AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 19 November 2020

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Sue Francis (Chairperson)

John Brockhoff (Expert Panel Member)

Milan Marecic (Expert Panel Member)

George Vardas (Community Representative)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm – 3.30pm

a)    32 The Avenue Hurstville

b)    29A-35 Greenacre Road South Hurstville

c)    43 Cronulla Street Carlton

 

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

 

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

 

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm

(Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)

 


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

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP060-20        29A-35 Greenacre Road South Hurstville – DA2020/0292

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP061-20        32 The Avenue Hurstville – DA2020/0165

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP062-20        43 Cronulla Street Carlton – DA2020/0264

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes

 


 

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 November 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP060-20

Development Application No

DA2020/0292

Site Address & Ward Locality

29A-35 Greenacre Road South Hurstville

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Provision of an additional one hundred (100) students to an approved educational establishment - no works proposed.

Owners

The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney

Applicant

Robinson Urban Planning

Planner/Architect

Robinson Urban Planning

Date Of Lodgement

21/07/2020

Submissions

Five (5) submissions received

Cost of Works

Nil – no physical works proposed

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Council Delegations

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55  Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Child Care and Educational Facilities) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non Rural Areas) 2017,

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2013, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020, Draft Environment SEPP,

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP, Georges River Interim Policy 2019

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

Statement of Environmental Effects, Amended Application Response, Additional Traffic Information

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions referenced at the end of 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, standard conditions have been attached. These conditions can be reviewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of the site and immediate surrounding area (Source: Georges River Council, Intramaps, 2020).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of a development application request consent for the provision of an additional one hundred (100) students (no works are proposed) to an approved educational establishment known as Marist Catholic College Penshurst, South Hurstville Campus on land known as 29A – 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville.

 

2.         The development application seeks consent to enable an additional one hundred (100) students to occupy the site, no works or additional classrooms are proposed to accommodate the additional students. The school at the time of its construction made provision (classrooms and facilities) for four hundred and eighty (480) students.

 

3.         On 13 March 2018 development consent (DA2017/0216) was granted for the construction and use of a new educational facility at 29A Greenacre Road South Hurstville. At the time the application sought consent for a maximum of 480 students.

 

4.         As part of the assessment of this application, it was identified that in order to accommodate a campus with a capacity of up to 480 students, there was necessity to upgrade of the intersection of King Georges Road and Connells Point Road, South Hurstville. As part of this assessment it was negotiated that three hundred and eighty (380) students could be accommodated without the need to upgrade this intersection. The condition imposed to reflect this cap is referenced below:

 

53.       The maximum number of students at any one time is not to exceed 380 to reduce traffic implications on the local network.

 

5.         Consent was granted for the following works being ‘demolition of all existing structures on site and associated site works (except the heritage listed former bowling clubhouse which is to be conserved and adaptively reused) and the construction of a new educational establishment that has become a Junior Campus (Years 7 and 8)’ for Marist Catholic College Penshurst at 65 Victoria Street, Penshurst. For the purposes of this assessment report, a summary the approval included:

 

·      Provision for up to 380 Year 7 and 8 students (co-ed) and 28 full time equivalent staff.

·      Conservation and adaptive reuse of the former clubhouse building for school administration purposes (Building A).

·      New Buildings B, C and D (ranging in scale from two to three storeys).

·      Twenty five (25) classrooms and one (1) multipurpose hall.

·      Multipurpose courts and other play/recreation areas.

·      Off street car parking for 58 cars, an onsite pick-up/drop-off facility and pedestrian and car entries.

 

6.         On 8 July 2018 MOD2018/0094 granted approval for internal and external changes to the approval referenced above namely DA2017/0216.

 

7.         On 3 October 2019, DA2018/0372 was approved which consented to the enlargement of the site to include 31-35 Greenacre Road, granting consent for the following ‘demolition works and change of use from residential to educational establishment including construction of fencing and reallocation of substation’.

 

8.         This current application (DA2020/0292) was lodged on 7 July 2020, and seeks consent to increase the student numbers by one hundred (100) for a maximum student population of four hundred and eighty (480). In order to accommodate the additional one hundred (100) students and to address the traffic management concerns during the original assessment, the proposal is seeking to transfer Year 7 and 8 students between this site and the Penshurst campus by bus. The proposal nominates six (6) buses (four (4) private and two (2) TfNSW buses) to facilitate the student transfer.

 

9.         The bus pick up and drop areas to be used are the existing Penshurst-Mortdale Campus bus bays and the car park of the South Hurstville campus. This is detailed in the traffic engineer document provided to Council dated 9 October 2020. There will be no change or impact to the street network or on-street car parking in either campus location.

 

10.      The development application was notified in accordance with the Georges River Council Community Engagement Strategy and the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. In response, five (5) submissions were received which raised concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian and vehicular safety. These are considered in detail later in this report.

 

11.      The development application is supported by Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW).

 

12.      The proposal is supported by Council’s relevant referral specialists including traffic and health.

 

Site and Locality

13.      The site is legally described as Lot 40 DP124815 and is known as 29A – 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville. The site comprises of 15,260.3sqm, an educational establishment known as Marist Catholic College Penshurst - South Hurstville Campus is currently operating on this site.

 

14.      The immediate surrounding area is R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. Development adjoining the site comprises a mixture of residential development ranging from dwellings to multi dwelling housing of varying architectural styles and designs.

 

Figure 2: Photograph of subject site (29A - 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville) in background viewed from Greenacre Road, South Hurstville (Source: GRC, 2020).

 

           

Figure 3: Extract of previously approved site plan within DA2018/2019 (Source: Munns Sly Moore Architects, 2019).

 

Zoning and Permissibility

15.      The subject site is zoned part SP2 Educational Establishment and R3 Medium Density Residential. An educational establishment forms a permissible use within the SP2 zone within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

16.      A minor eastern portion of the site formerly known as 31-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. This part of the site obtains permissibly through the provisions of Clause 33 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational and Childcare Facilities) 2017. This allotment was consolidated with the SP2 land in October 2018.

 

17.      Development consent had been granted for an educational establishment associated with 29A Greenacre Road, South Hurstville via DA2017/0216 and for 31-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville via DA2018/2019.

 

Figure 4: Extract of zoning map with subject site outlined in red (Source: GRC Intramaps, 2020).

 

Submissions

18.      The application was notified in accordance with the provisions of the Georges River Community Engagement Plan and the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. In response, five (5) submissions were received which raised concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian and vehicular safety.

 

Conclusion

19.      Following consideration of the development application, the adequacy of the acoustic measures proposed, there is no change to the approved built form and that the proposal seeks to incorporate a bus service to provide transport between the subject site and the Penshurst campus resulting in there being no changes to the street network or on street car parking, the proposal is suitable on traffic and amenity grounds and accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions of consent referenced at the end of this report.

 

REPORT IN FULL

Proposal

20.      Council is in receipt of a development application request consent for the provision of an additional one hundred (100) students (no works are proposed) to an approved educational establishment known as Marist Catholic College Penshurst, South Hurstville Campus on land known as 29A – 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville.

 

21.      The development application seeks consent to enable an additional one hundred (100) students to occupy the site, no works or additional classrooms are proposed to accommodate the additional students. The school at the time of its construction made provision for four hundred and eighty (480) students.

 

22.      On 13 March 2018 Development consent (DA2017/0216) was granted for the construction and use of a new educational facility at 29A Greenacre Road South Hurstville. At the time the application sought consent for a maximum of 480 students.

 

23.      As part of the assessment of this application, it was identified that in order to accommodate a campus with a capacity of up to 480 students, there was necessity to upgrade of the intersection of King Georges Road and Connells Point Road, South Hurstville. As part of this assessment it was negotiated that three hundred and eighty (380) students could be accommodated without the need to upgrade this intersection. The condition imposed to reflect this cap is referenced below:

 

53.       The maximum number of students at any one time is not to exceed 380 to reduce traffic implications on the local network.

 

24.      This application was lodged on 7 July 2020, and seeks consent to increase the student numbers by one hundred (100) for a maximum student population of 480. In order to accommodate the additional one hundred (100) students and to address the traffic management concerns during the original assessment, the proposal is seeking to transfer Year 7 and 8 students between this site and the Penshurst campus by bus. The proposal nominates six (6) buses (four (4) private and two (2) TfNSW buses) to facilitate the student transfer.

 

25.      The bus-pick up and drop areas to be used are the existing Penshurst-Mortdale Campus bus bays and the car park of the South Hurstville campus. This is detailed in the additional traffic engineer document provided to Council dated 9 October 2020. There will be no change or impact to the street network or on-street car parking in either campus location.

 

Figure 5: Extract of Management of pick and drop off around the subject site (29A-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville) (Source: Colston Budd Rodger and Kafes, 2020).

 

Figure 6: Extract of Management of pick up and drop off around Penshurst Campus at 65 Victoria Street, Penshurst (Source: Colston Budd Rodger and Kafes, 2020).

 

Background

26.      The following relevant development history relating to the extent of works are detailed as follows;

 

27.      On 13 March 2018 Development consent (DA2017/0216) was granted for the construction and use of a new educational facility at 29A Greenacre Road South Hurstville. At the time the application sought consent for a maximum of four hundred and eighty (480) students.

 

28.      As part of the assessment of this application, it was identified that in order to accommodate a campus with a capacity of up to four hundred and eighty (480) students, there was necessity to upgrade of the intersection of King Georges Road and Connells Point Road, South Hurstville. As a result a negotiated outcome to negate the need to update this intersection, the application was determined with a student cap of three hundred and eighty (380) students. The condition reflect this cap is referenced below:

 

53.       The maximum number of students at any one time is not to exceed 380 to reduce traffic implications on the local network.

 

29.      The consent was granted for the following works being ‘demolition of all existing structures on site and associated site works (except the heritage listed former bowling clubhouse which is to be conserved and adaptively reused) and the construction of a new educational establishment that has become a Junior Campus (Years 7 and 8)’ for Marist Catholic College Penshurst at 65 Victoria Street, Penshurst. For the purposes of this assessment report, a summary the approval included:

 

·      Provision for up to 380 Year 7 and 8 students (co-ed) and 28 full time equivalent staff.

·      Conservation and adaptive reuse of the former clubhouse building for school administration purposes (Building A).

·      New Buildings B, C and D (ranging in scale from two to three storeys).

·      Twenty five (25) classrooms and one multipurpose hall.

·      Multipurpose courts and other play/recreation areas.

·      Off street car parking for 58 cars, an onsite pick-up/drop-off facility and pedestrian and car entries.

 

30.      On 8 July 2018 MOD2018/0094 granted approval for internal and external changes to the approval referenced above namely DA2017/0216.

 

31.      This application was lodged on 7 July 2020, and seeks consent to increase the student numbers by one hundred (100) for a maximum student population of four hundred and eighty (480). In order to accommodate the additional one hundred (100) students and to address the traffic management concerns during the original assessment, the proposal is seeking to transfer year 7 and 8 students between this site and the Penshurst campus by bus. The proposal nominates six (6) buses (four (4) private and two (2) TfNSW buses) to facilitate the student transfer.

