent of hard surfaces and structures located within the front setback, lack of articulation in the built form, poor access arrangements within the development between the building and parking area and communal open space.

 

2.    Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 in terms of the following:

 

(a)     Clause 101 - Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Service) has not granted concurrence to the proposed development as it has not been demonstrated that vehicles can simultaneously enter and exit the site safely.

 

3.    Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Chapter 3 of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1:

 

(a)     Chapter 3.3 Access and Mobility - the application fails to demonstrate accessible pedestrian access to the car park.

(b)     Chapter 3.5 Landscaping – the application fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the site tree to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

4.    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 natural environment:

 

(a)     The proposal fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the site tree nominated to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

5.    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 built environment:

 

(a)     The proposal in its current form is incompatible with the existing and desired future character in relation to the extent of hard surfaces in the front setback.

 

(b)     The proposed boarding house does not provide future residents with adequate solar amenity to the communal room.

 

(c)     The development proposes very poorly located communal and private open space areas, adjacent to the car park and within the front setback to King Georges Road, which have little to no amenity for the residents or Manager of the boarding house.

 

6.    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 as:

 

(a)     Safe vehicular entry and exit to and from the site has not been demonstrated.

 

(b)     The built form is excessively bulky for the size and dimensions of the site.

 

(c)     The development fails to achieve suitable levels of amenity for future residents and adjoining allotments as a result of poorly located communal and private open space areas and the access arrangements to the building.

 

(d)     The excessively long and un-articulated built form is out of character for the locality.

 

(e)     The information submitted with the application is inconsistent and contains insufficient detail to make a full and proper assessment, including the landscape plan and plan of management.

 

7.    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.

 

3.         The minutes of the determination of the Local Planning Panel included comments for the applicant to consider should a review application or a new application be lodged, namely the reduction of boarding rooms, the proposal needed to address traffic, accessibility, landscaping and show details of waste management.

 

4.         The reasons for refusal have not been satisfactory addressed within this review application. The revised plans have resulted in new concerns with respect to occupant amenity, inadequate communal open space, the manager’s private open space, motorcycle and bicycle parking, accessibility, safety, trees, drainage and acoustic impacts.

 

5.         Transport for NSW (TfNSW) provided comment on 14 July 2020 advising concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 would not be provided. Further clarification from TfNSW as to why concurrence was no granted, it was advised they have concerns regarding impacts of queuing on King Georges Road due to the proposed single driveway layout and the envisaged conflict of vehicles manoeuvring within the front setback.

 

6.         The applicant was offered the opportunity to withdraw the application on 14 July 2020 in writing and via a phone conversation. The applicant advised Council on 14 July 2020 that they would not withdraw the application and requested that the assessment continue to determination. The applicant was made aware that an assessment report would be prepared for the Local Planning Panel recommending refusal and that Council would not be accepting any further amendments of the application under Clause 55(1) of the Regulations.

 

7.         The applicant following the LPP determination submitted a pre-lodgement application (PRE2020/0077) on 2 June 2020. The supporting documentation lodged fore review is largely consistent with the documentation the subject of this application. The Pre-DA letter raised concerns with the application in the following areas:

 

·     Room size & residential amenity;

·     Character of local area;

·     Landscaped open space;

·     Front and rear setback;

·     Excessive bulk and scale;

·     Architectural treatment;

·     Solar access and privacy;

·     Onsite car parking;

·     Stormwater disposal; and

·     Landscaping & tree protection.

 

Site and Locality

8.         The subject site is legally described as Lot 8 in DP 12478 and is known as 565 King Georges Road, Penshurst. The site is located on the western side of King Georges Road, approximately 40m from its intersection with Young Street (to the north).

 

9.         The site forms a rectangular shaped allotment. The site has an eastern frontage of 13.41m to King Georges Road, 62.915m along the northern side boundary, 13.41m along the western rear boundary, and 62.91m along the southern side boundary with a total site area of 843.69sqm. The topography of the site is described as relatively flat, with the level difference between the rear boundary and the front boundary being approximately 1m. King Georges Road is identified as a Classified Road.

 

10.      A single storey masonry and tiled roof dwelling house is centrally located at the front eastern end of the site. One (1) tree (Lophostemon Confertus) is located along the southern side boundary towards the rear of the property. Vehicular access is via a driveway located parallel along the northern side boundary. There is a drainage outlet in the kerb within the frontage of the site.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

11.      The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposal involves demolition and construction of a boarding house, on0grade parking, landscaping and site works which is a permissible use in the zone with development consent.

 

12.      The Review application is for a boarding house under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, however the proposal fails to satisfy all relevant requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as addressed in detail throughout this report.

 

Submissions

13.      The DA was publicly notified to neighbouring properties between 29 June and 13 July 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP). In response, one (1) submission with eight (8) signatures was received raising concerns regarding on-site parking, amenity for future residents, safety for neighbours, privacy impacts, noise impacts on neighbours, commercial use and density of the site. These issues are discussed in further detail within this assessment report.

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

14.      The application for a Section 8.2 Review for the boarding house is under the Delegations of the Local Planning Panel as the application relates to a boarding house also and was originally determined by the Panel.

 

Planning and Design Issues

15.      The proposal does not satisfy Section 1.3 Objects of the Act of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 whereby the proposal does not satisfy objective (g) which states “to promote good design and amenity of the built environment”. The lack of on-site facilities, functionality and internal and external design results in poor levels of occupant amenity. Furthermore, the design results in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining residential properties.

 

16.      The proposal fails to demonstrate safe vehicular entry and exit to and from the site and the concurrence of Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has not been obtained.

 

17.      Transport for NSW have advised the following:

 

“the existing one way access is considered to promote high unmitigated conflict between entering and exiting vehicles. The arrangement can potentially lead to unacceptable queuing on King Georges Road”.

 

18.      Further clarification from TfNSW raised concerns regarding impacts of queuing on King Georges Road due to the proposed single driveway layout and conflict of vehicles manoeuvring within the front setback.

 

19.      The proposal fails to satisfy the following controls contained of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing):

 

·     Cl.30A – the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing and desired future character being development within a low density zone that is defined by a landscaped setting. This development has a lack of landscaping throughout the site and the extent of hard surfaces and structures located within the rear setback does note align with the adjoining allotments. The location of the car park at the rear of the site and lack of a vegetated buffer to the adjoining sites residential lots is considered to be an undesirable outcome for the site. It is unclear whether an appropriate buffer could be provided while also maintaining appropriate space for vehicle manoeuvring given together with the undocumented impacts of the proposal on the existing tree located on the southern boundary in this location.

 

Figure 1: Extract of proposed site plan with car parking located the rear of the site. Note the landscape plan provides no landscape buffer between the car parking spaces and the northern boundary of the site.  (Source: A to Z designs, 12 June 2020).

 

Figure 2: Extract of east (front elevation) to King Georges Road, Penshurst (Source: A to Z designs, 12 June 2020).

 

·     Clause. 29(2)(d)(i) – the proposal provides inadequate communal open space which does not meet the minimum area under the ARHSEPP. Part of the nominated communal open space conflicts with the shared accessible space/zone and therefore cannot be utilised in the calculation for the purpose of this clause.

 

          

Figure 3: Extract of communal open space area and shared area (Source: Zenith Landscape Designs, 10 June 2020).

 

·     Clause. 29(2)(d)(ii) – the Manager’s private open space area is located below the first floor roof line above and is enclosed on its outer side by the separating fence between it and the primary access ramp to the building. This results in poor levels of occupant amenity in relation to the quality of this space, outlook and solar access, effectively creates an outdoor “room” rather than an area of private open space.

 

Details such as the proposed fencing height and materiality of the fencing between the manager’s private open space and the northern side boundary have not accompanied the proposal. However it is unclear how the proposal can be “open” as there is a conflict between providing amenity of this space through screening and it being open to provide light and ventilation to the location.

 

Figure 4: Extract of ground floor manager private open space located on the ground floor (Source: A to Z designs, 12 June 2020).

 

Figure 5: Extract site plan with first floor and roof line above the manager’s private open space below (Source: A to Z designs, 12 June 2020).

 

Figure 6: Extract of rear car parking area and shared zone (Source: A to Z designs, 12 June 2020).

 

·     Clause 30(h) - The proposal is deficient in the provision of providing the minimum motorbike and bicycle parking. In accordance with this clause, two (2) motorcycle spaces and two (2) bicycles spaces are required. The proposal is deficient by one (1) motorcycle space and one (1) bicycle space.

 

20.      The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Statement Environmental Planning Policy BASIX as the design does not comply with the submitted BASIX Certificate (10103904S_05 dated 12 June 2020) for maximum conditioned floor area (this does not exclude ensuites) and the provision of windows and skylights for each bathroom.

 

21.      The proposal fails to satisfy the R2 Low Density Residential Zone objectives of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 whereby the proposed design of the development is not responsive to the site, context and provides poor levels of amenity for future occupants and generates adverse impacts to adjoining properties due to poor design.

 

22.      The proposal has not provided two (2) accessible spaces in accordance with Section 3.3 Access and Mobility within Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1. Further the shared space that is proposed is not fit for purpose as it is located on grass and is obstructed by bicycle parking.

 

23.      The application seeks the retention of one (1) tree on site, a Lophostemon Confertus located on the southern side of the rear car park. Council’s Consultant Arborist considers this tree is worthy of retention. Permeable paving has been provided around the base of this tree, however, as no arborist report has been submitted, it is unclear what design measures are required to ensure that the health of this tree can be ensured going forward. It is considered unlikely, given the lack of separation between the car park and the tree.

 

24.      The proposal has provide insufficient and inadequate detail on the plans (elevations) in relation to cut and fill, ramping, hand rails, fencing within the site and the location of side boundaries with respect to the built form.

 

Conclusion

25.      The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Sections 8.2 and 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans.

 

26.      The review application satisfies the requirements of Section 8.2 Review of the Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application is to be determined by the Local Planning Panel as the original application was determined by the Local Planning Panel. The review application is considered to be substantially the same as the original proposal. This is discussed in further detail within the body of this report.

 

27.      The proposal being a boarding house is a permissible use in the zone, however the proposal fails to meet the requirements of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in relation to communal open space, the manager’s private open space, motorcycle and bicycle spaces and character test as outlined in Clause 30A.

