Georges River Council – Minutes of Local Planning Panel - Thursday, 15 October 2020

Page 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES


Local Planning Panel

 

Thursday, 15 October 2020

4.00pm

 

Georges River Civic Centre,

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Members:

 

Mr Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Ms Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member)

Mr John Brockhoff (Expert Panel Member)

Mr George Vardas (Community Representative)

 

 

 

1.                APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

There were no apologies received

 

 

There were no declarations of Pecuniary Interest

 

2.                PUBLIC SPEAKERS

 

The meeting commenced at 4.06pm and at the invitation of the Chair, registered speakers were invited to address the panel on the items listed below.

 

The public speakers concluded at 4.55pm and the LPP Panel proceeded into Closed Session to deliberate the items listed below.

 

3.                GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL REPORTS

 

LPP049-20        117 Stuart Street Blakehurst

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Bernard Moroz (planner)

          ●       Joseph Khoury (applicant/architect)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2020/0247 for the demolition, tree removal, construction of a multi-level dwelling house, in-ground swimming pool, front fencing, landscaping and site works at 117 Stuart Street, Blakehurst, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.     Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 as it involves the removal of three (3) healthy and Category A-rated trees, being trees that are important trees suitable for retention for more than 10 years and worthy of being a material constraint.

 

2.     Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 as the built form is inconsistent with the development forms immediately adjoining the site and along the bay, as it proposes a continuous built form with no relief as it extends down the site, as there is no separation of built form or landscaping visible from the bay.

 

3.     Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012:

 

a.  Clause 1.2 - Aims of the Plan relating to the orderly and sustainable development given the excessive density breach and resultant bulk and scale of the proposal;

 

b.  Clause 1.2 - Definitions: the proposal contains two self-contained dwellings and application has been made for one dwelling house;

 

c.   Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives - R2 Low Density Residential;

 

d.  Clause 4.4A – Exceptions to floor space ratio for residential accommodation in Zone R2, having regard to the extent of variation sought;

 

e.  Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards, having regard to lack of adequacy in justifying the need for development standard variation;

 

f.    Clause 5.4(2) - Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses, having regard to the 137sqm of floor area of the proposal for use as a ‘home business’ exceeding the 30sqm maximum permitted; and

 

g.  Clause 6.2 – Earthworks, having regard to the extent of excavation to accommodate multiple levels of the proposal and the extent of fill proposed to provide a level landscaped area in the rear yard.

 

4.     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 Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013:

 

a.    Control 1.2.1 Floor Space Requirements;

b.    Control 1.5.1 Visual Privacy;

c.    Control 1.2.6 Street edge;

d.    Control 1.3(8) Open space;

e.    Chapter 4.2 Fences and Walls; and

f.     Chapter 4.6 Swimming Pools and Spas.

 

5.     The proposal is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the development will cause adverse impacts upon the following aspects of the environment:

 

a.    Natural Environment: Three (3) healthy and significant trees are proposed for removal which could be retained with an alternate design and the natural site topography is unnecessarily being significantly altered to accommodate the dwelling and private open space area.

 

b.    Built Environment: An adverse impact will result from the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises relating to building bulk, scale and form, and overlooking impacts upon adjoining neighbours.

 

6.     The proposed development is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site or its locality and is likely to set an undesirable precedent as:

 

a.  The built form is excessively bulky for the site and results in adverse privacy and visual impacts for residential neighbours.

b.  The information submitted with the application is deficient in detail to make a full and proper assessment of the proposed height of the dwelling.

c.   No information has been provided regarding the retaining walls required to support the levelled area proposed in the rear yard.

d.  The Geotechnical Report concludes the site is unsuitable for the extent of excavation proposed and will pose a risk to human life. No mitigation strategy has been included with the application to address this.

 

7.     Approval of the development would not be in the public interest and contrary to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Statement of Reasons

·           The proposed development is not considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the site and the character of the locality.

·           The excessive non-compliance of the Floor Space Ratio standard is unjustified and is considered unacceptable.

·           The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and built environments.