 

32.      Initially this application sought an extension of a bus bay along Greenacre Road, South Hurstville to facilitate the additional one hundred (100) students. This was not supported

 

33.      The application was notified between 5 August and 19 August 2020 five (5) submissions were received.

 

34.      Council requested additional information regarding traffic management relating to pick-up and drop offs at the South Hurstville and Penshurst Campus’s and with respect to whether busses could be accommodated within the South Hurstville site.

 

35.      The applicant provided additional traffic engineering information, which included the following:

 

·      Deletion of the extension of a bus bay along Greenacre Road, South Hurstville. This has resulted in the retention of on street car parking near the school.

·      Provision of all drop off and pick-ups (buses) to be fully contained within the car parking area of the South Hurstville Campus.

·      Private buses are not to be parked in surrounding residential streets but are to be either parked on site or at a bus depot between services.

·      A revised Traffic Management Plan for both the Penshurst and South Hurstville Campus’s.

 

Site and Locality

36.      The site is legally described as Lot 40 DP124815 and is known as 29A – 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville. The site comprises of 15,260.3sqm, an educational establishment known as Marist Catholic College Penshurst - South Hurstville Campus is currently operating on this site.

 

37.      The immediate surrounding area is R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. Development adjoining the site comprises a mixture of residential development ranging from dwellings to multi dwelling housing of varying architectural styles and designs.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

38.      The majority of the site is zoned SP2 – Educational Establishment pursuant to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP).

 

39.      The remaining part of the subject site is zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential. In accordance with the KLEP 2012, Education Establishments are defined as “a building or place used for education (including teaching), being:

 

(a)  a school; or,

(b)  a tertiary institution, including a university or a TAFE establishment, that provides formal education and is constituted by or under an Act.”

 

40.      The proposed development is a listed prohibited use in the R3 zoning table of the KLEP2012. However, clause 35(1) of the statement Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education SEPP2017) states that “development of the purposed of a school may be carried out by any person with development consent on land in a prescribed zone.”

 

41.      Clause 33 of the policy defines “prescribed zone” which includes R3 zoned land.  Therefore, the extension of the school facilities into the R3 zone is permissible via the Education SEPP 2017. The SP2 land and the R3 land were consolidated into one allotment in October 2018.

 

42.      The proposal seeks consent for an additional one hundred (100) students to be accommodated within the approved educational establishment. No physical works are proposed to accommodate these additional students.

 

Submissions

43.      The development application was notified in accordance with the Georges River Council Community Engagement Strategy and the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. In response, five (5) submissions were received which raised concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian and vehicular safety. These are considered in detail later in this report.

 

Compliance and Assessment

44.      The development has been assessed having regarding to Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Section 4.15 Evaluation

45.      The following is an assessment of the application with regard to Section 4.15(1) Evaluation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(1)  Matters for consideration - general

In determining an application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

 

The provision of:

(i)    Any environmental planning instrument,

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

46.      Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) is detailed below.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (CHILDCARE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES) 2017

47.      The proposal has been considered in accordance with the provisions of this SEPP. This application is not seeking any physical works within the South Hurstville Campus as the original consent was designed to accommodate four hundred and eighty (480) students as this was what was initially sought. In order to demonstrate that the accommodation of these additional one hundred (100) students a letter from the applicants Certification Consultant being Anthony Protas Consulting Pty Ltd dated 25 February 2020 detailed the following:

 

“In terms of population, there are two (2) BCA governing factors to consider for compliance:

 

1.    BCA Clause D1.6 – Dimensions of exits and paths of travel to exists; and

2.    BCA Clause/Table F2.3 – Sanitary facilities in Class 2-9 Buildings

 

48.      In consideration of these matters the following was advised:

 

“the premise contained in access of the minimum required aggregated egress and sanitary facilities to accommodate the proposed 480 student and 60 staff population”.

 

49.      As a result of there being no necessity for upgrading works and there are no works sought by this application, no assessment is required of the following design Quality Principles of this SEPP, namely:

·    Principle 3 – accessible and inclusive;

·    Principle 4 – health and safety;

·    Principle 5 – amenity;

·    Principle 6 – whole of life, flexible and adaptable within Schedule 4 of the SEPP.

 

50.      The proposal was referred to Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) under Clause 57 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017. 

 

51.      In response, correspondence was received by Council in correspondence dated 11 August 2020 which states the following:

 

“Reference is made to Council’s referral, regarding the abovementioned application which was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for comment in accordance with Clause 57 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017.

 

TfNSW has reviewed the material and advises that the proposed development has a negligible impact to the surrounding classified road network. As such, TfNSW has no further comments and raises no objections to the application”.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

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

 

53.      The educational facility has recently been constructed and all the earth works completed. No contamination was identified. This application is seeking to accommodate an additional one hundred (100) students within the existing buildings and play spaces, no additional physical work is proposed. As such the provisions of this SEPP have been satisfied in this assessment.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

DRAFT GEORGES RIVER LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2020

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

 

55.      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.”

 

56.      It is acknowledged the R3 component of this site is proposed to change to SP2 under the Draft LEP2020.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SEPP

57.      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.

 

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

 

DRAFT REMEDIATION OF LAND SEPP

59.      The Draft Remediation of Land SEPP was exhibited from 31 January 2018 to 13 April 2018. The proposed remediation of land SEPP will:

 

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

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

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

·      Clearly list the remediation works that require development consent;

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

 

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

 

KOGARAH LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

61.      The provisions of this Local Environmental Plan are relevant to the proposal. The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 201 (KLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

62.      The proposal seeks development consent to increase student numbers associated with an approved “educational establishment” which is a permissible form of development with consent in the SP2 zone. As previously stated, part of the site is a listed prohibited use in the R3 zone table of the KLEP2012. However, clause 35(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education SEPP2017) states that “development of the purposed of a school may be carried out by any person with development consent on land in a prescribed zone, R3 zoned land is referenced as a prescribed zone”

 

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

63.      The subject site is zoned SP2 Educational Establishment within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone as follows:

 

·    To provide for infrastructure and related uses

·    To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

 

64.      Comment: The proposal is considered not to be inconsistent with the objectives of the zone given the nature of the proposal being the increase in student numbers by 100 to an approved educational establishment use.

 

Applicable LEP Clause

Standards

Proposal

Complies

1.2 Aims of the Plan

Aims of the Plan to be satisfied.

Aims reasonably satisfied given the nature of the proposal which seeks an intensification of student numbers by one hundred (100) students to the approved educational establishment.

Yes

 

Aims of Plan

65.      The particular aims of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to Clause 1.2 (2) are as listed below:

 

(2)  The particular aims of this Plan are as follows—

(a)  to guide the orderly and sustainable development of Kogarah,

(b)  to encourage a diversity of housing choice suited to meet the needs of the current and future residents of Kogarah,

(c)  to promote economic development and facilitate the continued growth of commercial, medical-related and industrial employment-generating opportunities,

(d)  to protect and enhance Kogarah’s natural environment, foreshores and waterways,

(e)  to provide high quality open space and a range of recreational areas and facilities suited to meet the needs of the residents of Kogarah and its visitors,

(f)  to conserve Kogarah’s environmental heritage.

 

66.      The proposal reasonably satisfies the aims of the plan. The proposal is a permissible use and complies with the development standards and zone objectives within the KLEP2012.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

67.      The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013). The following comments are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the DCP. The proposal has been considered in accordance with the following subsections.

 

Part B KDCP 2013

Applicable DCP Controls

DCP Provisions

Development Provisions

Complies

 

B4 – Parking and Traffic

Minimum parking rates – secondary school 2 spaces/classroom, plus 1 space/10 students over 17 years

The proposal does not seek any physical works. Fifty-eight (58) car parking spaces were approved as part DA2017/0216 which exceeds the minimum required car parking being fifty (50) spaces to service twenty five (25) classrooms.

The accommodation of the additional one hundred (100) students does not necessitate additional classrooms; therefore there is no requirement for additional car parking under this proposal.

 

The educational establishment is to be attended by students of Years 7 and 8 which are under the age of 17 years and therefore unable to drive a vehicle.

Yes

B7– Environmental Management

Ensure waste management plan outlines how reuse and recycling of material are to be maximised and waste disposal minimised

Conditions relating to waste within DA2017/0216 are considered to be sufficient to cater for the additional waste disposal of one hundred (100) students and the facility was originally designed to accommodate four hundred and eighty (480) students.

Yes

 

INTERIM POLICY GEORGES RIVER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2019

68.      The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Interim Policy Georges River DCP 2020. Only the applicable aspects have been assessed with respect to the Interim DCP. All other aspects have been thoroughly assessed under the Kogarah DCP 2013. The aim of an Interim Policy is to set a consistent approach for the assessment of residential development within the Georges River Local Government Area, until such a time as a comprehensive DCP is prepared and implemented. Comments are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the DCP.

 

69.      The Interim Policy is a supplementary document, meaning that current DCP 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 DCPs still legally apply.

 

70.      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 will be used as a guide as it is an endorsed position of the Council.

 

The proposal is considered to be not inconsistent with the interim policy.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

71.      The proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse impacts to the natural environment given that the proposal does not seek any physical works.

 

Built Environment

72.      The proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse impacts to the built environment given that the proposal does not seek any physical works. The students can adequately be accommodated in the existing classrooms constructed on site.

 

Social Impact

73.      The assessment demonstrates that the proposal in its current form will not have an adverse impact on the character of the locality and the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. The environmental impacts on the social environment are considered to be not unreasonable and therefore the application is supported subject to conditions of consent regarding traffic management.

 

Economic Impact

74.      The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable material economic impact given the educational use.

 

Suitability of the Site

75.      It is considered that the proposal will not have any unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties, the streetscape or locality beyond in its current form subject to conditions of consent.

 

76.      Educational establishments as a use are not expressly contained within a prescribed subsection (for this use) within the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. Despite this, a merit based assessment has been undertaken in relation to the practical and “best fit” planning considerations as per below.

 

Consideration

Proposal

Satisfactory

Safety

The proposal has been considered in relation to vehicular and pedestrian safety designated pick up and drop off areas and also incorporates marshals and traffic controllers.

Yes

 

Car parking, manoeuvrability and access

The proposed vehicular access and traffic management has been considered by Council’s Traffic Engineers and Transport for NSW and is acceptable.

Yes

Acoustic and visual amenity

The modification will not result in any unreasonable acoustic impacts. An acoustic report accompanied the development application. This was reviewed and is supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer subject to conditions of consent.

Yes

 

SUBMISSIONS, REFERRALS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

77.      The application was notified and renotified to adjoining owners, occupiers for fourteen (14) days. In response, five (5) submissions were received to the proposal. A summary of the key concerns raised within the submissions regarding traffic, pedestrian and vehicular safety. These matters have been considered in further detail below.

 

Traffic impacts to surrounding area, around the school and additional impact to the intersection of Connells Point Road and King Georges Road.

78.      Comment: It is acknowledged that the original assessment of the education facility in 2017 raised concerns with the four hundred and eighty (480) students and the vehicles and busses that would service this campus. At the time of assessment there was a student cap of three hundred and eighty (380) imposed. Following this assessment consideration has been given to how the addition one hundred (100) students could be accommodated within this campus without impacting the traffic network and on street car parking. In this regard, the applicant was advised Council would not entertain any changes to bus bays and any loss of on street car parking to accommodate these additional students, the servicing of the campus would need to be facilitated onsite. The design was altered and the Applicant’s Traffic Engineer revised the design to ensure all necessary bus movement could be accommodated wholly within the confines of the South Hurstville Campus. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineers and Transport for NSW support the application without the need to upgrade the intersection of Connells Point Road and King Georges Road South Hurstville.