 

28.      The site has frontage to a classified road and pursuant to Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, concurrence from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is required. TfNSW has not provided concurrence.

 

29.      The review application is therefore recommended for refusal and would require a substantial redesign to satisfactorily address the matters raised within the report.

 

Report in Full

Description of the Proposal

30.      The  review application proposes the demolition works and the construction of a two (2) storey boarding house containing  eleven (11) boarding rooms and one (1) Manager’s Room with at grade parking for seven (7) vehicles at the rear of the site, landscaping and site works.

 

31.      In detail, the proposal is described as follows;

 

-      The front façade contains a centrally located entry door to the Managers office and associated living quarters containing a kitchenette, bathroom, and bedroom forming the on-site manager’s residence. The Manager’s area of private open space is located along the northern side elevation beneath a cantilevered first floor level and roof overhang. The private open space is accessed via the Manager’s area and is adjacent to the resident access pathway.

 

-      A second entry door for the boarding rooms is located on the northern side of the building being approximately 15.19m from the allotment frontage. The access is via series of ramps and landings.

 

-      The ground floor contains four (4) boarding rooms and the communal living area with a communal room containing a laundry and kitchen located at the rear of the building. An access door in the rear elevation provides access and egress from the building to the car park and communal open space area at the rear.

 

-      The first floor contains seven (7) boarding rooms organised either side of a central corridor.

 

-      Each boarding room contains an ensuite and a kitchenette.

 

-      Vehicular access to the site is provided from King Georges Road from the south eastern corner of the site via a single lane driveway which widens to 6m for the extent of the front setback. At the rear of the site, a portion of this driveway contains permeable pavers adjacent to the tree to be retained. Seven (7) at grade parking spaces, including one (1) accessible space and shared zone (located on a grassed area), are provided parallel with the northern boundary of the site within the rear setback.

 

-      Two (2) motorbike spaces and two (2) bicycle spaces are proposed within the rear of the site.

 

-      Communal open space is located between the rear western elevation of the building and hardstand car parking area. A seating area is shown on the landscape plans. There is no separation by way of fencing or planting between the communal open space and the car park.

 

Description of the Site and Locality

32.      The subject site is legally described as Lot 8 in DP 12478 and is known as 565 King Georges Road, Penshurst. The site is located on the western side of King Georges Road, approximately 40m from its intersection with Young Street (to the north).

 

33.      The site forms rectangular shaped allotment. The site has an eastern frontage of 13.41m to King Georges Road, 62.91.5m along the northern side boundary, 13.41m along the western rear boundary, 62.91m along the southern side boundary with a total site area of 843.69sqm. The site is relatively flat, with the level difference between the rear boundary and the street level being approximately 1m.

 

34.      King Georges Road in this location consists of four (4) traffic lanes (two in each direction) and a turning bay (on the opposite side of the road from the site) is identified as a Classified Road.

 

35.      A single storey masonry and tiled roof dwelling house is located at the front eastern end of the site. One (1) tree (Lophostemon Confertus) is located along the south eastern side boundary towards the rear of the property. The existing vehicular access to the site is provided via a driveway along the northern side boundary. There is a drainage outlet in the kerb within the frontage of the site.

 

Figure 7: The site (565 King Georges Road, Penshurst) as viewed from King Georges Road, Penshurst (Source: GRC, July 2020).

 

36.      The site adjoins residential properties on either side comprising of dwelling houses as shown in Figure 7 above. Further to the south of the site form dwelling houses on battle axe allotments and townhouses. The immediate surrounding visual catchment comprises of dwelling houses are zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Beverly Hills Public School is located to the north east on the opposite side of the road.

 

Section 8.2 Review of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

37.      The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable provisions within this subsection of the Act per below.

 

8.2    Determinations and decisions subject to review

(1)     The following determinations or decisions of a consent authority under Part 4 are subject to review under this Division—

(a)  the determination of an application for development consent by a council, by a local planning panel, by a Sydney district or regional planning panel or by any person acting as delegate of the Minister (other than the Independent Planning Commission or the Planning Secretary),

 

38.      Comment: Council is in receipt of a Section 8.2 Review application (REV2020/0016) lodged on 12 June 2020 for refused development application (DA2019/0545).

 

(2)     However, a determination or decision in connection with an application relating to the following is not subject to review under this Division—

(a)   a complying development certificate,

(b)  designated development,

(c)  Crown development (referred to in Division 4.6).

(3)     A determination or decision reviewed under this Division is not subject to further review under this Division.

 

39.      Comment: DA20109/0545 formed a development application which is therefore able to be reviewed under Section 8.2.

 

8.3   Application for and conduct of review

(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.

 

40.      Comment: Council is in receipt of a Section 8.2 Review application (REV2020/0016) lodged on 12 June 2020 for refused development application DA2019/0545.

 

(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.

 

41.      Comment: DA2019/0545 was refused by the Local Planning Panel on 21 May 2020. The Review application was lodged on 12 June 2020 which is within the 6 month period whereby an appeal may be made to the Court (12 months under COVID). An appeal has not been lodged or disposed of in relation to this development application.

 

(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.

 

42.      Comment: The review has sought amendments to the design which relate to internal and external changes to a proposed boarding house. The amended proposal is considered to be substantially the same as the original application (DA2019/0545) for the following reasons:

 

-     Development is sought for the construction and use of the building and site as a boarding house;

-     The proposed built form adopts a similar building topology as that of the previous design which comprises of a two (2) storey boarding house and managers room, driveway along the southern side boundary, hardstand car parking at the rear;

-     The proposal does not to increase the number of boarding rooms or number of boarders.

 

43.      In regards the reasons for refusal of DA2019/0545, the applicant has sought the following amendments as part of this Review. 

 

Refusal Reason No 1 - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in terms of the following:

 

(a) Cl.29(2)(b) – the landscape treatment of the front setback is incompatible with the streetscape existing and what is envisaged by the planning controls. The streetscape of the immediate locality is landscaped front yards of dwelling houses, with a single driveway providing vehicular access to each site. The front setback of the proposal contains concrete pathways, ramps, landings and fencing around the Manager’s private open space area which is incompatible with the existing and desired streetscape for the locality.

 

44.      Comment: The amended proposal has relocated the Manager’s private open space along the northern side boundary which has resulted in increased landscaped area within the front setback. The adequacy of the landscaping of the front setback is considered to be largely resolved.

 

(b) Cl.29(2)(c) – where a communal living room is provided, it must receive more than 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm during midwinter. One communal living room is proposed on the ground floor at the rear of the building. The room has one west-facing window that will be overshadowed year round by the overhang of the first floor of the subject development which extends 5m past the western wall of the ground floor.

 

45.      Comment: The communal living room has been relocated to the rear north west corner which achieves compliant levels of solar access.

 

(c)  Cl. 29(2)(d)(ii) – the Manager’s private open space area must not be located within the front setback. The Manager’s private open space area is located within the front setback which adjoin King Georges Road.

 

46.      Comment: The amended proposal has relocated the manager’s private open space along the northern side boundary which has resulted in increased landscaped area. This issue considered to be largely resolved.

 

(d) Cl.30A – the proposed development is not consistent with the existing or desired future character of the locality with respect to the lack of landscaping and extent of hard surfaces and structures located within the front setback, lack of articulation in the built form, poor access arrangements within the development between the building and parking area and communal open space.

 

47.      Comment: The front setback is considered to be consist with the existing and desired future character of the locality as it is more in keeping with a low density residential zone.

 

Refusal Reason No 2 - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 in terms of the following:

 

(a) Clause 101 - Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Service) has not granted concurrence to the proposed development as it has not been demonstrated that vehicles can simultaneously enter and exit the site safely.

 

48.      Comment: Concurrence has not been provided by Transport for NSW as concerns were raised regarding impacts of queuing on King Georges Road due to the proposed single driveway layout and conflict between vehicles manoeuvring within the front setback. This is not resolved by this revised design.

 

Refusal Reason No 3 - Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Chapter 3 of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1:

 

(a)   Chapter 3.3 Access and Mobility - the application fails to demonstrate accessible pedestrian access to the car park.

(b)   Chapter 3.5 Landscaping – the application fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the site tree to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

49.      Comment: The proposal results in poor levels or access and mobility which have not been resolved by this revised design. Adequate consideration with respect to tree protection has not been satisfied.

 

Refusal Reason No 4 - 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 natural environment:

 

(a) The proposal fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the site tree nominated to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

50.      Comment: No arborist report has been provided for Council’s consideration. Council’s Consulting Arborist has reviewed the proposal and does not support the proposal due to adverse tree impacts. This issue has not been resolved.

 

Refusal Reason No 5 - 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 built environment:

 

(a)   The proposal in its current form is incompatible with the existing and desired future character in relation to the extent of hard surfaces in the front setback.

 

(b)   The proposed boarding house does not provide future residents with adequate solar amenity to the communal room.

 

(c)   The development proposes very poorly located communal and private open space areas, adjacent to the car park and within the front setback to King Georges Road, which have little to no amenity for the residents or Manager of the boarding house.

 

51.      Comment: The proposal has not provided adequate communal open space with respect to occupant amenity and functionality. This is unresolved.

 

Refusal Reason No 6 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 as:

 

1.   Safe vehicular entry and exit to and from the site has not been demonstrated.

 

2.   The built form is excessively bulky for the size and dimensions of the site.

 

3.   The development fails to achieve suitable levels of amenity for future residents and adjoining allotments as a result of poorly located communal and private open space areas and the access arrangements to the building.

 

4.   The excessively long and un-articulated built form is out of character for the locality.

 

5.   The information submitted with the application is inconsistent and contains insufficient detail to make a full and proper assessment, including the landscape plan and plan of management.

 

52.      Comment: The proposal has not adequately provided suitable vehicular and pedestrian access. The proposed design and layout is still unresolved and result in poor levels of amenity and functionality for future residents.

 

Refusal Reason No  7 - 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.

 

53.      Comment: The proposal in not considered to be in the public interest as the proposal results in poor levels of occupant amenity and is of a bulk, scale and form that is inconsistent with the low density residential zone.

 

(4)  The review of a determination or decision made by a delegate of a council is to be conducted—

(a)  by the council (unless the determination or decision may be made only by a local planning panel or delegate of the council), or

(5)  The review of a determination or decision made by a local planning panel is also to be conducted by the panel.