·           The proposal involves the removal of three (3) healthy and significant trees from the front setback, which is considered to be unnecessary.

·           The proposed development will result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents and the locality and is likely to set an undesirable precedent.

·           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.

·           The Panel notes the various room sizes within the building could be reduced in size and scale so as to reduce the overall gross floor area so the proposed development could be more commensurate with the floor space ratio development standard. In particular, the Panel is concerned that the floor space, bulk and footprint of the dwelling is increased to an unacceptable level due to the generous size of rooms including the office, meeting room and entry lobby.

·           The sandstone escarpment has high scenic value. The cantilevered extension of the patio and the location of the pool have an unmitigated visual impact when viewed from the waterway and this is not softened by appropriate landscaping.

·           The Panel would support a single dwelling of an appropriate form and scale on the land as it would allow for the retention and preservation of the existing natural features on the site.

 

 

LPP050-20        14 Maple Street Lugarno

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Qi Xin Xu (applicant)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2019/0645 for the construction of decking around an above ground swimming pool which is currently being used to house fish at 14 Maple Street, Lugarno, is determined by refusal 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 following sections of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012:

 

(a) Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table (R2 Low Density Residential) - In particular, the development does not contain sufficient information to enable full and proper assessment of the development - to ensure that a high level of amenity is achieved and maintained; and also the development does not encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing existing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

 

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

 

(a)  Built Environment: Unable to assess if the impact would be adverse and result in adverse impacts to the amenity of adjoining premises;

(b)  Social Impacts: Unable to assess if the impact would be adverse and result in adverse impacts to the amenity of adjoining premises.

 

3.     Suitability of the Site – Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not demonstrate that the proposed development is suitable for the site or its locality.

 

4.     Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (Schedule 1 – Forms), the documentation submitted with the development application does not comply with the requirements of “Documents to accompany development application” in Part 1, Clause 2.

 

In particular, the plans submitted with the development application are not accurate in terms of the ground levels depicted on the plans which are not reflective of what exists on site.

 

5.     The 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.

 

Statement of Reasons

·           The proposal, has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan and the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1.

·           The plans that have been submitted with the current development application are not capable of being built having regard to the annotated dimensions.

·           The proposed development, does not demonstrate that there will be no unreasonable impacts upon the built environment and amenity of the neighbourhood.

·           The current use of the premises leads the Panel to conclude that the above ground swimming pool has been adapted to make it incapable of being used for recreational purposes that would normally be considered ancillary and incidental to a residential use. The inspection of the premises by the Panel indicated the presence of three (3) enclosures to hold water (two (2) in the rear yard and one (1) in the front yard) which appear to be used for the propagation of fish. The scale and size of these water bodies leads to the conclusion that the use of the premises are characterised as an independent use of a potentially commercial nature and/or a home business, notwithstanding commentary in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects, dated 20 December 2019, suggesting otherwise.

 

As such the proposed elements the subject of this Development Application i.e. decking and associated stairs cannot be supported.

 

The Panel notes that it does not have requisite delegation to undertake an investigation of alleged breaches of Planning Controls, but recommends that an appropriately delegated Council Officers carry out a thorough investigation of the land use and where necessary take appropriate regulatory action.

 

 

LPP051-20        27-33 Nielson Avenue Carlton

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Jim Apostolou (architect)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

The Panel is satisfied that:

 

1.      The applicants written request under Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 seeking to justify a contravention of Clause 4.3 Building Height development standard has adequately addressed and demonstrated that:

 

(a)        Compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

(b)        There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

 

2.      The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standards and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Modification Application No. MOD2020/0084 for the Section 4.55(2) modification to an approved Residential Flat Building to provide an one (1) additional studio apartment on the fourth floor at 27-33 Nielson Avenue, Carlton, is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 15 October 2020.

 

Statement of Reasons

·         The amended proposal has adequately provided justification for the exceedance to Clause 4.3 height of building of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

·         The amended proposal complies with other aspects of the planning controls.