 

Traffic impact of buses

79.      Comment: Concerns were raised regarding traffic impacts on local streets instead of travelling via King Georges Road associated with bus movements. The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer has demonstrated that the necessary bus movements can be adequately accommodated within the street network. Council’s Traffic Engineers and Transport for NSW are accepting of the proposal.

 

Pedestrian and safety impacts

80.      Comment: The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable safety impacts given the proposed additional one hundred (100) students will largely be bussed into and out of the campus where the drop off and pick up bays are internally within the site.

 

Information contained within traffic report in relation to estimated car usage and traffic generation

81.      Comment: Concerns were raised in relation to the calculations regarding the anticipated patronage and traffic generation generated by the additional one hundred (100) students. The proposals traffic impacts have been considered as part of this assessment. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted information and is satisfied that the proposal does not generate any adverse impacts on the local traffic network subject to conditions in relation to traffic management.

 

Any future increase in student numbers from school beyond the current application

82.      Comment: If the applicant seeks in the future to increase student numbers this would be subject to a separate application and associated assessment.

 

Suggestions to development application in relation to operation of traffic management

83.      Comment: The proposed amendments in relation to traffic management were suggested by numerous objectors of whom reside near the school namely; provide bus depot, further education of carers/parents regarding rules of picking up of students, review of transfer of students by bus outside of peak periods and school buses are to be parked on school grounds when not in use.

 

84.      The amended proposal seeks to use four (4) private buses and two (2) TfNSW buses. The private buses are to be waiting on site when not in use. TfNSW chartered buses are not to wait on residential streets but instead are to wait at the depot until use. Conditions to this effect are imposed as an ongoing use condition of consent.

 

85.      The amended proposal seeks to pick-up and drop-off to be contained within the school grounds with marshals and traffic controllers to minimise disruption to the local traffic network.

 

Parking of existing buses

86.      Comment: Concerns were raised that existing buses used to provide transportation between the campuses would be parked on the street when not in use. A legally registered vehicle may park on a public road however as stated above the amended proposal will result in buses not parked on residential streets.

 

Council Referrals  

Traffic Engineer

87.      The proposal for the additional one hundred (100) students, the resulting traffic management plan and additional information was considered as part of this assessment and is supported by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer subject to conditions of consent.

 

Environmental Health Officer

88.      The proposal and submitted acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer which is considered suitable subject to conditions of consent.

 

External Referrals

Transport for New South Wales

89.      The application was referred to Transport for New South Wales. In response correspondence was received by Council dated 11 August 2020 which stated the following;

 

“Reference is made to Council’s referral, regarding the abovementioned application which was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for comment in accordance with Clause 57 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017.

 

TfNSW has reviewed the material and advises that the proposed development has a negligible impact to the surrounding classified road network. As such, TfNSW has no further comments and raises no objections to the application”.

 

New South Wales Police Force

90.      The application was referred to the New South Wales Police Force to comment on the proposal, with a fourteen (14) day time frame in which respond. In response, no comments were received upon finalisation of this assessment report (9 November 2020).

 

Contributions

91.      Section 7.12 contributions are not applicable to this development application as there is no cost of works.

 

CONCLUSION

92.      Development consent is sought for an additional one hundred (100) students to be accommodated within the South Hurstville Campus of an approved educational establishment only, on land known as 29A-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville. The proposal has been assessed with regard to 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 planning outcome.

 

93.      The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 and is considered to be an appropriate use of the land and is worthy of support subject to appropriate conditions of consent being imposed. The student capacity is capped at four hundred and eighty (480) students as a condition of consent.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

94.     

·      The existing educational establishment forms a permissible use within the SP2 Education Establishment zone within the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the R3 zoned land through the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017 and adequately satisfies the aims and objectives of these policies.

·      The proposal has demonstrated that additional student numbers can be accommodated within the approved educational establishment.

·      The amended proposal is considered acceptable subject to conditions of consent regarding on going traffic management.

 

Determination

95.      THAT Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Georges River Local Planning Panel grant approval to DA2020/0292 for an additional one hundred (100) students to an approved educational establishment (total for the site being a maximum of 480 students at any one time) on Lot 40 DP124815 and known as 29A – 33 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville, subject to the following 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

Acoustic Report

170314

06/04/2020

A

JHA Services

Building Code of Australia Report

P180193

25 February 2020

 

Anthony Protas Consulting Pty Ltd

Additional Traffic Information (containing Plan of Management)

SK/11429/jj

9 October 2020

 

Colston Budd Rogers and Kafes Pty Ltd

 

Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

 

2.         Student capacity - The student capacity of the educational facility located on 29A-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville, is permitted to have a maximum capacity of four hundred and eighty (480) students at any one time. This development consent prevails over student numbers referenced in DA2017/2016 and DA2018/0372 which relate to consents establishing the educational facility on land known as 29A-35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville.

 

3.         Noise Control - The use of the premises must not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended).

 

4.         School’s Noise Management Plan - The School’s Noise Management Plan is to be strictly followed at all times and a copy is to be available on site for review as required should Council receive reports of excessive noise.

 

5.         Traffic Plan of Management – The proposal must strictly adhere to the requirements contained within the additional traffic information letter (containing the Plan of Management) reference SJ/11429/jj dated 9 October 2020 prepared by Colston Budd Rodgers and Kafes in regards the following:

 

Traffic Management Plan Penshurst-Mortdale Campus and South Hurstville Campus

(i)    The existing bus bay near the school entrance at Greenacre Road, South Hurstville is unchanged.

(ii)   The pick-up and drop off locations, management, staggering of pick up times, marshalling and traffic controllers and bus travel route for the Penshurst-Mortdale Marist Campus and South Hurstville Campus.

(iii)  No buses are to waiting on any surrounding residential streets. Buses are to either be parked on site or at the bus depot when not in use.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Amended Application Response - 29A - 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville

Attachment 2

Additional Traffic Information - 29A - 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 November 2020

LPP060-20              29A-35 Greenacre Road South Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Amended Application Response - 29A - 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville

 

 

Page 25

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 November 2020

LPP060-20              29A-35 Greenacre Road South Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Additional Traffic Information - 29A - 35 Greenacre Road, South Hurstville

 

 

Page 36

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


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

Page 52

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 November 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP061-20

Development Application No

DA2020/0165

Site Address & Ward Locality

32 The Avenue Hurstville

Hurstville Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition works and construction of a shop top housing development over basement parking

Owners

32 The Avenue Hurstville Pty Ltd

Applicant

D R Design (NSW) Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

Planner and Architect: Dickson Rothschild

Date Of Lodgement

4/05/2020

Submissions

No submissions received

Cost of Works

$4,276,899

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Shoptop housing containing a residential flat building component and over 10% variation to a Development Standard.

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land,  Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index) BASIX 2004,

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020,

Draft Environment SEPP, Draft Remediation of Land SEPP,  Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 and Georges River Interim Policy 2019

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

Revised Architectural Plans,

Statement of Environmental Effects with Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard to Clause 4.3 Height of Building

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Yes, variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

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 can be viewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the subject site (32 The Avenue, Hurstville) outlined in blue.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposal

1.         Council is in receipt of a development application seeking development consent for demolition works and construction of a shop top housing development containing a commercial tenancy fronting The Avenue and a three (3) storey residential flat building over and a four storey (4) residential flat building to the rear of the development on the land known as 32 The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

2.         The original proposal sought one (1) commercial tenancy and sixteen (16) apartments, rooftop communal space and two (2) levels of basement parking.

 

3.         Council sent a request for additional information letter on 20 July 2020 which raised concerns regarding inadequacies relating to insufficient allotment width and floor plate size, inadequacies in the design, insufficient information regarding traffic, engineering and waste.

 

4.         Council received amended plans and accompanying documentation of which are the basis of this assessment.

 

5.         The amended proposal comprises one (1) ground floor commercial tenancy being 116sqm in area. Seventeen (17) apartments consisting of:

 

·      Studios = three (3);

·      One (1) bedroom = six (6);

·      Two (2) bedroom = six (6); and

·      Three (3) bedroom = two (2)

 

6.         Rooftop communal open space and three (3) levels of basement parking.

 

7.         The allotment walls under the provisions of Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No. 2 (HCC DCP No. 2), these controls are promoting the amalgamation of allotments to create wider fronted allotment and large floor plates as referenced in Section 5.3 Controls for Residential, Commercial and Mixed Use Development Clause 5.3(a) Built form Controls which references the following clause:

 

“In the remaining of the City Centre ­ a general building floor plate of 900 - 1,000sqm; and ­ a minimum 30 metre street frontage”.

 

8.         The site has a frontage of 15.24m and proposes a floor plate 619sqm, which results in a variation of 49.2% and 31.3% respectively.

 

9.         The site has a frontage to The Avenue, Hurstville, with vehicular access to the site from a signalised T intersection, being The Avenue and Cross Street, Hurstville. The Avenue is a one way street from north-west to south-east. The reduced allotment width and floor plate impacts the design relating to layout, spatial separation, functionality, amenity which generates adverse impacts on adjoining properties and results in an undesirable precedent with respect to the urban design outcomes sought by the amalgamation provisions.

 

10.      The proposal is not considered to result in satisfying the Objects of the Act as follows;

 

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

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

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

 

11.      This is primarily due to the insufficient allotment width which has compromised the design and active street frontage. Furthermore this results in an undesirable precedent for future redevelopment along The Avenue.

 

Figure 2 – Extract of photomontage of proposal on the subject site (32 The Avenue, Hurstville) and immediate surrounding area (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

12.      The proposal seeks variations to the following design criterion as referenced in State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, the assessment is referenced in the SEPP 65 table below:

 

·      3F Visual Privacy

·      3G Pedestrian Access

·      3H Vehicular Access

·      4C Floor to Ceiling Heights

·      4D Unit Size

·      4D Unit rooms, Location and Sizes

·      4E Private Open Space

·      4M Facades

·      4N Roof Design

·      4U Energy Efficiency

·      4V Water Management and Conservation

 

Figure 3: The proposal seeks inadequate spatial separation between the proposed first floor internal balconies and terraces which results in privacy impacts between units within the development  (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

Figure 4: The proposal provides communal open space with poor functional layout, amenity and accessibility due to insufficient door widths (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

13.      The applicant provided amended plans which sought internal changes and added an additional unit. An amended BASIX Certificate did not accompany the amended design. In this regard, the proposal has not satisfied the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy: BASIX 2004.

 

14.      The proposal does not comply with Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is deficient in relation to height of building, active street frontages and essential services.