 

54.      Comment: DA2019/0545 was determined by the Local Planning Panel. This Review application REV2020/0016 is to be determined by the Local Planning Panel.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

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

 

SEPP Title

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

No

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

No

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

No

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

56.      As the site slope from front to rear the stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and can drain to the street satisfying the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment. It is noted that the proposal seeks a drainage solution which is inconsistent with Council’s controls. This is discussed in further detail within this assessment report.

 

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

57.      The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Statement Environmental Planning Policy BASIX. The design does not comply with the submitted BASIX Certificate (10103904S_05 dated 12 June 2020) for maximum conditioned floor area and the provision of windows and skylights for each bathroom. Given the above the proposal has not provided sufficient details at the DA stage. In this regard, the requirements of the SEPP have not been reasonably satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

58.      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.

 

59.      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.

 

60.      The site has a history of residential uses and as such, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

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

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

 

62.      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). 

 

63.      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.

 

64.      The proposed development does not involve the removal of any significant trees or vegetation. In this regard, the provisions of this SEPP are considered to be met.

 

65.      The proposal and accompanying Landscape Plan has been considered by Council’s Consulting Arborist.  An existing tree (Lophostemon Confertus) is located within the rear setback along the southern side boundary. Whilst being nominated for protection the proposed solution of permeable paving within 5m of the radius of the tree is unlikely to result in the retention and longevity of the mature tree due to the substantial change in the soil environment resulting from the hard surfaces proposed as part of this development.   As such this revised proposal has not demonstrated that this option will appropriately retain the tree. No arborist report has been submitted for consideration in support of appropriate protection of the trees and the use of the permeable paving proposed. This forms part of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

66.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The DA was referred to Ausgrid on 8 January 2020 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Ausgrid advised there are no issues with the proposal subject to as minimum clearance distances from Ausgrid’s Infrastructure.

 

67.      As the subject site is located on King Georges Road, Penshurst, this is a classified road which has a traffic volume of over 20,000 cars daily. An acoustic report has not been provided in relation to considerations under Clause 102 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development of the SEPP. The absence of such information for consideration would result in poor acoustic impacts for future occupants.

 

68.      In this regard, the provisions and requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP have not been adequately satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

69.      The proposal has been considered in accordance with the objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 of which the following objectives have not been satisfied.

 

(a)   to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing.

(b)   to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zone permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards.

 

70.      The above objectives have not been satisfied as the proposal has not satisfied the development standards; the proposal is therefore inconsistent with the planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing.

 

71.      The proposal seeks consent for a boarding house pursuant to the provisions of the SEPP, specifically Division 3 – Boarding Houses. An assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the SEPP is provided in the following table below.

 

Clause

Standards

Proposal

Complies

26 – Land to which Division applies for the purpose of a boarding house with consent

·    R1 General Residential

·    R2 Low Density Residential

·    R3 Medium Density Residential

·    R4 High Density Residential

·    B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·    B2 Local Centre

·    B4 Mixed Use

Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

Yes

27 – Development to which Division applies

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

 

(2) Despite subclause (1), clauses 29, 30 and 30A do not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.

Noted.

 

 

 

 

The land is within an accessible area – refer to comments below.

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

Yes – refer to discussion below.

 

72.      An accessible area is defined by Clause 4 of SEPP (ARH) 2009 as follows:

 

accessible area means land that is within:

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

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

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

 

73.      The subject site satisfies the requirements of an accessible area as defined in (c) above. A map and table outlining bus services within proximity to the site is provided below. The following services were operating at the time of the preparation of this assessment report.

 

Location of Bus Stop

Bus Route

Walking Distance

Mon – Fri Frequency

Saturday Frequency

Sunday Frequency

Cambridge Street and George Street

M91

Towards Parramatta

<400m

Complies

Complies

Complies

M91

Towards Hurstville

<400m

Complies

Complies

Complies

 

Figure 8: Map showing bus stops within 400m of the subject site (Source: Google Maps, 2020).

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

29 - Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Council cannot refuse a development application for a boarding house under the ARHSEPP 2009 on any of the following grounds:

(1) Floor Space Ratio

(a) If the density and scale of the buildings as a FSR is not more than the existing maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted (0.6:1 under HLEP2012)

Site area = 843.62sqm

Maximum = 506.17sqm

0.49:1

 

Proposed

Ground floor = 204sqm

 

First floor = 212sqm

 

Total = 416sqm

Yes

(2) Height

(a) If the building height is not more than the maximum height permitted under another EPI for any building on the land: Max 9m HLEP2012

7.9m

 

RL56.20

Yes

Landscaped Area

(b) If the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located

The proposed Landscaped front setback area is now considered to be generally consistent with the immediate visual catchment.

Yes

Solar Access

(c) Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

3 hours of direct sunlight is achieved to the communal room which contains windows within the northern elevation.

Yes

Private Open Space

(d) if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

 

(i)   one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for the use of the lodgers,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii)   if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5m is provided adjacent to that accommodation.

 

 

 

 

 

16sqm at rear of the communal room which does not provide the minimum dimension of 3m. This space excludes the grassed shared space to facilitate accessible access to car space No 1.

 

9sqm along the northern side boundary with a minimum of dimension of 2.5m achieved adjacent to the boarding house manager’s room.

 

 

 

 

 

No, refer to discussion below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, however amenity of this space is poor. Refer to discussion below;

Comments on private open space areas

The proposal provides inadequate communal open space of just 16sqm and does not achieve the minimum dimension of 3m once the shared space is excluded. It is further noted that no separation is provided between the car park and the communal open space area resulting in a poorly defined space of limited usability.

 

The Manager’s private open space area is located along the northern side elevation beneath the first floor roof line which cantilevers the private open space. A fence (of indeterminate height but to provide privacy would need to be a minimum of 1.5m in height) separates this space from the access way to the entry of the building, effectively providing a space that is not ‘open’, being enclosed by the building on 3 sides. The area is of poor quality being self-overshadowed, and lacking in outlook.

(e) Parking

(iia)  0.5 parking spaces provided for each boarding room (11 boarding rooms x 0.5 = 5.5 spaces which is rounded up to 6 spaces)

 

(iii)   Not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site

7 spaces located within the rear setback.

 

 

 

7 spaces located within the rear setback; however the boarding house manager’s space has not been specifically nominated, but appears to have been included in the design given the number of spaces provided. This could be conditioned if the application was to be supported.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

(f) Accommodation size

Each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

 

(i)    12sqm in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii)   16sqm in any other case

 

(*Note: The area included “space” next to the kitchens. Note that these kitchens are about 2m in width, therefore excluding these areas would still result in each boarding room complying with the minimum area required)

 1 - 18sqm

 2 - 17sqm

 3 - 15sqm

 4 - 19sqm

 5 - 17sqm

 6 - 18sqm

 7 - 17sqm

 8 - 19sqm

 9 - 24sqm

10 - 19sqm

11 - 18sqm

All rooms have been proposed as double rooms with the exception of room No.3 which is to accommodate a single lodger.

Yes

Clause 30 – Standards for Boarding Houses

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

Communal living

(a)   If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided

As the proposal seeks eleven (11) boarding rooms, one (1) communal room is provided on the ground floor at the rear of the building.

Yes

Size of boarding rooms

(b)   No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25sqm

 1 – 18sqm

 2 - 17sqm

 3 - 15sqm

 4 - 19sqm

 5 - 17sqm

 6 - 18sqm

 7 - 17sqm

 8 - 19sqm

 9 - 24sqm

10 – 19sqm

11 - 18sqm

 

It is noted that the Managers room is not considered to form a boarding room.

Yes

Maximum occupancy

(c)   No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers

All rooms are to accommodate 2 adult lodgers with the exception of Room No.3.

Yes

Kitchen and bathroom facilities

(d)   Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger

All boarding rooms have kitchen and ensuite facilities.

Yes

Boarding house manager

(e)   If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager

A Manager’s Room is located at the front eastern end of the building on the ground floor.

Yes

Bicycle and motor cycle spaces

(h)   At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms (11/5 = 2.2)

Therefore (rounding up) 3 motor cycle spaces and 3 bicycle spaces are required.

Two (2) motorcycle spaces and

two (2) bicycle spaces provided. The proposal is deficient one (1) motorcycle and one (1) bicycle space.

No

30AA   Boarding houses in Zone R2 Low Density Residential

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

Eleven (11) boarding rooms are proposed as part of this proposal.

Yes

 

Clause 30A – Character of local area

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

 

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

 

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

 

Relationship to the Existing and Future Character of the Local Area

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

 

78.      The ‘local area’ in this case is taken to include the western side of King Georges Road and the immediate surrounding streets within the visual catchment. Within this local area, development is primarily characterised by single and two (2) storey dwelling houses or varying architectural styles and designs.

 

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

 

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

 

80.      The building form proposed adopts a similar building typology to that of a two (2) storey dwelling house. It is noted that the location and design of the car park on the site, is not inconsistent with the design of developments adjoining, where their car parking is located to the rear or side of dwellings on sites fronting King Georges Road in this location.

 

81.      The proposal is compatible with the adjoining sites in terms of front setback treatment, with appropriate landscaping provided to soften the streetscape impact of the proposal. However, the rear car park, failing as it does to provide any adequate landscape buffer to the communal open space of adjoining properties results in amenity, noise, and visual impacts upon the private open space areas of the adjoining properties.

 

82.      The proposal in its current form will likely result in adverse impacts to the health of the existing tree in the rear yard (southern boundary) due to encroachments and alteration to its tree protection and structural root zone. A loss of, or decline in health of this tree would adversely impact upon the outlook of adjoining properties.

 

83.      Finally, the location of the proposed access path to the boarding house, down a side setback in close proximity to the adjoining dwelling to the north will impose adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining dwelling. This is a consequence of the internal layout selected for the proposal.

 

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

 

84.      The proposal in its current form is considered to result in a form that is inconsistent with the surrounding development. Although the street address and approximate envelope of the built form proposed is considered acceptable, the lack of an appropriate buffer between the rear car park and adjoining areas of private open space, the potential impacts of the proposal on the existing significant tree, and the location of the communal access pathway will all result in visual and other impacts inconsistent with surrounding development.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

 

Draft Environment SEPP

85.      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.

 

86.      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

 

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

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

89.      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.