·         The amended proposal is consistent with the objectives of the applicable considerations and in particular, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

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

 

 

LPP052-20        14A Merriman Street Kyle Bay

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

No speakers registered for this item

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

The Panel is satisfied that:

 

1.      The applicants written request under Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 seeking to justify a contravention of Clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line development standard has adequately addressed and demonstrated that:

 

(a)        Compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

(b)        There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

 

2.      The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standards and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2020/0098 for the demolition, construction of a dwelling house and inground swimming pool and retention and extension of the existing garage at 14A Merriman Street, Kyle Bay, is determined by granting deferred commencement consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 15 October 2020.

 

Statement of Reasons

·         The proposed development complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan apart from the encroachment of the dwelling within the foreshore building line 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 limited development in the foreshore area is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

·         The proposal has effective façade modulation and wall articulation that will serve to provide visual interest when viewed from the waterway public domain.

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

 

 

LPP053-20        2 Laycock Road Penshurst

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Anders Idestrom (architect)

          ●       Laura Featherstone (planner)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

The Panel is satisfied that:

 

1.      The applicants written request under Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 seeking to justify a contravention of Clause 4.4A Floor Space Ratio development standard has adequately addressed and demonstrated that:

 

(a)        Compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

(b)        There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

 

2.      The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standards and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2019/0607 for the alterations and additions to existing residential care facility and respite day care to centre to provide 2 additional rooms at 2 Laycock Road, Penshurst, is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 15 October 2020 except;

 

1.    Condition 17 be amended as follows:

 

17. Slip Resistance - All pedestrian surfaces, the subject of the new proposed additions, in areas such as foyers, public corridors/hallways, stairs and ramps as well as floor surfaces in the wet rooms in any commercial/retail/residential units must have slip resistance classifications, as determined using test methods in either wet or dry conditions, appropriate to their gradient and exposure to wetting.  The classifications of the new pedestrian surface materials, in wet or dry conditions, must comply with AS/NZS4586:2013 - Slip Resistance Classifications of New Pedestrian Materials and must be detailed on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

Statement of Reasons

·         The proposed alterations and additions to the existing building is an appropriate response to the site and is consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone and existing developments in the locality.

·         The clause 4.6 request to vary the floor space ratio development standard is well founded and is acceptable in the circumstances of this proposal.

·         The proposed alterations and additions will not adversely affect the heritage conservation area and satisfies the relevant controls of Clause 5.10 of KLEP 2012, Part B1 of KDCP 2013 and the Penshurst Heritage Conservation Area Assessment Guidelines.

·         The proposed development generally complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan.

·         The proposed development is well considered and sensitively designed so that it will not result in any unreasonable impacts on the natural and built environment.

·         The building will not unreasonably affect the amenity of any immediately adjoining properties in terms of unreasonable overlooking, overshadowing or view loss.

·         The proposal is not inconsistent with the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

·         The proposal will provide additional rooms which will provide a benefit for the use in serving a community need.

 

 

LPP054-20        70-78 Regent Street Kogarah

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

 

The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality.

 

Speakers

 

No speakers registered for this item

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Modification Application No. MOD2020/0144 for the modification to DA111/2017 for demolition and construction of an eleven (11) storey residential flat building. Modification seeks to remove a street tree to facilitate the undergrounding of power lines at 70-78 Regent Street, Kogarah, is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 15 October 2020.

 

Statement of Reasons

·         The proposed development generally complies with the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan

·         The proposed modification to remove a tree in order to accommodate the new power pole to satisfy the energy providers requirements associated with the undergrounding of electricity to service this development and does not result in any unreasonable impact on the natural and built environment.

·         The proposal provides a quality residential flat building development that responds to community needs and demands.

·         The modification remains consistent with the objectives of the zone and the character of the locality.

·         The development is not inconsistent with the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

 

 

 

4.                CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 6.20pm

 

 

                                                                            

 

Paul Vergotis

Chairperson

 

Helen Deegan

Expert Panel Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Brockhoff

Expert Panel Member

 

George Vardas

Community Representative