 

15.      The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Building which prescribes a 15m height limit for this site under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. The extent of the variation relates to the lift overrun, roofed communal open space and balustrades proposing a maximum height of 18.49m for the lift overrun being a variation of 3.49m equating to 23.26%. A Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard statement accompanies the development application however this does not accurately reflect the extent of the variation sought. The amended proposal has resulted in additional breaches associated with the balustrades for the front portion of the communal open space area however this has not resulted in a greater maximum breach than that originally proposed. An amended Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard was not provided in support of the amended proposal. An assessment has been undertaken based on the submitted Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard. Notwithstanding, the extent of the breach above 15m for the lift overrun and communal space is considered to be excessive, unnecessary and insufficiently justified and therefore is not supported.

 

Figure 5 – Extract of amended cross section illustrating the proposed lift overrun and communal area over 15m Height of Building with a maximum height of 18.49m (+3.49m) (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

16.      The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 6.6 Active Street Frontages of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 where 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”. Due to the narrow allotment width and floor plate proposed, the design results in a poor quality active street frontage.

 

Figure 6 – Extract of ground floor and street interface to The Avenue, Hurstville (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

17.      The proposal has not satisfied Clause 6.7 Essential Services of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as inadequate vehicular access has been provided whereby a single access driveway into a T intersection to service the proposal is not considered satisfactory in relation to pedestrian and vehicular safety.

 

18.      The proposal does not comply with the Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No 2 in relation to:

 

·    Allotment amalgamation;

·    Insufficient allotment width;

·    Floor plate area;

·    Amenity;

·    Design with no provision of loading bay; and

·    The poor vehicular access and egress with potential to queue and reviser into a T intersection, given the intensified use of the site from one (1) commercial use into shop top housing and a residential flat building which comprises of one commercial tenancy and seventeen (17) residential units

 

19.      Collectively, the deficiencies of the proposal result in an inadequate built form for the subject site and immediate context. Therefore it is not considered that proposal in its current form positively contributes to the desired planning outcome for the Hurstville City Centre. It is noted that this northern side of The Avenue forms a transition between the commercial centre and residentially zoned area. The site is located opposite Westfield which contains different planning controls.

 

Site and Locality

20.      The subject site is legally described as Lot 185 DP1595 and is known as 32 The Avenue, Hurstville. The site forms a rectangular shaped allotment.

 

21.      The site area and dimensions of the subject site are as follows:

 

Site Area

712sqm

South West (frontage to The Avenue)

15.24m

South East (side)

46.735m

North East (rear)

15.24m

North West (side)

46.71m

 

Zoning and Permissibility

22.      The subject site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012). Shop top housing and residential flat buildings are permissible uses within the zone.

 

Submissions

23.      The application was notified accordance with the provisions contained within the Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No. 2. In response, no submissions were received. The amended plans have been considered as part of this assessment report however these plans were not renotified as the proposal did not result in any greater material environmental impact.

 

Conclusion

24.      The proposal has been assessed and is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of the non-compliances sought to the provisions of various State Environmental Planning Policies, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No. 2 which results in adverse amenity impacts for future occupants, adjoining properties and results in an undesirable precedent within the locality and in particular within The Avenue, Hurstville due to the urban design outcome.

 

REPORT IN FULL

Proposal

25.      Council is in receipt of a development application seeking development consent for demolition works and construction of a shop top housing development containing a commercial tenancy fronting The Avenue and a three (3) storey residential flat building over and a four (4) residential flat building to the rear of the development on the land known as 32 The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

26.      The original proposal sought one (1) commercial tenancy and sixteen (16) apartments, rooftop communal space and two (2) levels of basement parking.

 

27.      Council sent a request for additional information letter on 20 July 2020 which raised concerns regarding inadequacies relating to; insufficient allotment width and floor plate size, inadequacies of the design, insufficient information regarding traffic, engineering and waste.

 

28.      Council received amended plans and accompanying documentation which forms the basis of this assessment.

 

29.      The proposal comprises of one (1) ground floor commercial tenancy with an area of 116sqm. Seventeen (17) apartments consisting of:

·      Studios = three (3);

·      One (1) bedroom = six (6);

·      Two (2) bedroom = six (6); and

·      Three (3) bedroom = two (2)

 

30.      Rooftop communal open space and three (3) levels of basement parking.

 

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

 

Basement 3 Plan: Seven (7) residential spaces (2 in tandem),  two (2) bicycle storage spaces, one (1) motor cycle space, pump room, stair case and lift core.

 

Basement 2 Plan: Eleven (11) residential spaces, passing bay, four (4) bicycle storage spaces, one (1) motor cycle space, storage, traffic signal, stair case and lift core.

 

Basement 1 Plan: Four (4) residential spaces which include two (2) accessible spaces and shared zone, two (2) commercial car parking spaces, one (1) car wash bay (of which can be utilised as a visitor space), two (2) motor cycle spaces, four (4) bicycle storage spaces, commercial waste storage room, residential waste storage room, traffic signal, passing bay, stair case and lift core.

 

Ground Floor Plan: One (1) commercial tenancy being 116sqm in area accessed via a platform lift for access from The Avenue, bathroom. Front awning, basement ramp, traffic signal,  central lobby, lift core, stairs, services, booster, 2 x three (3) bedroom units with courtyard terraces, rear terrace areas and open space at the rear.

 

First Floor Plan: Two (2) x one (1) bedroom apartment and a studio apartment with winter gardens fronting The Avenue and the one (1) bedroom apartments having central terraces. Two (2) x two (2) bedroom apartments with both rear and internal facing balconies.

 

Second Floor Plan: Two (2) x two (2) bedroom apartments fronting The Avenue with winter gardens, service areas, egress stairs and one (1) lift core. Two (2) x one (1) bedroom apartments and one (1) studio with rear balconies.

 

Third Floor Plan: Two (2) x one (1) bedroom apartments with winter gardens fronting The Avenue and internal facing balconies. One (1) accessible studio is proposed with a winter garden fronting the Avenue. Two (2) x two (2) bedroom apartments with both rear and central balconies.

 

Rooftop Floor Plan: Lobby, plant room, two (2) communal open spaces of which are located at both the front and rear, WC, BBQ area, access stairs and one (1) lift core.

 

32.      Single access driveway crossing into the signalised Intersection of The Avenue and Cross Street located to the south western corner of the allotment.

 

33.      Retention of one (1) street tree Lohphostemon confertus within the road reserve fronting The Avenue, Hurstville. Protection of seven (7) trees within adjoining neighbouring properties.

 

34.      A deep soil area is proposed between the building and north east rear boundary.

 

35.      In summary the proposal comprises of the following:

 

Unit breakdown

 

Unit No.

Unit type

Area

Private Open Space

Notes

0.01

3 bedroom

95sqm

22sqm terrace plus 44sqm rear courtyard.

 

0.02

3 bedroom

100sqm

22sqm terrace plus 44sqm rear POS being the deep soil zone.

 

1.01

1 bedroom

53sqm

9sqm and 28sqm internal terrace

 

1.02

Studio

50sqm

5sqm

 

U1.03

1 bedroom

50sqm

10sqm and 15sqm internal terrace

 

U1.04

2 bedroom

78sqm

10sqm and 6sqm internal balcony

 

U1.05

2 bedroom

95sqm

10sqm and internal 5sqm balcony

 

U2.01

2 bedroom

83sqm

10sqm

 

U2.02

2 bedroom

79sqm

10sqm

 

U2.03

1 bedroom

49sqm

10sqm

This unit has been assessed a studio as this internal floor area comprises of 49sqm which meets the does not meet the internal floor area requirements for a 1 bedroom unit.

U2.04

Studio

49sqm

6sqm

 

U2.05

1 bedroom

53sqm

10sqm

 

U3.01

1 bedroom

53sqm

9sqm

 

U3.02

Studio

50sqm

5sqm

 

U3.03

1 bedroom

50sqm

10sqm

 

U3.04

2 bedroom

78sqm

10sqm

 

U3.05

2 bedroom

83sqm

10sqm

 

 

Residential unit composition

 

Unit

No. of Units

Studio

3

1 bedroom units

6

2 bedroom units

6

3 bedroom units

2

Total

17

 

Car parking and vehicular composition

 

Car parking

No. of spaces

Residential Car Parking

22

Visitor Car Parking

Note: Residential visitor car spaces have not been specifically been nominated within the plans however can be extracted from the total number of residential car spaces. It is noted that a car wash bay has been proposed which can be utilised as a visitor space.

Car wash Bay / Visitor Car Parking

1

Commercial Parking

2

Bicycle Parking

10

Motorbike

4

Loading Bay

0

         

36.      For the purposes of assessment, the applicant has sought to use the car parking rate prescribed within the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Guide to Traffic Generating Development requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. This is prescriptively lower than the Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan (HCC DCP No.2).

 

Minimum Car Parking Requirement (HCC DCP No.2)

Minimum Car Parking (RMS) as the site is located within 800m from Hurstville Train Station (Metropolitan Regional CBD Centre rate)

Car Parking Proposed

Complies

Residential

(It is noted that studios are not prescribed within Council’s car parking controls, however this have been assessed as a 1 bedroom unit in relation to car parking demand).

 

15 x 1-2 bedrooms (1 space per dwelling) = 15

 

 

 

 

2 x 3 bed (2 spaces per dwelling)  = 4

 

 

Visitor space (1 space per 4 dwellings)

17 apartments = 5 visitor spaces

 

 

 

Plus 1 wash bay (can be a visitors space)

 

Total = 23 spaces nominated – no visitors nominated.

 

(It is noted that studios are not prescribed within the RMS GTTD, however this have been assessed as a 1 bedroom unit in relation to car parking demand).

 

 

9 x 1 bed = 0.4 spaces

 = 3.6 (4)

 

6 x 2 bed = 0.7 spaces

= 4.2 (5)

 

2 x 3 bed = 1.2 spaces

2.4 (3)

 

 

Visitor space: 1 per 7 apartments =  (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total = 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 total spaces – not allocated to any particular unit or referenced as visitor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 located on B1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No, these have not been nominated on the plans.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial (1 space per 100sqm (B4 Mixed Use)

 

= 2 spaces

 

 

 

 N/A

 

 

 

2 spaces provided located on B1.

 

 

 

Yes

Minimum car parking spaces required = 25

 

 

 Spaces = 17

25 spaces in total. 23 nominated as residential but not allocated to any particular unit or nominated as visitor. One has been nominated as a visitor space.

Yes

 

Loading Bay = 1

 

No loading bay has been proposed.

No

 

37.      As per the above assessment table the proposal can provide compliant levels of residential car parking under the RMS GTTD and Council’s commercial car parking criterion however the proposal does not provide a loading bay in accordance with Council’s controls. It is noted that whilst residential visitor car spaces have not been nominated on the plans, these can be accommodated within the total number of residential spaces as this exceed the minimum car parking requirement from the RMS GTTD.

 

BACKGROUND

38.     

Date

Event

12 November 2019

Pre-lodgement meeting where two options were presented comprising of a 5 storey mixed use building:

1)    Option 1: Retail tenancy 98sqm, 20 units and 22 car spaces.

2)    Option 2: 315sqm ground floor tenancy.

 

Council advised the applicant that the application was unlikely to be supported based on insufficient frontage width.

4 May 2020

Development application (DA2020/165) lodged for demolition works and construction of a shop top housing containing a commercial tenancy and a residential flat building.

18 May 1 June 2020

Notification period.

9 June 2020

Site inspection of subject site and surrounding area.

20 July 2020

Request for additional information.