 

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

 

91.      The site has a history of residential uses and as such, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

92.      Clause 101 of the SEPP relates to sites having a frontage to a classified road and states:

 

(2)  The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that—

(a)  where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b)  the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of—

(i)    the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii)  the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

 

93.      The subject site is located on King Georges Road, Penshurst and the concurrence of Transport for NSW (TfNSW and formerly known as the RMS) is required. On 14 July 2020, TfNSW provided correspondence to Council which detailed the following:

 

“TfNSW has reviewed the submitted information and notes that Council refused the initial DA2019/0545 making this a review of determination application. TfNSW did not provide its concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for DA2019/0545 and reiterates our previous stance and response for the following reason:

 

·     The one way access is considered to promote high unmitigated conflict between entering and exiting vehicles.

·     The arrangement can potentially lead to unacceptable queuing on King Georges Road”.

 

94.      Further clarification from TfNSW raised concerns regarding impacts of queuing on King Georges Road due to the proposed single driveway layout and conflict of vehicles manoeuvring within the front setback.

 

95.      Pursuant to Clause 101 of the SEPP, the proposal fails to demonstrate vehicles can safely enter and exit the site simultaneously as a result TfNSW has not provided concurrence, this forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012)

Zoning

96.      The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposed development satisfies the standard definition as a “boarding house”. A boarding house is a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone within the LEP.

 

Figure 9: Zoning map

 

97.      The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are as follows:

 

•      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.

 

Figure 10: Extract of access to boarding rooms through side access ramp along northern side boundary.

 

98.      The proposal seeks two entrances into the boarding house, one through the Manager’s room and the other, a lengthy ramped path down the northern side setback.

 

99.      The entry sequences are convoluted and impacts on the design quality of the development.

 

100.    The location and design of the access way result in limited opportunities for passive surveillance of the entry door and access arrangement, and results in a blind spot along the return adjacent to the manager’s private open space. The path location prevents provision of a workable and private managers open space in this location.

 

Figure 11: Ground floor extract of proposed internal common circulation.

 

Figure 12: First floor extract of proposed internal common circulation.

 

101.    The proposed layout on both the ground floor and first floor result in poor levels of occupant amenity as no natural light or ventilation is achieved within the common circulation areas. This is not considered to result in a high level of residential amenity being achieved as it is a sterile environment with no natural light or visual access outside.

 

102.    In addition to the above, windows and skylights have not been integrated with the proposal which is inconsistent with the submitted BASIX Certificate commitments.

 

103.    Given the above the proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and results in a poor planning outcome.

 

104.    The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

HLEP 2012 Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

The proposal meets the definition of boarding house which is a permissible use within the zone.

Yes

2.3

Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

As discussed earlier the proposal is not consistent with the zone objectives.

No

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

7.9m

RL56.20

Yes

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Site area = 843.62sqm

0.49:1

 

Proposed

Ground floor = 204sqm

First floor = 212sqm

Total = 416sqm

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The FSR has been calculated accordingly as per the criterion of this clause.

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 proposal does not adjoin any environmental heritage item nominated under HLEP 2012.

 

 

N/A

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 not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils under HLEP 2012.

 

N/A

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

Minimal earthworks are proposed to accommodate the boarding house, driveway and on-site detention which is a requirement of this development.

Yes

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

105.    Consideration is given to the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 in the assessment this application.

 

106.    In this regard, the provisions have no determining weight as a result of proposed operation of Clause “1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications” of the Draft Plan which provides “If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.”  

 

Development Control Plan

Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP)

107.    The proposal has been considered in accordance with the relevant chapters of the HDCP No. 1 below.

 

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

108.    The car parking rates set out within the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 supersedes the DCP requirements.

 

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

109.    The development has been assessed against the key requirements of Section 3.3 as provided below.

 

Places of Shared Accommodation

Standard

Proposal

Complies

Adaptable dwellings

1 accessible room per 5 guests/tenants bedrooms or part thereof –

(21 tenants /11 bedrooms) = 3 required

2 x accessible rooms (R1, R2) and 2 x adaptable (R3, R4) rooms are proposed.

 

It is noted that adaptable rooms are located on the ground floor and R3 contains a bathroom which is of a reasonable size which could form an accessible unit. In total 3 accessible units can be provided.

Yes

Access requirements

Access in accordance with AS1428 for all persons through the principal entrance of the building and to common areas

Access is provided through the side entrance along the northern side of the site. This entrance is the principle entrance for the residents (maximum 21 lodgers) meets this standard.

 

Access from the principle resident entrance to the car parking is via a pathway along the northern side of the building which is indicated as stepping stones over grass which is not in accordance with the Australian Standard.

 

The proposal has not provided a lift to provide access between the ground floor and the first floor to which access is not available for all to this level. As a result the application is proposing to accommodate all accessible rooms and services on the ground floor. As present the design does not comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

No

Accessible car space

1 parking space per 10 rooms or part thereof – 1.2 required (rounded up to 2)

The proposal is 1 space deficient. 1 space is proposed however suitable access to the parking space in accordance with AS1428 is not provided given the materiality and the proposed dual use of this space being the shared zone and the soft landscaping adjacent to the private open space.

No

 

110.    The application fails to provide sufficient accessible parking, or an adequate shared area for the single space provided, and does not demonstrate adequate direct accessible pedestrian access between the boarding house and the car park. This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

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

111.    The proposal has been considered in accordance with the relevant provisions. The proposal allows for limited passive and casual surveillance to and from the street to the entry along the northern side elevation (boarders entry from King Georges Road). A more suitable and appropriate location would be along the front eastern façade facing King Georges Road and the public domain. The current entrance within the front façade services the manager’s room only.

 

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

112.    A Landscape Plan was reviewed as part of this proposal however as previously addressed within this report the proposed impervious paving around the tree is not supported by Council’s Consulting Arborist as it is likely to adversely impact upon the health of the affected tree which is considered to be significant and worthy of retention.

 

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

113.    The proposed drainage arrangement is by gravity to an outlet in the street via an OSD system located under the driveway. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and provided the following comments:

 

“Stormwater Management Policy Chapter 3 Section. 3.3(e) - stormwater disposal for this development type warrants connection to an underground drainage system, (not to the kerb outlet in the gutter). The street drainage system in King Georges Road is approximately 45 metres south east of the site, hence RMS’s drainage system would need to be extended that distance”

 

114.    On that basis, the proposal has not provided an adequate stormwater disposal system.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4 – SPECIFIC CONTROLS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

115.    Council’s Development Control Plan does not contain any specific controls for boarding house developments.

 

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

116.    A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the application which states 4 x 240L general waste bins, 3 x 240L recycling bins and 3 x 240L green waste bins are provided in the bin area shown on the Site Plan and the owners are responsible for placing bins on the kerb to be collected by the Council’s waste collection service.

 

117.    The site plan submitted with this application indicates waste storage areas located adjacent to the south west corner of the communal room in the passing bay area of the driveway. This location compromises the functionality of this location.

 

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

118.    The development will be captured by Section J of the BCA concerning energy efficiency.

 

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

119.    The proposed impervious paving around the Lophostemon Confertus is considered to result in adverse health impacts on this tree. 

 

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

120.    A boarding house requires payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is not recommended for support as a result contributions have not been levied.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

121.    A Landscape Plan was submitted with the application; however the single tree located on the site and its proposed retention will be impacted by the proposed driveway. No arborist report has been provided in support of the proposed permeable paving in relation to impacts to the tree. Council’s Consulting Arborist’s assessment of the proposal concludes that the proposed permeable paving will have an adverse impact on this tree. The failure to provide adequate protection of the single existing tree on the site due to the location and extent of the driveway is unacceptable and is considered to contribute to development which is not responsive to the site.

 

Built Environment

122.    The proposal in its current form is considered to result in a poor built form and internal functionality which results in adverse traffic impacts, amenity impacts on adjoining properties and reduced occupant amenity.

 

123.    The design is considered to be poor in terms of the layout of the Manager open space, the lack of measures to protect the existing tree, the provision of a compromised communal open space area, the location of the main communal entry and the provision of car parking at the rear of the site without any adequate landscape buffer which is characteristically occupied by open space and landscaping in residential areas. Furthermore the proposed bin storage area and access to this area is likely to result in vehicular conflicts in relation to vehicle manoeuvrability at the rear of the site.

 

124.    The proposed boarding house provides limited levels of occupant amenity which provides poor access to light and ventilation, unclear way finding and lack of shared space.

 

125.    The primary resident access into the building is located to the northern side of the building, with access to the car park at the rear also located along the northern side passage. This side pathway does not meet access requirements for all residents and visitors and does not meet CPTED principles by virtue of the limited surveillance of the area. The inability to provide safe and equitable pedestrian and vehicular access forms a reason for refusal.

 

126.    The side passage and resident entrance generates adverse impacts on the neighbour to the north whereby pedestrian traffic which will adversely impact the amenity of the neighbour in relation to noise and privacy. The proposed siting and orientation of the car parking along the northern side boundary is considered to result in adverse light spill generated by headlights of vehicles, furthermore the northern entrance is likely to be lit with lighting to assist with navigation and way finding along the northern side boundary. These elements result in unacceptable impacts upon the neighbours as well as future occupants of the boarding house.

 

127.    In addition, the proposal has not provided adequate information on the elevations with respect to spot levels, natural ground levels and property boundaries.

 

Social Impact

128.    No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment given the residential nature sought. It is noted that the submitted plan of management makes reference to ‘no cooking within the boarding rooms’ however a kitchen has been provided within each boarding room which makes the use of these facilities unusable. In this regard, the proposal has provided inconsistent information.

 

Economic Impact

129.    There is no apparent adverse economic impact given the residential use of the proposal.

 

Suitability of the site

130.    The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. A boarding house is a permissible form of development in this zone however the proposal fails to meet a number of standards of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 which adversely affects the amenity of the development for future occupants. The vehicular access to and from the site fails to satisfy the requirements of Transport for NSW and is convoluted and proposes compromised manoeuvrability. For these reasons, and others discussed throughout this report, the application is not supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

131.    The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville DCP No. 1 between 29 June and 13 July 2020. In response, one (1) submission containing eight (8) signatures was received as a result of the notification period. The key issues raised have been addressed below.

 

Insufficient motorbike or bicycle parking

132.    Officer Comment: The proposal is deficient by one (1) motorcycle and one (1) bicycle space. There is limited space within the development to be able to accommodate these additional spaces without affecting other elements of the development.

 

Poor amenity for future residents and not consistent with R2 Low Density Residential Objectives

133.    Officer Comment: The proposal results in poor levels of occupant amenity and results in outcome which is inconsistent with the zone objectives. Furthermore the proposal does not comply with the Development Standards within SEPP (ARH) 2009. It is acknowledged this development form is permissible in this zone, however the application before the Panel is poorly planned having regard to the constraints of the site.

 

Poor passive surveillance opportunities

134.    Officer Comment: The communal open space is directly adjacent to the communal room and allows for opportunities for passive natural surveillance, however the manager’s private open space which is enclosed by the built form and fencing does not provide any opportunities for natural passive surveillance there are no sightlines into this area. The main entrance along the northern side boundary is not clearly visible from the public domain as this is obstructed by the two (2) storey building and fencing. This main entrance contains limited opportunities for natural passive surveillance due to the proposed “L” shape access pathway leading from the public domain to the entrance of the building for the lodgers.

 

135.    In addition, the location of the entrance along the northern side boundary for the lodgers is considered to result in poor sight lines and detracts from opportunities for passive natural surveillance.

 

Safety for neighbours relating to future residents

136.    Officer Comment: This is not a planning consideration matter. A plan of management accompanies the review application in relation to house rules which makes reference to maintaining an incident register. This is considered to be adequate. (note: it does not specifically make reference ‘to non-compliance of house rules’ regarding disciplinary action or eviction within the submitted POM). The Plan of Management is considered to be deficient.

 

Overlooking impacts on neighbour property in particularly window R8 along the northern side elevation.

137.    Officer Comment: The windows in the side elevations of the proposal adopt a reasonable size, location and dimension and are not considered to result in any unreasonable material privacy impact to adjoining properties.

 

Noise impacts on neighbours generated by the use in particular due to the location of the side entry.

138.    Officer Comment: The proposed boarding house entry along the northern side boundary is considered to result in adverse noise impact given this is the primary entrance to the building for the 21 lodgers as there is a minimal setback in this location.

 

Overpopulation

139.    Officer Comment: The proposal seeks development consent for twenty one (21) boarders and one (1) boarding house manager which complies with the lodger requirements of SEPP (ARH) 2009 of which limits the number of lodgers to two adults per room in an R2 zone.

 

Commercial activities within the zone

140.    Officer Comment: A boarding house forms a permissible residential use within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Although leased on a commercial basis, it is a residential land use.

 

Waste bins blocking vehicular sight lines when placed on kerb for collection

141.    Officer Comment: As waste bins are required to be collected from the kerb, obstructions to and from the public domain maybe temporarily obscured during routine collection however this is not considered to be unreasonable as it is a requirement to service this development.

 

Noise impact generated by car parking area

142.    Officer Comment: As the proposal seeks a hard stand car park at the rear, this design is considered to result in adverse amenity noise impacts to adjoining residential properties as there is no ‘buffer’ incorporated into the development to mitigate or address this issue.

 

Overshadowing impact

143.    Officer Comment: The proposed built form is considered unlikely to result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts given the setback and built form which generally aligns with a two storey dwelling house. As the site is orientated on an east to west, overshadowing to some degree to the adjoining southern property is considered to be unavoidable. The location of the driveway between the boarding house and the southern side boundary provides the reasonable spatial separation to the south. Furthermore, it is noted that a two storey dwelling house could be situated closer to the southern boundary which would result in a greater overshadowing impact than that generated by the proposal in relation to setbacks.

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

 

Consultant Arborist

144.    Council’s Consultant Arborist had commented on the proposed retention of the  Lophostemon Confertus as per below;

 

·    “the revised plans still have paving up close to the tree, albiet with a 5m radius type area of permeable paving.

 

·    No Arborist Report has been provided relating to the subject tree located on site and another tree located within the adjacent site at the rear.

 

·    The issue with using “permeable paving” around an aged tree is the change in hydrological factors that would be encountered from covering up not only the Structural Root Zone, but the entire TPZ. Permeable paving means water may permeate through holes allocated within segmental paving units and therefore moisture can be readily available for the roots uptake. Permeable paving does have its benefits, BUT when used around young trees that for their age are robust and having high levels of vitality and adaptation to their surroundings. This tree currently has survived its entire life with surrounds that are totally permeable through grass and not being restricted, excessively with hard structures”

 

145.    Comment: The proposed impervious paving is considered to result in unacceptable impacts to the health of the Lophostemon Confertus and is not supported. This forms a reason for refusal.

 

Development Engineer

146.    The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer. The proposal seeks to drain through the inlet in the kerb and gutter. Council’s controls require an underground connection to the infrastructure within the roadway. In order achieve this the pipe would need to extend 45m and connect into TfNSW drainage system. In this regard, the proposal is not supported.

 

Traffic Engineer

147.    The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment, the assessment resulted in the application not being able to be support for reasons consistent with the comments made by TfNSW with respect to vehicular access, queuing etc to a classified road.

 

Environmental Health Officer

148.    Council’s Environmental Health Officer has commented that an acoustic report is required for consideration under Clause 102 - Impact of Road noise or vibration on non-road development under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. This information was not supplied with the application and given the other concerns with the design of the application, this information was not requested.

 

External Referrals

 

Ausgrid

149.    The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No comments were received upon finalisation of this assessment report.

 

150.    The application was referred to TfNSW for comment who have not provided concurrence under the Roads Act 1993. They raised concerns regarding traffic impacts on the basis of: the one way access is considered to promote high unmitigated conflict between entering and exiting vehicles and that the arrangement can potentially lead to unacceptable queuing on King Georges Road, Penshurst”.

 

CONCLUSION

151.    The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 8.2 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. As discussed within this assessment report, the proposal fails to meet a number of the minimum standards in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal also fails to meet a number of matters referenced in the Development Control Plan relating to accessibility, tree protection and vehicular access to the site, resulting in adverse environmental and amenity impacts. The proposed development in its current form is not considered to be suitable for the site or the immediate context.

 

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

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

153.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·    The proposal does not satisfy Section 1.3 Objects of the Act of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 whereby the proposal does not satisfy objective (g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment. The design, functionality and internal layout results in poor levels of occupant amenity. Furthermore design results in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining residential properties.

 

·    The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with a number of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 standards in relation to communal open space, manager open space, motorbike parking, bicycle parking.

 

·    The proposed development results in poor residential functional amenity (ventilation, solar access, communal open space, safety) on site for future occupants and results adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

·    The proposal does not provide sufficient accessible parking and access arrangements, appropriate tree protection, vehicular access and drainage design and discharge in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1.

 

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

 

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

 

Determination

154.    THAT pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse Review Application REV2020/0016 for demolition of existing and construction of boarding house on Lot 8 DP 12478 and known as 565 King Georges Road, Penshurst, 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 does not satisfy the following Object of the Act:

 

(d) To promote good design and amenity of the built environment.

 

2.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in terms of the following:

 

(a)  Cl. 29(2)(d)(i) – the proposal provides inadequate and insufficient communal open space which detracts from the functionality, liveability and on-site amenity for future occupants.

 

(b)  Cl. 29(2)(d)(ii) – the Manager’s private open space is located along the northern side setback and provides poor levels of occupant amenity and solar penetration due to the cantilevered floor and roof eave above together with the fencing surrounding this space.

 

(c)   Cl. 30(h) – the proposed development has provided insufficient motorcycle and bicycle parking on site which detracts from the amenity for future occupants.

 

(d)  Cl.30A – the proposed development is not consistent with the existing or desired future character of the locality with respect to the lack of landscaping and extent of hard surfaces and structures located within the rear setback, poor access arrangements within the development between the building and parking area and communal open space.

 

3.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not satisfy Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment regarding adequate stormwater disposal.

 

4.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 in terms of the following:

 

(a)  Clause 101 - Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Service) has not granted concurrence as the one (1) way access is considered to promote high unmitigated conflict between entering and exiting vehicles and that the arrangement can potentially lead to unacceptable queuing on King Georges Road, Penshurst.

 

(b)  Clause 102 – The applicant has not provided an acoustic report in accordance for considerations under Clause 102 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development.

 

5.         Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not satisfy the following objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

o 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.

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

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

 

6.         Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Chapter 3 of the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1:

 

(a)  Chapter 3.3 Access and Mobility - The proposal is deficient one (1) accessible spaces and the application fails to demonstrate suitable accessible pedestrian access within the site.

 

(b)  Chapter 3.5 Landscaping – The application fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the site tree (Lophostemon Confertus) to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

7.         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 natural environment:

 

(a)  The proposal fails to provide an adequate tree protection zone around the Lophostemon Confertus tree nominated to be retained to ensure its survival.

 

8.         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 built environment:

 

(a)  The proposal in its current form is incompatible with the existing and desired future character in relation to the extent of hard surfaces within the rear setbacks.

 

(b)  The proposed boarding house does not provide future residents with adequate sunlight and ventilation within the central corridors of both the ground floor and first floor due to poor design.

 

(c)   The development proposes inadequate communal open space and poorly located private open space for the Managers room.

 

(d)  The Plan of Management is deficient with respect to its content.

 

9.         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 as:

 

(a)  Safe vehicular entry and exit to and from the site has not been demonstrated.

 

(b)  The development fails to achieve suitable levels of amenity for future residents and adjoining allotments as a result of poor internal layout and functionality.

 

(c)   The information submitted with the application is inconsistent and contains insufficient detail to make a full and proper assessment, in particular being the architectural plans elevation and the functioning of the boarding house due to the deficiencies of the Plan of Management.

 

10.       Public interest - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development in its current form 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 - 565 King Georges Road Penshurst

Attachment 2

Elevations - 565 King Georges Road Penshurst

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 September 2020

LPP042-20              565 King Georges Road Penshurst

[Appendix 1]           Site Plan - 565 King Georges Road Penshurst

 

 

Page 105

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 September 2020

LPP042-20              565 King Georges Road Penshurst

[Appendix 2]           Elevations - 565 King Georges Road Penshurst

 

 

Page 106

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 September 2020

Page 137

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 September 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP043-20

Development Application No

DA2020/0146

Site Address & Ward Locality

Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street Hurstville

Hurstville Ward

Proposed Development

Fit-out and use of Tenancy 1 as a restaurant (licenced premises) including business identification signage

Owners

GR Capital Group Pty Ltd

Applicant

Huang Property Group Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

Marchese Partners

Date Of Lodgement

20/04/2020

Submissions

Ten (10) individual submissions

Cost of Works

$250,000

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Development is for the use of Tenanacy 1 as a restaurant (licenced premises) including internal fitout and signage and is required to be determined by the Georges River Local Planning Panel under Council Delegations

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage;

Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy; Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020;Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012;   Hurstville Development Control Plan 1;Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 – Amendment No. 10;Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

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

Architectural Plans

Statement of Environmental Effects

Acoustic Report, Traffic Report

Plan of Management

Report prepared by

Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

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 conditions can be reviewed when the report is published. 