3 August 2020

Additional information provided which included revised architectural plans and accompanying documentation.

20 August 2020

Revised additional information provided included revised architectural plans and accompanying documentation

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

39.      The subject site is legally described as Lot 185 DP1595 and is known as 32 The Avenue, Hurstville. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment.

 

40.      The site area and dimensions of the subject site are as follows:

 

Site Area

712sqm

South West (frontage to The Avenue, Hurstville)

15.24m

South East (side)

46.73m

North East (rear)

15.24m

North West (side)

46.71m

 

            Figure 7 – Extract of survey of subject site 32 The Avenue, Hurstville (Source: Maps and Surveys, 2018)

 

Figure 8 - Photograph of subject site 32 The Avenue, Hurstville (centre) taken from The Avenue, Hurstville (Source: Author GRC, 2020).

 

41.      Council records indicate that the site is affected by overland flow.

 

42.      A single storey masonry building with a pitched tiled roof is located towards the front of the site. A driveway runs parallel with the north west side boundary providing access to a hardstand car parking area at the rear. The site is currently being used for a commercial purpose.

 

Surrounding Area

43.      The immediate surrounding area along The Avenue, Hurstville comprises a mixture of commercial uses which include shop top housing, commercial buildings, places of public worship and a child care centre. Westfield Shopping Centre is located to the south on the opposite side of The Avenue, Hurstville. The site adjoins a four (4) storey shop housing development to the north west, residential flat buildings to the north east (rear) and a single storey commercial building to the north east (side). The driveway access and site frontage is within the T intersection of The Avenue, Hurstville (which forms a one way road from north west to south east intersecting with Forest Road) and Cross Street, Hurstville. Both streets form local roads.

 

44.      One street (1) tree Lophostemon Confertus is located within the road reserve fronting The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

45.      For the purposes of this assessment report, the following analysis has been undertaken in relation to the following fourteen (14) properties on the northern side of The Avenue, Hurstville being the same side of the street as the subject site. These properties are also zoned B4 Mixed Use. The Avenue, Hurstville forms an interface zone between the Commercial Centre and residentially zoned areas to the north east. The rear adjoining property has street access to Hudson Street, Hurstville.

 

Figure 9 – Aerial photograph of subject site (outlined in blue) and adjoining properties on the same side of the Road on The Avenue, Hurstville between Cross Street and Forest Road, Hurstville (Source: Author GRC, 2020).

 

Property address

Approximate allotment width

Built form

38 The Avenue Hurstville

15.24m

Four storey mixed use development (97/DA-185)

32 The Avenue, Hurstville (subject site)

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

30 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

28 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Two storey commercial building

26 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Two storey child care centre

20 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Four storey mixed use development (09/DA-155)

20-22 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Place of Public Worship (Uniting Church)

18 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

14-16 The Avenue, Hurstville

30sqm

Four storey mixed use development

12 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

8-10 The Avenue, Hurstville

30m

Four storey mixed use development

4-6 The Avenue, Hurstville

27m

Four storey mixed use development

2 The Avenue Hurstville

107m

Single storey Place of Public Worship (St George Hurstville Anglican Church)

 

Zoning and Permissibility

46.      The subject site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP2012). Shop top housing and residential flat buildings are both permissible uses within the zone.

 

Figure 10 – Zoning map – the site being 32 The Avenue, Hurstville is outlined in blue (Source: Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012).

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A) Regulation 2000

47.      The proposed development satisfies the relevant matters for consideration under the Regulations.

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

48.      The consent authority is required to consider the objects in Section 1.3 of the EP&A Act when making decisions under the Act. Council has considered the object of the EP&A Act in the Table below and is satisfied that the proposal complies with all objects.

 

Objects of the EP&A Act

Proposal

Complies

(a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources.

The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this objective.

Yes

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

The applicant provided amended plans to Council which sought internal changes and added an additional unit. An amended BASIX Certificate did not accompany the amended design.

Therefore the proposal does not satisfy the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 and the Regulations.

No

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

The proposal is not considered to provide an orderly and economic development of the land. The proposal has provided an inadequate frontage and floor plate which results in a poor built form outcome and detracts from the amenity for future occupants and adjoining properties.

No

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

The proposal seeks development consent for seventeen (17) units. The proposal does not seek to provide an affordable housing component as part of this development application.

No affordable housing is being lost as part of this application.

N/A

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

The proposal seeks the removal of trees on the site at the rear. This is supported by Council’s Consultant Arborist subject to conditions of consent.

Yes

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

The proposal is not listed as a heritage item, adjoin or within the immediate vicinity to a heritage item or conservation area within a Local or Stage Heritage register.

Yes

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

The proposal does not result in good design and amenity due to the insufficient allotment width. This has resulted in poor occupant amenity and adversely impacts the opportunities to create a meaningful active streetscape in accordance with Clause 6.6 Active Street Frontages of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

No 

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

The proposal is considered to satisfy the intent of this control to ensure appropriate construction and maintenance of which is supported by Council’s Senior Building Surveyor.

Yes

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

The proposal was referred to the relevant applicable State Government authorities for consideration as part of this application.

Yes

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

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No. 2. In response, no submissions were received. The amended proposal was not re-notified as did not generate any greater environmental impact.

Yes

 

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

49.      The Act adopts the definition of ESD found in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 6(2) of that Act states that ESD requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision making processes and that ESD can be achieved through the implementation of:

 

(a)   the precautionary principle;

(b)   inter-generational equity;

(c)   conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; and

(d)   improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

 

50.      Council has assessed the proposed development in relation to the ESD principles and has made the following conclusions;

 

(a)   Precautionary Principle – the site has been appropriately planned for the development and will not result in any serious or irreversible environmental damage.

(b)   Inter-Generational Equity – the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the environment for future generations.

(c)   Biodiversity Principle – the site is within a highly urbanised area and contains no significant flora or fauna.

(d)   Valuation Principle – the proposal includes a number of energy, water, and waste reducing measures to reduce the ongoing cost, resource usage, and energy requirements of the development.

 

51.      The proposal not considered to be inconsistent with this criterion.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

52.      Compliance with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies is detailed and discussed below.

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

53.      The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 — Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is considered to be consistent with Council's requirements for the disposal of stormwater within the catchment.

 

54.      All stormwater from the proposed development will be managed and treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and will therefore satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment. The proposal is supported by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

55.      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.

 

56.      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.

 

57.      Council historical records indicate that the site has been used for commercial purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site.

 

58.      SEPP 55 is considered to be satisfied. If the application was to be supported than a condition would be imposed that construction cease if contamination is encountered.

 

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

59.      The applicant provided and amended plans to Council which sought internal changes and added an additional unit. An amended BASIX Certificate did not accompany the amended design. The proposal has not satisfied the requirements of the SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

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

 

61.      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). 

 

62.      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.

 

63.      The proposal seeks the retention of one (1) street tree within the road reserve fronting The Avenue, Hurstville and protection of seven (7) trees within adjoining properties. This aspect of the proposal is supported by Council’s Consulting Arborist.

 

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

64.      Clause 28(2) of SEPP 65 requires that the consent authority take into consideration the following as part of the determination of DAs to which SEPP 65 applies:

 

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

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

c)    the Unit Design Guide.

 

65.      The extent to which the proposed development complies with the controls and principles in the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Unit Development (SEPP 65) is detailed and discussed in the tables below.

 

Application of SEPP 65

 

Compliance with SEPP 65

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

Clause 3 - Definitions

SEPP 65 applies to residential unit development

 

 

The permitted uses within the zone B4 Mixed Use are detailed as follows;

 

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Dual occupancies; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Hostels; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Medical centres; Multi dwelling housing; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

The proposal seeks development consent for a residential flat building, SEPP 65 applies.

 

Shop top housing and residential flat buildings are permissible uses within the zone. The proposal satisfies the definition of shop top housing.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

Clause 4 - Application of Policy

Development involves the erection of shop top housing with an RFB component.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for a “residential apartment development” which meets the prescribed criteria within the SEPP.

Yes

Clause 50 (1a) – Development Applications

Design verification statement provided by qualified designer

Design Verification Statement provided by Registered and practicing Architect: Nigel Dickson

Registration Number:  5364

Yes

 

66.      The DA was reviewed by Council’s Strategic Planner/Urban Designer having regard to each of the eight (8) Design Quality Principles being;(Context and Neighbouring Character, Built form and Scale, density, sustainability, landscape, amenity, safety) of whom in summary raised the following key issues with the proposal;

 

·      Insufficient allotment width and floor plate size,

·      Inadequate active street frontage and likely undesirable precedent regarding street frontages to The Avenue, Hurstville.

·      Minimal commercial floor space being proposed as a whole in relation to the proposal and B4 Mixed Use Zone Objectives,

·      Extent of encroachments above the 15m height of building,

 

67.      Comment: The proposal has been considered in accordance with the eight (8) Design Quality Principles. As a result of the above issues raised, the proposal is not considered to adequately satisfy the principles in its current form. This is primarily due to the inadequate allotment width of 15.24m which compromises the amenity for future occupants and amalgamation opportunities which would likely achieve a better built form.

 

Strategic Planner/Urban Designer Recommendation

68.      In summary, the application has not satisfied the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65. The amended proposal was not re-referred as the application is not supported and fundamental issues in relation to the allotment width and floor plate have not been resolved.

 

The design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles

69.      Clause 28 of SEPP65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. A compliance table assessment has been provided below to detail how the proposed development, performs against the relevant provisions of the ADG.

 

70.      As demonstrated within the following ADG compliance table, the proposal is unsatisfactory in part when considered against the relevant objectives, design criteria and design guidance for residential flat buildings.

 

Clause 30 – Consideration of Unit Design Guide

71.      The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable controls as per below.

 

Clause

Standard

Proposal

Complies

2G – Street setbacks

Align street setbacks with building use. For example in mixed use buildings a zero street setback is appropriate

The proposal seeks a nil front setback with the streetscape alignment however the proposal results in a poor active street frontage.

Yes

3D-Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% (0.25x712sqm = 178sqm of the site.

 

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

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

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

• provide larger balconies or increased private open space for units

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

 

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct

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

219sqm has been provided including landscaped planter boxes (30.75%), of this 146sqm is usable.

 

 

Communal open space has been provided on the roof top.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rooftop communal open space due to its orientation and the built form surrounding the development site the roof top communal open space achieves greater than 50% solar access for 2hrs a day.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3E-Deep Soil zones

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

 

-  7% minimum area

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-  3m minimum dimension

 

 

 

 

The proposed development provides 80sqm (11.23% excluding the stairs) of deep soil zone within the rear of the site. It is noted that this excludes the two external stair cases of Unit 1.01 and 1.02 which link the rear terraces to the private open space at rear.

 

3m min dimension at rear of the site.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3F-Visual Privacy

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

 

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

 

Habitable rooms and balconies:

 

Up to four storeys (approximately 12m):

• 6m between habitable rooms/balconies (setback to the boundary)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five to eight storeys (approximately 25m):

 

 

 

• 9m between habitable and non-habitable rooms (setback to the boundary)

 

 

 

Non habitable rooms:

 

 

 

Up to four storeys (approximately 12m):

• 3m between non-habitable rooms (setback to the boundary).