 

Site Plan

Figure 1:: Aerial View of the subject site highlighted in red

 

Executive Summary

 

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of Development Application DA2020/0146 which is seeking approval for the fit-out and use of Tenancy 1 as a restaurant (licenced premises) including business identification signage on Lot 76 in Strata Plan 91614 known as Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street, Hurstville.

 

Site and Locality

2.         The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment with a primary frontage to Treacy Street of approximately 45m and secondary frontage to Hill Street of approximately 36m having a site area of 1,563sqm. The site consists of a mixed used development comprising of commercial tenancies at ground floor level and ten (10) levels residential apartments above with four (4) levels of basement car parking. The site is located in an established up-zoned high density, mixed-use environment, with retail and commercial uses occupying the ground floor of buildings, with extensive residential development above.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

3.         The site is zoned B4 – Mixed Use under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). A restaurant is permissible with consent as it is defined use under the definition of a food and drink premises, being a retail premises under the commercial premises definition.

 

Submissions

4.         The application was notified in accordance with Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1, ten (10) individual submissions were received objecting to the application. The issues raised are summarised below:

·     Noise;

·     Odour;

·     Security; and

·     Loss of general amenity.

 

Conclusion

5.         Having regard to the matters for consideration under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment, the proposed Development Application (DA2020/0146) for the fitout and use of a ground floor commercial tenancy as a restaurant including building identification signage is recommended for approval subject to conditions referenced at the end of this report.

 

Report in Full

Proposal

6.         Council is in receipt of Development Application DA2020/0146 seeking approval for the fitout and use of Shop 1 as a restaurant including business identification signage.

 

7.         The specific details of the proposal are as follows:

 

Use

·     To use the premises as a restaurant with a bar;

·     The proposed hours of operation are 7am – 12 midnight, Monday to Sunday, seven days a week.

·     The number of restaurant and bar seating combined will accommodate up to 167 patrons at maximum capacity;

·     The proposed restaurant will employ a total of fifteen (15) staff on site at any one time;

·     Eight (8) car parking spaces have been allocated to the subject tenancy including 3 on the Ground Level and 5 on Basement Level 1.

The applicant provided strata plans which demonstrate parking allocation for Tenancy I and 2, 8 spaces to Tenancy 1 and 1 space to Tenancy 2.

 

Internal Fit-out

·     Works to the existing internal floor layout to facilitate the proposed use;

·     Installation of a commercial kitchen, cool room, freezer, dry store, bar area, back of house, storage and  bench areas;

·     Construction of a staff room; and

·     Construction of sanitary facilities.

 

Signage

·     Installation of a backlit opaque acrylic sign cantilevered from the façade of the building. The sign displays the name of the business.

·     The signage is proposed to be illuminated from 7am – 12 midnight, Monday to Sunday

 

The Site and Locality

8.         The subject site is legally identified as Lot 76 SP 91614 and commonly known as Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street, Hurstville.

 

9.         The site has an area of 1,563sqm with the primary frontage of 45m to Treacy Street and secondary frontage to Hill Street of approximately 36m.

 

10.      The site is currently occupied by an eleven (11) storey mixed used development comprising commercial tenancies on the ground floor level and residential apartments on the upper levels. The building consists of four (4) levels of basement car parking. Eight (8) car parking spaces have been allocated to the subject tenancy including 3 on the Ground Level and 5 on Basement Level 1. These spaces have been allocated on the strata plan.

 

11.      The tenancy has a total area of 356.9sqm and is accessed directly from the Treacy Street frontage. The subject tenancy is currently vacant.

 

Figure 2: Subject site viewed from Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

12.      The site is located in an established high density, mixed-use environment. The characteristics are described as retail and commercial uses at ground floor with residential occupancies above.

 

13.      Eleven storey, mixed use developments are to the north as well as east of the site at 107 Forest Road and 1 Jack Brabham Drive respectively. A six (6) storey mixed use development comprising of retail and residential apartments is situated to the west of the site at 11-13 Treacy Street.

 

14.      The site is accessible to public transport facilities. Allawah Station is located approximately 2km from the site and Hurstville Station is approximately 750m walking distance from the subject site. Bus services are available within walking distance along Forest Road and Durham Street, located to the north of the site.

 

Background

15.      On 1 April 2015, DA2014/1083 granted deferred development consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new eleven (11) storey mixed use development with basement parking. This development consent was subsequently activated and the development built.

 

16.      On 21 October 2015, MOD2015/0117 granted approval for Section 96(1A) Modification of Condition 20 relating to issue of Construction Certificate prior to formal execution of Voluntary Planning Agreement.

 

17.      On 15 January 2019, MOD2018/0187 granted approval for modification to Consent No. DA2014/0183 for extension of Basement 4 footprint and layout, changes to basement levels. Modification to balustrade materials at upper levels to match lower levels, minor changes to roof level.

 

18.      On 16 January 2018, MOD2017/0135 granted approval to modify development consent DA2014/1083 to undertake modifications throughout the development and increasing the height of the lift run.

 

19.      On 20 April 2020, the subject application (DA2020/0146) was submitted to Council for the use and fit-out of Tenancy 1 as a restaurant (licenced premises) including associated business identification signage.

 

Compliance and Assessment

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

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

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

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 64 – ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE

22.      The application is designed having regard to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 - Advertising and Signage and as such assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1 are applicable to the application.

 

23.      Assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

 

SEPP Provision Requirement

Proposed Development

Comply

Schedule 1 Assessment criteria

1   Character of the area

·    Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

 

·    Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

 

The proposed signage is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area as it is a sign that will advertise the proposed restaurant.

 

 

The sign is consistent with what would be envisaged by the use of these commercial tenancies.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

2   Special areas

·    Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

 

The proposed signage does not detract from the amenity or visual quality of the locality.

 

 

Yes

3   Views and vistas

·    Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

 

·    Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

 

·    Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

 

The proposed signage does not obscure or compromise important views.

 

The proposed signage does not dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas.

 

The proposed signage will respect the viewing rights of other advertisers.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

4   Streetscape, setting or landscape

 

·    Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

·    Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

 

·    Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

 

·    Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

 

·    Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

 

·    Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

 

 

 

The scale, proportion and form of the proposed signage is appropriate for the streetscape and its setting.

 

 

 

The proposed signage has a positive contribution to the visual interest of the streetscape.

 

 

There is no existing signage in the current location.

 

 

 

There is no unsightly area to screen as this is a new building.

 

The signage is not used as a visual screen or filter.

 

 

 

The proposed signage does not require ongoing vegetation management

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

N/A

5   Site and building

·    Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

 

·    Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

 

·    Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

 

The proposed signage is compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of existing building.

 

 

 

 

The proposed signage respects and integrates well with the important features of the building.

 

The proposal demonstrates innovation and imagination in its relationship to the building.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

6   Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

·    Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

 

 

No safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos have been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure.

The sign is a light box being internally lit.

 

 

N/A

7   Illumination

·    Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

 

·    Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

 

·    Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

 

·    Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

 

·    Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

 

The proposed level of illumination will not result in unacceptable glare.

 

The proposed level of illumination will not affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft.

 

The proposed level of illumination will not detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation.

 

The illumination of the light box can be adjusted if necessary.

 

 

The illumination will be restricted to approved business hours only.

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

8   Safety

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

 

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

 

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

 

The proposed signage does not reduce the safety of any public road.

 

 

 

The proposed signage does not reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists.

 

 

The proposed signage does not reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007

24.      The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The DA was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Ausgrid advised there are no issues with the proposal and no conditions were recommended.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SEPP

 

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 2 – GEROGES RIVER CATCHMENT

25.      The main aims and objectives of this plan include but are not limited to the following:

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

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

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

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

 

26.      The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. However, the existing stormwater and drainage arrangement is not proposed to be amended as part of this development application as there are no external building works proposed.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY

27.      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.

 

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

 

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

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

 

30.      The allotment is zoned B4 – Mixed Use, a restaurant is permissible with consent as it is defined use under the definition of a food and drink premises, being a retail premises under the commercial premises definition.


Figure 3: Zoning Map – site outlined in blue

 

Applicable LEP Clause

Development Standards

Development Proposal

Comply

4.3 Height of Buildings

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map pursuant to HLEP 2012.

The proposed use does not seek to alter the existing height of the building. The fitout and use of tenancy 1 on the ground floor as a restaurant does not alter the height of the development.

Yes

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

(2)  The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map pursuant to HLEP 2012.

Maximum allowable FSR for the subject site is 3:1m as per Floor Space Ratio Map. The proposed change of use and fitout works occupy an existing tenancy, no additional floor space is proposed.

Yes

Part 6 - Additional Local Provisions

6.6 - Active street frontages

 

(1) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

The proposed fitout and use of a ground floor tenancy as a restaurant will activate the street frontage of this   development through pedestrian movement.

Yes

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

31.      Consideration is given to the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 in the assessment this application.

 

32.      In this regard, the provisions have no determining weight as a result of proposed operation of Clause “1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications” of the Draft Plan which provides “If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.” 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

33.      The proposal has been assessed under the relevant sections of Development Control Plan Nos. 2 as follows.

 

HURSTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 2 – AMENDMENT NO. 10 – SECTION 4 – CITY CENTRE PRICINCTS – CITY CENTRE EAST

34.      The proposal has been assessed against the Key Land Use Principles and is considered the proposal will activate the street frontage and promote vibrancy and passive and active surveillance of the public domain.

 

HURSTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 2 – AMENDMENT NO. 10 – SECTION 4.6 – CITY CENTRE PRECINCTS – CITY CENTRE EAST – SECTION 5 – CONTROLS FOR RESIDEINTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

35.      The proposal has been assessed against the provisions outlined in the Section 5 – Controls for residential, commercial and mixed use development and are addressed a follows.

 

36.      Sections 5.3.1 through to 5.3.11 outline criterion where a new building or development is proposed. These clauses are not relevant to the fit-out and use application including signage.

 

Section

Control

Proposal

Complies

5.3.12 Active Street Frontage

 

(b) Active ground floor uses must occur at the footpath level and immediately related levels and be accessible directly from the street.

 

(c) The ground floor of development must provide a glazed ground floor frontage, contributing to street activity, light and colour in the street and passive surveillance.

 

(d) Restaurants, cafes and the like must consider providing shop fronts which are able to be opened.

The proposed restaurant is situated at ground floor level and is accessible directly from the Treacy Street.

 

 

The façade treatments of the tenancy will remain unchanged and are largely glazed.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed shop front has floor to ceiling glass walls that provides a perception of openness and street connection.  

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

5.3.14 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

This section of the DCP sets out the Objectives, Performance Criteria and Design Solutions to be considered in relation to crime prevention through environmental design for residential, commercial, mixed use development and car parks. The Performance Criteria have been grouped according to six key features relating to design and crime prevention:

·    Site and Building Layout.

·    Lighting.

·    Landscaping and Fencing.

·    Security.

·    Building Identification and Ownership; and

·    Building Materials and Maintenance.

The proposed Tenancy provides glassed front façade that allows for natural surveillance to and from the street. The entry to the tenancy is located fronting Treacy Street and is clearly visible. 

 

The car parking spaces allocated to the proposed use are easily accessible and are well lit to ensure proper surveillance and patron safety.

 

 

Yes

Section 5.4.4 – Parking and Service Delivery Requirements

Retail premises (including food and drink premises, restaurants and cafe unless elsewhere defined):

 

Maximum car parking rate: 1 space per 50sqm

 

 

 

 

Minimum of bicycle storage racks: 1 bicycle space per 300 square metres of retail.

The total floor area for the subject premises is 356.9sqm.

 

Based on car parking requirements at a rate of 1 space per 50sqm, 7.19 (rounded up to 8) car parking spaces is required for the proposed restaurant.

 

The total number of 1.19 (rounded up to 2) spaces is required for the proposed restaurant.

Yes, eight (8) parking spaces have been allocated for the tenancy (3 on the Ground Level and 5 on Basement Level 1). These car parking spaces are available to both staff and patrons. Patrons intending to visit by car will be required to make a space reservation with the Restaurant Manager if they would like to park on-site.

This has been nominated on the Strata Plan.

5.4.6 Loading/ Unloading facilities and Service Vehicle Manoeuvring

 

(b) All loading and unloading activities must take place wholly within the loading bay, at all times. No loading or unloading activity is to take place within any car parking area, landscaping area, pedestrian footway or any public road reserve.

(c) All delivery vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

All loading and unloading will occur in the commercial parking area. The Traffic and Parking Assessment states that the proposed restaurant use will only have very minor need for service or delivery vehicle visitation and less than that of the approved retail use.

Yes

5.4.7 Pedestrian Access and Mobility

The design of facilities (including car parking requirements) for disabled persons must comply with the relevant Australian Standard (AS 1428 Pt 1 and 2, or as amended) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (as amended).

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Building surveyor who raised no concerns in relation to the design of facilities for persons with a disability.

None of the nominated car parking spaces for this tenancy are accessible.

Yes

 

6.2.4 Waste Minimisation and Management

(b) Provide for the recycling of household and commercial waste; provide adequate common storage for recyclables (including paper and cardboard, plastics and aluminium) as well as a waste/recycle storage area within each building.

 

(g) All development applications must be accompanied by a waste management plan

 

(h) Development is required to provide an appropriate room for the storage of garbage, recyclable and compostable waste bins to enable the efficient separation of waste products.

Deliveries and waste disposal will occur during normal business hours within the building.

 

Council’s Health Officer has recommended several conditions to ensure proper construction and operational waste disposal measures.

Yes

7.1 Trading Hours

Standard trading hours for commercial premises are 6am – 12am (midnight), daily.

7am – 12 midnight, Monday to Sunday, seven days a week.

Yes, However the hours have been restricted to between 7am and 10pm, Sunday to Wednesday and 7am and 11pm, Thursday to Saturday to minimise impacts on the residential amenity of the apartments above and the surrounding area.

 

GEORGES RIVER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2020 (INTERIM POLICY)

37.      The Interim Policy is a supplementary document, meaning that the current Development Control Plan controls continue to apply if a particular control is not specified in the Interim Policy, or if it is still considered best practice. All operative Development Control Plans still legally apply. Whilst the Interim Policy has no statutory recognition in the assessment of a Development Applications pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the policy was used as a guide as it is an endorsed position of the Council.

 

38.      In relation to the proposed use, the proposal does not conflict with the controls of the Interim Policy Development Control Plan.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

39.      The development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 

Built Environment

40.      Located on the subject site is an eleven (11) storey mixed use development. The subject tenancy is located at the ground floor level with residential apartments directly above. 

 

41.      The proposed development is only for the use and fit-out of Tenancy 1 and minor construction works to facilitate the fit out and the installation of one (1) projecting wall sign. No changes are proposed to the footprint or the external façade of the building. 

 

42.      The proposed development will not in any way affect the bulk and scale of the existing building.

 

43.      Review of the Plan of Management (PoM) and the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic indicate potential impacts, if any, will be appropriately management and kept to a minimal to ensure the amenity of the residents above is preserved.

 

44.      To minimise potential noise impacts, the recommendations made in Acoustic Report in relation to the use of indoor restaurant/bar are as follows:

 

·    Music noise level (played over PA) within the restaurant and bar to be limited to 84dB(A)L10.

·    Door to indoor areas is recommended to be kept closed other than for ingress/egress.

·    Disposal of bottles/waste should be done prior to 10pm unless done within a basement area.

·    Detailed review of tenancy mechanical plant (if any) should be undertaken at CC stage, once plant selections and locations are finalised. Compliance with Council/EPA requirements will be achievable using standard acoustic treatments (in duct lining/attenuators, equipment enclosures etc).

·    Wrap any waste pipework in the ceiling space from the apartment above with 5kg/m2 foam backed loaded vinyl lagging.

·    Install 2x layers of 16mm plasterboard to be installed to the ceiling space mounted on resilient hangers.

·    10mm glazing to be installed.

·    Kitchen Joinery (bench/cupboards) to be mounted on 5mm thick rubber matting (to prevent impact noise transmission to above).

·    Speakers within site shall be vibration isolated by NRD mounts.

·    All furniture in the proposed project site to be to have rubber mounts.

·    Waste piping from residential apartment above is to be externally wrapped with 5kg/sqm foam backed loaded vinyl lagging.

·    No queuing in external areas of the restaurant.

·    Management controls should be utilised to manage patron departure particularly at night and at closing times to ensure that patrons leaving the development in a prompt and orderly manner. This would include the placement of security staff outside the building near closing time, and at other times as required, to direct and quickly disperse patrons away from the premises.

 

45.      These recommendations have been conditioned to be implemented as part of the fit-out works which will be the subject of a Construction Certificate.

 

46.      The PoM also proposes several measures to ensure general amenity of the premises and the locality is maintained. These relate to:

 

·    Active Areas and Patron Capacity

It proposes to operate the business within the confines of the premises and accommodate a maximum of 167 patrons at any one time. The staff and management will control the movement of patrons entering and exiting the premises; given the restaurant has one public entry. This will create an active public domain and prompt activity within the site in which patrons would avail of alcohol with their meal, as intended by the liquor license.

 

·    Staffing and Organisation Review

The tenancy will be staffed during the entirety of the operating hours and staff will be responsible for the meeting and greeting of customers, the service of food and beverages, handling of payments and receiving reservations over the phone.

 

·    Waste Management

Management would prevent patrons removing glasses or bottles from the premises. Management would also take steps to ensure all staff minimise waste in all departments and recycle where possible.

 

·    Cleaning of Premises

Cleaning of the premises will be carried out on a daily basis and include cleaning of the kitchen, and the toilets. The premises will be kept in a clean and tidy condition and regularly maintained to the satisfaction of Council, both internally and externally.

 

·    Cigarette Disposal

The premises will have a dedicated area for smoking. Therefore, patrons wishing to smoke will be directed to the area. The management will responsibly dispose of cigarette butts and other waste as well as undertake scheduled inspection of such areas.

 

·    Continuous Review to Improve the Plan of Management

Management shall consider the amenity of its neighbours and shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that there is no frequent, undue, nor adverse impact on the surrounding area.

 

Management would take all measures to ensure that the behaviour of staff and patrons, when entering or leaving the premises, does not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. Signage will be placed within the premises, requesting patrons to ‘Consider their Neighbours’ and leave the premises quickly and quietly. Upon leaving, patrons are advised to respect the neighbours and leave quietly towards public transport options. Staff would be briefed on available transport options within the vicinity of the site so that they may relay this information effectively to patrons. Taxi contact numbers will also be offered to patrons.

 

The use will be carried out in such a manner so as not to interfere with, or materially affect, the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, and oil.

 

47.      The PoM is required to be kept on the premises at all times and adhered to strictly. A condition has been placed in the consent accordingly.

 

48.      Further, the application seeks to operate between the hours of 7am – 12 midnight, Monday to Sunday, seven days a week.

 

49.      The standard trading hours for commercial premises under Section 7 of the Hurstville Development Control Plan Number 2 are 6am – 12am (midnight), daily.

 

50.      Given that the subject tenancy has ten (10) levels of residential apartments above and is surrounded by other residential developments and future residential developments, the proposed hours of operation are likely to have adverse privacy impacts on the amenity of these residents, particularly in terms of noise.

 

51.      Ten (10) submissions were received raising concerns in relation to the loss of residential amenity as a result of the proposed use.

 

52.      The existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site are predominantly commercial in nature. Approval of the proposed hours will set an undesirable precedence for similar uses in the future. 

 

53.      In order to minimise potential residential impacts and to set a desirable precedence, the hours of operation has been restricted to between 7am and 10pm, Sunday to Wednesday and 7am and 11pm, Thursday to Saturday.

 

54.      The proposed use therefore is unlikely to have in any significant adverse impacts on the built environment.

 

Social Impact

55.      The proposal is not considered to result in any adverse social impact. A Plan of Management has been provided, reviewed and is considered as acceptable. The Plan of Management is conditioned to be complied with as part of the development consent.