 

 

Five to eight storeys (approximately 25m):

• 4.5m between non-habitable rooms (setback to the boundary).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground, Level 1, 2 and 3.

 

 

 

 

S-W (front): Nil

N-W (side): Nil – 5.45m

S-E (side): Nil - 4.43m from common circulation operable windows

N-E (rear): 6m elevated terrace (ground floor), 9m solid wall

9m – 11.2m levels 1 and 3

9m – 10m level 2

 

8.14m Internally between first floor of Unit 1.03 internal terrace and Unit 1.04 internal balcony.

 

Level 3 forms a fifth storey due to the elevated basement below and it is greater than 12m in height.

 

S-W (front): Nil

N-W (side): Nil – 5.45m to the service area

S-E (side): Nil – 4.43m to the service area

N-E (rear): 9m

 

Non-habitable rooms are located within the centre of the units.

 

 

 

S-W (front): Nil

N-W (side): Nil

S-E (side): Nil

N-E (rear): None in this elevation

 

 

 

S-W (front): Nil

N-W (side): Nil

S-E (side): Nil

N-E (rear): None in this elevation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

No

No

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

No

 

No

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

No

No

N/A

 

 

 

 

No

No

No

N/A

3G-Pedestrian access and entries

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple entries (including communal building entries and individual ground floor entries) should be provided to activate the street edge.

The proposal seeks one (1) centrally located entry point within the façade fronting The Avenue, Hurstville serving the residential component of the development. Adjoining the entry is an egress stair. Due to the narrowness of the frontage the entrance is constrained to accommodate the driveway and commercial tenancy.

The commercial tenancy as direct access from The Avenue by a platform lift. It is not that the doors swing in part across the public domain, if the application was to be supported a condition removing this encroachment would be imposed.

 

Front central entry for the units and a separate entry to commercial tenancy.

The entry to the commercial tenancy is recessed some 4.5m, with a lobby and platform lift between the street interface and the tenancy entrance.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3H-Vehicle Access

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

Vehicular access is via a single width driveway located parallel with the south west boundary.

 

The driveway entry is not suitably designed. The applicant has not provided sufficient information in relation to vehicular and pedestrian safety.

No

3J- Bicycle and car parking

For development in the following locations:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

The subject site is located 400.4m north east of the Hurstville Railway Station.

 

 

 

The site is located within 800m of the Hurstville Station of which Hurstville is identified as ‘Metropolitan Regional Centre (CBD) within ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’.

As a result the proposal assessed against and complies with the minimum car parking rates under the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development.

 

The above car parking rates override Council’s minimum HCC DCP No.2 residential car parking requirements.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4A- Solar Access

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

 

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

 

Daylight access is maximised where sunlight is limited.

11 of the 17 achieve this criterion equating to 64.7%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 of the 17 receive no direct solar access equating to 17.64%.

 

 

 

Skylights have been incorporated above Units 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03. Window placement located to maximise natural light.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4B-Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

The building should include dual aspect units, cross through units and corner units and limit unit depths

14 of the 17 units are cross ventilated equating to 82.35%.

 

 

 

All less than 18m.

 

 

 

 

 

Dual aspect units incorporated within the design.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4C-Ceiling Heights

Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

 

Habitable rooms = 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m.

 

Residential floor to floor height of 3.1m

 

 

 

 

 

2.7m

 

 

 

3,050mm floor to floor provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

No, however this is acceptable to provide services between levels.

4D-Unit size and layout

Units are required to have the following

minimum internal areas:

 

Studio = 35sqm

 

 

 

 

1 bedroom = 50sqm

2 bedroom = 70sqm

3 bedroom = 90sqm

 

 

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5sqm each

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

 

 

 

 

Range: 49-50sqm

Range: 49-53sqm

Range: 78-83sqm

Range: 95-100sqm

 

All units with additional bathrooms provide an additional 5sqm internal floor area.

 

Each habitable room contains a window which is not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight is not borrowed from other rooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

4D- Unit rooms, location and sizes

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height

 

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Habitable room depths are provided in accordance with this clause.

 

 

Open plan layouts contain a maximum depth of 8m from a window complying with this clause.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

4D- Unit rooms, location and sizes

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm and other bedrooms 9sqm (excluding wardrobe space)

 

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

 

- 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom

 

 

- 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom units

 

The width of cross-over or cross-through units

are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow unit layouts

The master bedrooms are greater than 10sqm excluding wardrobes.

 

Other bedrooms are greater than 9sqm excluding wardrobes.

 

Each bedroom has a minimum dimension of 3m excluding the wardrobe.

 

 

 



 

 

Living rooms wider than 3.6m for Studio and 1 bedroom units.

 

Living rooms wider than 4m for 2 + bedroom units.

 

More than 4m.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

4E-Private Open space and balconies 

All units are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Studio = 4sqm/1m depth

 

 

1 bedroom = 8sqm/2m depth

 

2 bedroom = 10sqm/2m depth

 

3 bedroom = 12sqm/2m depth

 

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m

 

For units at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15sqm and a minimum depth of 3m

 

 

 

 

5sqm with minimum depth of 1m.

 

Range: 5-10sqm with minimum depth of 2m.

 

Range: 10sqm with minimum depth of 2m.

 

22sqm with minimum depth of 2.4m.

 

Minimum balcony areas greater than 1m included.

 

 

Rear private open space greater than 15sqm for rear ground floor Units 0.01 and 0.02 provide in the area nominated as deep soil.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

4F- Circulation spaces

The maximum number of units off a circulation core on a single level is 8, however where this is unable to be achieved due to design criterion for increased internal amenity, no more than 12 units is permitted off a circulation core on a single level.

One (1) lift provided to service each level:

Level G: 2 units

Level 1: 5 units

Level 2: 5 units

Level 3: 5  units

 

Yes

4G- Storage

1. In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

 

Studio = 4m³

 

 

1 bedroom = 6m³

 

 

2 bedroom = 8m³

 

 

3 bedroom = 10m³

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than 6m³ provided for studio unit.

 

More than 6m³ provided for 1 bedroom units.

 

More than 8m³ provided for 2 bedroom units.

 

More than 10m³ for 3 bedroom units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

4K- Unit mix

A variety of unit types is provided

The proposal seeks seventeen (17) units composition comprising of:

 

The proposal comprises of the following:

3 x 2 studio = 17.64%

6 x 1 bedroom = 35.29%

6 x 2 bedroom = 35.29%

2 x 3 bedroom = 11.76%

Yes

4M-Facades

Facades should be well resolved with an appropriate scale and proportion to the streetscape and human scale.

The façade is not considered to positively contribute to the streetscape along The Avenue. The reduced allotment width limits opportunities to create wider the active frontages with shopfronts.

No

4N-Roof design

Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Incorporates sustainability features.

Roof treatments are excessive and are not considered to be well integrated into the building. No satisfactory justification provided regarding the extent of the non-compliance for the lift overrun, communal open space and balustrades. 

No

4O-Landscape design

Landscape design is viable and sustainable, contributes to the streetscape and amenity

The proposal seeks to provide landscaped embellishment on the roof and within the rear setback.

Yes

4P- Planting on structures

Planting on structures – appropriate soil profiles are provided, plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance, contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces

The proposal seeks to provide planting on the roof top and landscaping within the rear setback.

Yes

4Q-Universal design

Universal design – design of units allow for flexible housing, adaptable designs, accommodate a range of lifestyle needs

The proposal provides for a variety of floor layouts and configurations.

Yes

4T- Awnings

Awnings and signage – awnings are well located and compliment and integrate with the building design, signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.

The proposal incorporates an awning and canopy elements within the design. The plans appear to show some extension of the building facade into the public domain, this would be condition not happen if the application was to be approved.

Yes

4U- Energy Efficiency

Development incorporates passive environmental design, passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer, natural ventilation minimises need for mechanical ventilation.

The proposal has not provided an amended BASIX Certificate in support of the amended design.

No

4V

Water management and conservation

Potable water use is minimised

Urban stormwater is treated on site before being discharged to receiving waters

Flood management systems are integrated into site design.

The proposal has not provided an amended BASIX Certificate.

No

4W

Waste management

Waste storage facilities are designed to minimise impacts on the streetscape, building entry and amenity of residents

Domestic waste is minimised by providing safe and convenient source separation and recycling.

The proposal incorporates waste storage facilities contained within basement level 2 for both commercial and residential waste.

Yes

4X

Building maintenance

Building design detail provides protection from weathering

Systems and access enable ease of maintenance

Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs

The proposal seeks to utilise a mixture of cladding and concrete which are materials that are consistent within the locality satisfying the objective of this clause.

Yes

 

72.      As stated within the above table, the proposal is deficient in certain aspects with the ADG requirements and therefore is considered to be unacceptable given that the extent of the non-compliances relate to insufficient allotment width and site area which detract from the amenity of the site. 

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

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

 

“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.”

 

74.      Comment: The proposal has been considered having regard to the above, whereby the height of building is unchanged at 15m for this site.

 

Draft Environment SEPP

75.      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.

 

76.      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.

 

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

 

Draft Remediation SEPP

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

 

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

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

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

·        clearly list the remediation works that require development consent

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

 

79.      Given the above, a contamination report was submitted which was reviewed and by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health, the proposal was considered acceptable subject to conditions. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP.

 

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1.2 Aims of the Plan

Aims of the Plan to be satisfied;

 

 

 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the aims of the Plan. The proposal does not satisfy objective (2)(a) which states;

 

“(a) to encourage and co-ordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land that is compatible with local amenity”.

 

The shortfall of the allotment width and floor place limits opportunities for meaningful commercial uses within the Hurstville City Centre. The insufficient allotment width creates an undesirable planning outcome and precent whereby the active street frontage along The Avenue would be ‘broken up’ by repetitious additional driveways, services and entries rather than an active street frontage which is characterised by shopfronts.

No

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

B4 Mixed Use

The proposal being “shop top housing” and “residential flat building” are permissible uses within the zone.

Yes

 

Objectives of the Zone

 

 

 

• To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

 

 

 

• To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

• To allow for residential development in the Hurstville City Centre while maintaining active retail, business or other non-residential uses at street level.

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the zone objectives.

 

The proposal results in a built form which detracts from the active street frontage desired within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

The proposal seeks to provide one (1) commercial tenancy with an area of 116sqm of the total floor space of the development being 1,405sqm equating to (8.25%).

 

 

 

 

Due to the insufficient allotment width the proposal results in limited opportunities for the creation of shopfronts to The Avenue.

No

4.3 – Height of Buildings

15m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

Maximum 18.49m for lift overrun (RL71.35).

No

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

 

2.5:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Site area 712sqm per survey plan.

 

Maximum permitted FSR = 1,780sqm

Ground floor = 385.51sqm

Level 1 = 418.54sqm

Level 2 = 391.10sqm

Level 3 = 400.02sqm

Rooftop = 35.129sqm

 

1,630.29sqm

Proposed FSR = 2.28:1

 

Note: this calculation includes winter gardens fronting The Avenue, Hurstville.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

FSR and site area have been calculated in accordance with this Clause.

Yes

4.6 Exception to Development Standard

Consideration of Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards to apply.

A Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard accompanied the original proposal for the lift overrun, communal roof top and balustrades to the rear which breached the 15m height of building. The amended proposal has sought a further breach generated by balustrades at the front of the communal open space. No revised Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard has been provided. Notwithstanding for the purposes of assessment the originally submitted Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard has been assessed.

No - variation to height of building has been considered but this is not supported. Refer to the assessment below.

5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this Heritage Conservation Clause must be satisfied.

 

The site is not identified as a State Heritage Item, Local Heritage Item or part of a heritage conservation area. The site does not directly adjoin an item which meets this criterion.

Yes

6.6 Active Street Frontages

Active Street Frontages Objectives must be satisfied.

The proposal has not provided an adequate active street frontage.

No - refer to discussion below

6.7 Essential Services

Essential services relating to water, electricity, sewerage, storm water or on site conservation and suitable road and vehicular access to be provided

The proposal has not provided adequate suitable vehicular access which results in a conflict between vehicular access and egress and pedestrian safety. No information has been provided in relation to phasing of traffic lights to ensure that the driveway may work in an appropriate matter internally within the site and how vehicles enter and exit the development through the centre of a signalised intersection.

No

6.9 Airspace Operations

The consent authority must not grant consent that is a controlled activity within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 of the Commonwealth unless the applicant has obtained approval for the controlled activity under the regulations made for the purposes of that Division.

The proposal comprises a four (4) storey mixed use development which seeks a maximum height of RL71.35. This is below the affected airspace operations.

Yes

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

81.      The Hurstville LEP 2012 prescribes a maximum building height of 15m for this site.

 

82.      The proposal does not comply with the 15m height control of the Hurstville LEP 2012. The applicant has submitted the following table indicating the extent of non-compliance.

 

Figure 10:  Applicant’s table of height of building non-compliances above 15m extracted from Statement of Environmental Effects (Source: D.R Designs (NSW) P/L, 2020)

 

 

Figure 11: Extract of original  cross section demonstrating extent of non-compliance above 15m whereby the upper element of the communal open space and lift overrun (RL71.35) exceed the height of building (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020).

        

Figure 12: Extract of amended cross section demonstrating extent of non-compliance above 15m whereby the upper element of the communal open space, balustrades and lift overrun (RL 71.35) exceed the height of building (Source: D R Designs (NSW) Pty Ltd, 2020)

 

83.      Council’s assessment indicates the extent of the non-compliance is an additional 700mm, at the highest point being the top of the lift over-run at RL71.35 being 18.49m (+3.49m or 23.26%) above the 15m height limit, with which the applicants Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard statement does not align.

 

84.      In support of the non-compliance, the applicant has provided a request for a variation to Clause 4.3 in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) for the variation sought, of which points have been extracted justify the reasons in supporting the variation. This Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed as follows.

 

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

85.      The Height of Buildings control under Clause 4.3 of the HLEP 2012 is a development standard.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

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

 

“(1)    The objectives of this clause are 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,

(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”

 

87.      The applicant has provided the following justification regarding the development’s consistency with the above objectives which include;

 

88.      “The proposed building presents 4-storeys to The Avenue and to the street generally complies with the 15m building height control. The building complements the as-built street wall to the west (38 The Avenue) and provides for continuation of this street wall in accordance with the land use objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone. The site is in a commercial centre where transformation of the built form is sought for mixed use development.

 

89.      The buildings height is compatible with the 15m building height control (noting the street wall to The Avenue is compliant) and consistent with the height of recent mixed use buildings in this zone. The proposal satisfies objective (a).

 

90.      In respect to objective (b), there are no significant views and the visual impact of the building is as expected for a new 4-storey mixed use building in this location. The building’s solar impacts are also as expected and there are no nearby parks or public spaces that would be impacted by the non-compliant parts of the building. The proposal satisfies objective (b).

 

91.      The non-compliant parts of the building have minimal adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain, noting the objectives of the B4 zone is to transform The Avenue into 4-storey street wall style built form.

 

92.      The non-compliances with the building height control do not conflict with the objectives of the building height control and the building (including its non-compliant parts) satisfy the objectives of the building height control.

 

93.      Applicant’s Comments: The proposed development does not achieve the objectives of the standard notwithstanding non-compliance with the height of buildings control because:

 

94.      “The parts of the over the 15m building height control are to provide an architecturally well resolved building (the parapets) and a desirable amenity to the residents of this building (roof top communal open space). The building could be made to comply with the 15m building height control and achieve the same density of development; however, that building would be a mean and lower quality building. The non-compliances proposed to building height control are have minor and acceptable environmental impacts and are the preferable planning outcome on design grounds to a more utilitarian and compliant building form”.

 

95.      Officer Comment: The applicant’s justification is not supported. As shown in the cross section (Figure 12), the extent of the height variation relates to balustrades, communal roof top area and lift overrun. The proposed variation does comprise of floor space which has been included within this assessment.

 

96.      The height of the building results in additional impacts on overshadowing and visual bulk, when compared to that of a numerically compliant building. The applicant has not sought design measures to demonstrate why the extent of this variation of this height is required. No lift manufactures specifications have been provided in support of the height of the lift overrun. Further that no shadow diagrams have been provided in comparing the impacts of that of a compliant height and a non-compliant height.

 

97.      Given the above, the proposed extent of the variation does not satisfy the objectives of Clause 4.3.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the zone?

98.      The objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone are as follows:

 

•      To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

 

•      To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

•      To allow for residential development in the Hurstville City Centre while maintaining active retail, business or other non-residential uses at street level.

 

99.      Officer Comment: The applicant’s justification has not appropriately demonstrated how the extent of the non-compliance satisfies the underlying zone objectives and the height objectives of the Development Standard. The proposed extent of non-compliance is not considered to positively contribute to the transition zone.

 

100.    The objectives for Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings development standard state the following:

 

“(1) The objectives of this clause are 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,

(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”.

 

101.    The applicant has provided a Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard as attached to this report.

 

102.    Officer Comment: The variation in height is to a maximum of 18.49m equating to 23.26% breach of the control. The applicant’s justification is considered to be inadequate and the extent of the variation is excessive when compared with other lift overrun heights and communal open spaces approved within the locality. The extent of the variation from an amenity perspective is not minor and is of a moderate impact. Further consideration has been applied to the variation having regard to the principles established under the ‘Five Part Test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court. Councils may choose to not only use the principles of Clause 4.6 but also this five part test.

 

103.    Court cases dealing with applications to vary development standards resulted in the Land and Environment Court setting out a five part test for consent authorities to consider when assessing an application to vary a standard to determine whether the objection to the development standards is well founded, consideration to these principles and extent of variation have been considered as per below.

 

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard;

Applicant’s comment: “The proposal meets the relevant objectives of the height standard, as detailed above.”

 

Officer comment: The applicant’s justification has not provided an accurate description of the extent of the non-compliance in terms of numerical variation and extent of elements above the 15m HOB. Notwithstanding the applicant has not reasonably demonstrated that the objectives have been satisfied.

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

Applicant’s comment: “We would argue that this part of the test contradicts the first point in the test. We have outlined that the relevant objectives are still met despite the non-compliance with the standard, indeed it is reasonable to not to comply with the height control to achieve a rationale development on this site. It is not necessary to comply with the height control to meet the relevant planning objectives for the site”.

 

Officer comment: Given the above, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory as it results in a built form which is inconsistent with the maximum height within the zone.

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

Applicant’s comment:If strict numerical compliance was required with the height, then there would be repercussions for the feasibility of the site to ensure residential amenity”.

 

Officer comment: It is considered that strict numerical compliance would result in improved benefit and reduction of material impacts relating to overshadowing and bulk and scale.

Site feasibility is not a matter for consideration when assessing an application.

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;

Applicant’s comment: “A review of the surrounding area shows buildings with significant building heights. The Westfield Shopping Centre across the road from the site has a parapet height of 28m in a zone with a 19m building height control. The Shopping Centre presents a blank façade to The Avenue and the only activity coming from this façade is a busy entry to a car park at ground level. The bulk, scale and poor articulation of the Westfield Shopping Centre façade radiates significant negative externalities on street life and pedestrian environment in this locality. The proposal offers the complete opposite to Westfield Shopping Centre façade, with a street wall height that matches adjoining building forms, has an abundance of windows and an active ground level frontage. The proposed building will enliven and improve its urban environment.

Since 2017 Council has kept and published a register of how it administers clause 4.6. Since 2017, in B3 and B4 zones in the Hurstville commercial centre Council has varied the building height control 8 times with the variations ranging from 2% to 60% over the building height control, and 3 of those variations cite the variation is for “lift overrun and stairs to communal open space”.2

The proposal provides for a building height variation of 3% to 19% exclusively for building parapets, a lift overrun and stairs to communal open space. The variation sought introduces no significant impacts to its context and the building height variation is consistent with how Council administers this control in B3 and B4 zones.

The non-compliance is minor numerically and contextually and the proposal offers a significant improvement to the streetscape and overall walkability of the area”.

 

Officer comment: Council has previously supported variations to the height of building for lift overruns and communal open space structures. However the extent of the variation is considered to be excessive for this site.

It is noted that the site opposite occupied by Westfield has different planning controls than the subject site and therefore is not a relevant comparison.

5. The compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.

Applicant’s comment: “The zoning of the parcels B4 mixed use. The proposal successfully achieves the objectives of this zone in a difficult context with the neighbouring property to the north having poor street activation and The Avenue at this location suffering the negative externalities.

The proposal successfully deals with the sites challenges with the only non-compliance being minor. The site could have a roof terrace with the removal of one of the levels, but that would interrupt the street scape rhythm and would not match the adjoining property. By not compiling to the standard it allows for continuity between the building with retaining the roof terrace”

 

Officer comment: The applicant’s justification is not considered to be reasonable and has not adequately demonstrated the need for the extent of this variation therefore not satisfy the objectives of the development standard.

 

Is the variation to the development standard consistent with Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville LEP 2012?

104.    Clause 4.6(1):

 

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.

 

105.    Comment: Flexibility in applying the standard in this instance is not considered appropriate and the requisite levels of satisfaction permitted by the controls have not been achieved in this case regarding sufficient environmental planning grounds for  this particular site, given the extent of variation relates to the lift overrun and communal open space and balustrades. Whilst the variation (at the highest point of the building being the lift over-run) is proposed to ensure appropriate access is available to the communal rooftop area but has not demonstrated this adequately and why the extent of the breach cannot be reduced.

 

106.    Clause 4.6(2):

“Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause”

 

107.    Comment: Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings is not excluded from the operation of Clause 4.6.

 

108.    Clause 4.6(3):

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

 

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

(b)   that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard”

 

109.    Comment: The applicant has provided a written variation request prepared by Dickson Rothschild. A copy of this Clause 4.6 request for variation is provided for the Panel’s consideration.

 

110.    Clause 4.6(4):

“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”

 

111.    Comment: The written request adequately addresses the matters in subclause (3). Strict compliance with the standard is not unreasonable and unnecessary because the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone and height of building standard as described above. It is considered that the applicant has not provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that the non-compliance provides for an improved amenity outcome while resulting in no adverse environmental impacts. It is noted that it common that residential flat buildings within the surrounding locality contain communal open space on the roof top with lift access however encroachments above the height of building are usually minor and the quantity at a minimum.