 

Economic Impact

56.      The proposal development will result in the betterment of the local economy through provision of employment opportunities.

 

Suitability of the Site

57.      The site is zoned B4 – Mixed Use, a restaurant is permissible with consent as it is defined use under the definition of a food and drink premises, being a retail premises under the commercial premises definition. It is considered the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts on the adjoining properties or the streetscape. The proposal is considered to be a suitable form of development.

 

SUBMISSIONS, REFERRALS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

58.      The application was notified to adjoining residents for a fourteen (14) day period in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Ten (10) individual submissions were received objecting to the proposed development. The issues raised are discussed below.

 

·     Noise - concerns have been raised in relation to noise generated by the proposed restaurant and bar considering the capacity and operating hours.

59.      Officer comment - The proposed development is located in the B4 Mixed Use zone. The objective of the zone is to allow for residential development in the Hurstville City Centre while maintaining active retail, business or other non-residential uses at street level. The proposed use is defined as a restaurant (food and drink premises) and permissible in the zone.

 

60.      Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the proposal including the provided Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic and have raised no concerns. As stated above, these recommendations will be included in the consent to ensure noise levels are kept to a minimal.

 

61.      Further, the hours of operation has been restricted to between the hours of 7am and 10pm, Sunday to Wednesday and 7am and 11pm, Thursday to Saturday to ensure the amenity of the residents above and surrounding area is maintained. The restriction on the hours of the operation will be enforced through inclusion of suitable conditions of consent.

 

·     Odour – concerns have been raised in relation to odour generated by the restaurant that will have a negative impact on the units above as well as the rooftop garden. The plans for the proposed restaurant and bar also fail to display or explain where the kitchen fumes will be vented to.

62.      Officer comment - The proposed development has been reviewed by Council Environmental Health Officer who has raised no concerns in relation to the comfort of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of fumes, vapour or odour.

 

63.      A condition has also been imposed in the consent to clearly demonstrate the location of vents and discharge outlets on plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate. In addition this will need to be certified that it has been placed compliant with the relevant Australian Standards with respect to mechanical plant and odour emissions.

 

·     Security – security concerns have been raised regarding the introduction of a restaurant and bar at the ground floor of the building. The patrons will utilise parking in the building basement which shares one (1) entry point with resident parking, increased entry/exit from this one (1) entrance would lead to compromised security. Further concerns relate to drunk or disorderly behaviour due to excessive alcohol intake resulting from service of alcohol in the restaurant.

64.      Officer comment - The total number of car parking spaces allocated to the proposed development are three (3) at ground level and five (5) within the basement. The designated car parking spaces within the basement will be available for senior staff member and VIP members. Patrons intending to visit by car will be required to make a space reservation with the Restaurant Manager if they would like to park on-site.

 

65.      It is anticipated that majority of the customers would either be locals living in the immediate and surrounding area and would travel by foot or public transportation given the sites proximity to Hurstville and Allawah Stations, approximately 750m and two kilometres, respectively.

 

66.      Any drunk or disorderly behaviour will be subject to the legal enforcement.

 

67.      The Plan of Management submitted with the application will include a complaints register which will ensure that all adverse issues are recorded and can be accordingly resolved without unnecessary impact on the community. The application was referred to the Police and no comments were received at the time this report was finalised. 

 

·     Loss of General Amenity - mentioned above regarding noise, odour and security would detract from living in this location and require us to change our living patterns in an inconvenient manner in order to live here.

68.      Officer comment – As discussed above, there has been adequate measure proposed to minimise potential impacts on the general amenity of the residence in the immediate vicinity thought the implementation of the recommendations in the PoM and Acoustic Report to minimise to noise, odour and security concerns.

 

69.      A condition has been imposed requiring the location of mechanical plant associated with the kitchen facilities to be shown on the Construction Certificate Plans and certification provided to demonstrate the design is compliant with the relevant Australian Standards.

A further condition will be enforced to restrict the hours of operation to between the hours of 7am and 10pm, Sunday to Wednesday and 7am and 11pm, Thursday to Saturday to protect the amenity of the residents above and surrounding area.

 

Council Referrals

 

Environmental Health Team

70.      No objections were raised, and specific conditions of consent have been recommended and included in the conditions referenced at the end of this report.

 

Development and Building Team (BCA Assessment)

71.      No objections were raised, and specific conditions of consent have been recommended and included in the conditions referenced at the end of this report.

 

 Traffic Team

72.      No objections were raised by the traffic team. The traffic team reviewed the submitted Traffic Report and was satisfied in relation to access, parking and traffic movement.

 

External Referrals

Ausgrid

73.      The application was referred to Ausgrid as per Clause 45(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No objection was received and no conditions recommended. Response received 15 May 2020.

 

Hurstville Police Service

74.      The application was referred to the Crime Prevention officer. No comments have been received at the time this report was written.

 

Local Infrastructure Contributions

75.      A Section 7.11 contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94 Contributions Plan 2017.

 

76.      In this case the levied charge is $2500.00, which is required to be paid in full prior to the release of any Construction Certificate.

 

CONCLUSION

77.      Development consent is sought for the fitout and use of Tenancy 1 on the ground floor of the building as a restaurant (licenced premises) including business identification signage.

 

78.      The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposal satisfies the B4 - Mixed Use objectives of the zone, in addition to complying with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan requirements. The proposed development is appropriately located within an accessible distance from local public transport and is considered to be compatible with the uses envisaged in this locality. The proposed development will aid in activating the Treacy and Hill Street frontages and provided increased employment opportunities.

 

79.      The proposal will not result in any unreasonable impacts to the amenity of adjoining properties subject to the conditions of consent recommended below.

 

80.      The application is recommended for approval.   

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

81.      Statement of Reasons

·     The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and is consistent with the desired future character of the B4 zone and existing developments in the locality.

·     The proposal is fully compliant with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 - Advertising and Signage.

·     The proposal is generally compliant with requirements of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Development Control Plans.

·     The proposed development will provide street activation and employment opportunities in this precinct.

 

 Determination

82.      THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Georges River Local Planning Panel grant development consent to DA2020/0146 for the fit-out use of Tenancy 1 as a restaurant (Licensed Premises) including business identification signage at Lot 76 SP 91614 and known as Shop 1, 1 Treacy Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions:

 

General Conditions

 

1.         Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

 

Description

Reference No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Location Plan

DA1.01

24.03.2020

C

marchesepartners

Existing & Demolition Plan - Ground

DA2.01

24.03.2020

D

marchesepartners

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

DA2.02

01.06.2020

D

marchesepartners

Basement Floor Plan

DA2.03

01.06.2020

D

marchesepartners

South Elevation

DA3.01

01.06.2020

D

marchesepartners

Drainage Diagram

DA4.01

01.06.2020

D

marchesepartners

Traffic and Parking Assessment

20130(B)

June 2020

B

Transport and Traffic Planning Associates

 

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Placing or storing materials or equipment;

 

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

 

(c)     Erecting a structure or carrying out work

 

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

 

(e)     Pumping concrete from a public road;

 

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

 

(g)     Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

 

(h)     Establishing a “works zone”;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

 

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

 

4.         Liquor Licence - Application shall be made to NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming for a Liquor Licence under the Liquor Act 2007, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. Evidence that the Licence has been issued shall be provided to the PCA prior to the commencement of works.

 

Note: A use which is reliant on the obtaining of a Liquor Licence should refrain from progressing until the Licence is obtained.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

 

7.         Fire Safety Measures - Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a list of the essential fire safety measures that are to be provided in relation to the land and any building on the land as a consequence of the building work must accompany an application for a Construction Certificate, which is required to be submitted to either Council or a PCA. Such list must also specify the minimum standard of performance for each essential fire safety measure included in the list. The Council or PCA will then issue a Fire Safety Schedule for the building.

 

8.         Acoustic Requirements - Compliance with submitted Acoustic Report - The Construction Certificate plans shall demonstrate compliance with the Acoustic Report submitted and approved by Council, titled Restaurant - Development Application - Prepared by Acoustic Logic - Dated 9 June 2020.

 

9.         Acoustic Report - General Operation of Premises - The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 <http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/> (as amended) and Regulations <http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/>.

 

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

 

(a)     Plans and Specifications

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

 

i.        Food Act 2003 (as amended)

 

ii.       Food Regulation 2015 (as amended)

 

iii.      Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia

 

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

 

v.       Sydney Water - trade Waste Section.

 

vi.      Details of the location and design of the mechanical ventilation plant and equipment to facilitate the new commercial kitchen. These details are to be accompanied by certificate from the designer detailing that the design complies with the relevant Australian Standards having regard to noise and odour.

 

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

 

(b) Colour of finishes

All walls, floor and ceiling in all food preparation, food storage and waste storage areas shall be finished with a light colour.  No black or dark colour surface finish is permitted in these areas.

 

Details of colour of finishes in the mentioned area must be submitted with the plans for satisfactory approval prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.   

 

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

 

(c) Waste Facility

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

 

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

ii.    paved with impervious floor materials;

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

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

v.     adequately ventilated (mechanically or naturally) so that odour emissions do not cause offensive odour as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 <http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/>;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

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

Builders Damage Deposit

$1,900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$155.00

Driveway Design and Inspection Fee (Dwelling)

N/A

Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017

$ 2500.00

 

General Fees

 

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

 

Development Contributions

A Section 7.12 contribution has been levied on the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017.

 

Timing of Payment

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

 

Further Information

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

 

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

 

Vents and discharge outlets

The location of vents and discharge outlets associated with the mechanical ventilation system are to be clearly shown on the construction certificate and associated documents. The plan is to be accompanied by certification from the design mechanical engineer that the location and discharge points comply with the requirements of AS1668. As works associated with this mechanical ventilation system are to be constructed wholly within the boundaries of the subject allotment and not hang in over of upon any land. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(e)     All erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition, excavation and/or development works

 

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

 

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

 

(h)     Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004.

 

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

 

Prior to Commencement of Construction

 

14.       Surrendering of Consent - Upon activation of this consent for the use and fitout of tenancy 1 as a restaurant with associated business identification signage, any other development consents approved for this tenancy are to be surrendered to Council.

 

During Construction

 

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

 

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

 

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

 

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

 

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

 

(b)     That as at the date of the assessment the measure was found t