 

(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, and

 

112.    Comment: For the reasons detailed above, the development is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings and B4 Mixed Use zone.

 

(b)   the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

113.    Comment: As the application seeks a variation to a Development Standard of over 10%. The proposal seeks a variation of 23.26% (+3.49m) to the top of the lift overrun. The proposed residential flat building must be determined by the Local Planning Panel.

 

Conclusion – Assessment of Clause 4.6 Request for Variation

114.    The variation is considered significant being 3.49m or 23.26% above the 15m height of building control.

 

115.    In a recent Court decision Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ further clarified the correct approach in the consideration of clause 4.6 requests. This advice further confirms that Clause 4.6 does not require that a development that contravenes a development standard must have a neutral or better environmental planning outcome than one that does not. This is considered to be the case in this instance given the additional height sought and minimal impact generated.

 

116.    As held in Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 7 at [39], Preston CJ confirmed (at[25]) that the test in 4.6 (4)(a)(i) does not require the consent authority to directly form the opinion of satisfaction regarding the matters specified. Rather, it needs to do so only indirectly in forming its opinion of satisfaction that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated.

 

117.    By contrast, the test in cl4.6(4)(a)(ii) requires that the consent authority must be directly satisfied about the matter in that clause (at[26]); namely that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

118.    The Clause 4.6 request has been considered and it concluded that overall, the extent of the non-compliance in this instance is not acceptable and the applicant’s request is not well founded.

 

119.    In this regard, the Clause 4.6 Exception to development standard cannot be supported.

 

Active Street Frontage

120.    The underlying objective of Clause 6.6 Active Street Frontages 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”. Further that “(3) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use to use of a building, on lad to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use”, the proposal has been considered in accordance with this clause and is unsatisfactory.

 

Figure 13 - Inset of photo montage of proposed interface to The Avenue, Hurstville (Source: D R Designs Pty Ltd, 2020).

 

121.    For the purposes of this assessment report, the following analysis has been undertaken in relation to the following properties fourteen (14) on the same side northern side of The Avenue, Hurstville. These properties are also zoned B4 Mixed Use. The Avenue, Hurstville forms an interface zone between the Commercial Centre and residential areas to the north east. The rear adjoining property has street access to Hudson Street, Hurstville.

 

Figure 14 – Aerial photograph of subject site (outlined in blue) and adjoining properties on the same side of the Road on The Avenue, Hurstville between Cross Street and Forest Road, Hurstville (Source: Author GRC, 2020).

 

Property address

Approximate allotment width

Built form

38 The Avenue Hurstville

15.24m

Four storey mixed use development (97/DA-185)

32 The Avenue, Hurstville (subject site)

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

30 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

28 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Two storey commercial building

26 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Two storey child care centre

20 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Four storey mixed use development (09/DA-155)

20-22 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Place of Public Worship (Uniting Church)

18 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

14-16 The Avenue, Hurstville

30sqm

Four storey mixed use development

12 The Avenue, Hurstville

15.24m

Single storey commercial building

8-10 The Avenue, Hurstville

30m

Four storey mixed use development

4-6 The Avenue, Hurstville

27m

Four storey mixed use development

2 The Avenue Hurstville

107m

Single storey Place of Public Worship (St George Hurstville Anglican Church)

 

122.    The proposal is not considered to adequately satisfy this clause as the proposal results in a poor interface to The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

123.    The proposal results in a broken street frontage which comprises of a single access driveway, access stairs, residential lobby and commercial shop front. This is due to the insufficient allotment width of 15.24m whereby a 30m allotment width would result in greater opportunities for an active street frontage and result less duplication of services such as driveways and entries to service each building.

 

124.    The proposal has indicated an area of approximately 900mm by 900mm for services within the front facade which is considered to be inadequate. As such, the requirement for a booster assembly and potentially a substation will further detract from the streetscape, functionality and direct interface to the street.

 

125.    The proposal is considered to result in an undesirable precedent along The Avenue, Hurstville given that numerous properties in this street are yet to be developed and share a similar allotment width and size to that of the subject site.

 

126.    For the above reasons, this element of the proposal is not supported as Council Officers are not satisfied that objectives have been met.

 

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

127.    The Regulations prescribe no other matters for consideration for the proposed development.

 

Development Control Plans

Hurstville City Council Development Control Plan No. 2 (HCC DCP No. 2)

128.    The proposed development is subject to the provisions contained within the HCC DCP No. 2. The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable controls within the following subsections as per below.

 

Section 4 Hurstville City Centre Precincts

129.  City Centre North

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1. Promoting a Civic Presence

Built form is to adopt a strong civic presence created by well-defined streets and civic spaces.  The Precinct is to support a significant civic meeting space to facilitate community interaction and gatherings with emphasis placed on creating community meeting points of interest.  The basement levels will support service access and public car parking

The proposed is not seeking to construct a building for a civic purpose.

N/A

2. Activation of the Street

Active uses are to be promoted at the ground and lower levels of development to promote vibrancy and passive and active surveillance of the public domain. 

As previously discussed, the reduced allotment width of 15.24m (in lieu of the required 30m) detracts from the creation of a meaningful active street frontage to The Avenue, Hurstville. The façade presents as cluttered and the functionality and serviceability of the development is compromised given the narrow width of the allotment and the necessary design requirements for this type of development.

No

3. Transition with residential

Where land adjoins established residential areas on the boundary of the City Centre, the Precinct performs a transitional role, with new development to be suitably designed to maintain the amenity of adjoining residential land uses.

The proposal is considered to result in a poor residential transition to the adjoining residential properties to the north east. The site is considered a zone for the following reasons.

 

The proposal incorporates elevated terraces for units U0.01 and U0.02 which result in adverse overlooking impacts to the adjoining.

The development has not been given due regard to the impact resulting from the proposed built form.

No

 

Section 5.3 Controls for Residential, Commercial and Mixed Use Development

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

5.3 Built Form Controls

(a) Site amalgamation must achieve:

 

 

In the remaining of the City Centre ­ a general building floor plate of 900 - 1,000sqm; and ­ a minimum 30 metre street frontage;

The subject site has a frontage of 15.24m and floor plate of 619sqm.

 

It is noted that the applicant had provided evidence of offers to acquire the adjoining property at 30 The Avenue, Hurstville which would achieve a combined frontage of more than 30m. Offers to obtain this property have not been accepted. The site is not considered to be an isolated site but rather a constrained site.

No

 

(b) Site amalgamation is to consider Figure 5.3.1 Pedestrian Access Map to create opportunities for new connections, through the City Centre's urban grid, with new arcades and public spaces to link with major transport nodes, activity generators and key community focal points within each precinct.

The site is not affected by the criterion of this clause.

N/A

 

(c) Any site amalgamation, in areas with a strong ‘fine grain’ character, such as the Commercial Core, is to ensure that the final design reflects the fine grain character of adjoining development and heritage items.

The site is not located within the commercial core.

N/A

 

(d) Where lot consolidation is proposed, applicants must demonstrate that:

Adjoining sites are not isolated and retain access;

 

The objectives and principles of this section can be achieved;

 

Adequate onsite parking, where permitted, can be achieved to meet the parking demands of the development;

 

The design and function of the development above podium level will achieve a high level of amenity to both its future occupants and to adjoining properties.

 

Isolated sites are sites that cannot comply with the frontage requirements for redevelopment because the adjoining sites have been developed at or near the maximum potential allowed in the zone.

The subject site is not considered to be isolated. As discussed, the site is considered to be a constrained site.

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

(e) Where a development may result in the creation of an isolated site or sites, the applicant is required to demonstrate any negotiations between the owners of the properties commenced prior to the lodgement of the Development Application (DA). Where no satisfactory result is achieved, the DA must include evidence of negotiations with the owners of the properties.

 

These details must include evidence of offers to such owners. Such offers are to be reasonable and are to be based on at least one recent independent valuation and include other reasonable expenses likely to be incurred in the sale of the process.

The proposal does not result in the creation of an isolated site as 30 The Avenue has the potential to be amalgamated with the subject site into the future or adjoining properties to the south east.

 

 

No

 

(f) Where a development may result in the creation of an isolated site on an adjoining site, applicants must demonstrate that orderly and economic use and development of the isolated site can be achieved in a manner consistent with the planning controls.

 

The applicant must provide: A building envelope for that site, indicating height, setbacks, resultant site coverage and/or built area (building and basement), sufficient to understand the relationship between the development and that site, and

 

An assessment of the likely impacts the developments will have on each other, such as solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, impacts for residential development and ability to provide site servicing such as parking.

As stated above, the proposal does not result in the creation of an isolated site as 30 The Avenue has the potential to be amalgamated with the subject site or adjoining properties to the south east.

 

 

 

The applicant has provided a schematic diagram on how 30 The Avenue, Hurstville could be redeveloped as a standalone building. The schematic replicates the same building design and footprint to that proposed for the subject site.

 

 

 

No detailed assessment has been provided in relation to the assessment of impacts between the properties.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

5.4.1 Housing Choice, Affordability and Mix

(a) Developments comprising residential uses must provide a variety of residential units mix, sizes, and layouts within each development. The following criteria must be satisfied:

 

Bed-sitter apartments and one bedroom apartments must not be greater than 25% and not less than 10% of the total mix of apartments within each development.

 

Two bedroom apartments are not to be more than 75% of the total mix of apartments within each development.

 

Three bedroom apartments are not to be less than 10% of the total mix of apartments within each development.

 

For smaller developments (less than six dwellings) achieve a mix appropriate to the locality.

The proposal seeks to provide the following unit composition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Studio/one bedroom = 9 of 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two bedroom units = 6 of 17

 

 

 

 

Three bedroom units = 2 of 16

 

 

 

 

The proposal comprises of seventeen (17) units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

(b) Units must be designed especially those in the perimeter buildings open to the podium to be to support a change in their use in the future

The development is a single building, this clause is not relevant.

N/A

 

(c) Appropriate unit sizes may be considered from the NSW Residential Flat Design Code (2002).

As previously discussed within this report, in an undersized 1 bedroom unit under the AGD which has replaced the NSW Residential Flat Design Code (2002).

No

 

(d) Development comprising residential uses to encourage enclosed roof top ‘communal space/ room’ for communal interaction.

The proposal provides a communal roof top space, however it remains open.

No

 

(e) For development containing more than five dwellings, adaptable dwellings at a rate of 1 per 10 dwellings or part thereof must be provided

The proposal comprises of seventeen (17) units in total. The proposal requires two (2) adaptable dwellings to be provided. Three (3) adaptable units are provided being; Unit 1.02, Unit 2.04 and Unit 3.02 all nominated as studios.

Yes

 

(f) Dwellings located above the ground level of a building may only be provided as adaptable dwellings where lift access is available within the building. The lift access must provide access from the basement to allow access for people with disabilities.

Units 1.02, Unit 2.04 and Unit 3.02 are located on the upper levels which are accessed from a lift centrally located on site. The lift extends into the basement car park also.

Yes

 

(g) The development application must be accompanied by certification from an accredited Access Consultant confirming that the adaptable dwellings are capable of being modified, when required by the occupant, to comply with the Australian Adaptable Housing Standard (AS 4299-1995 AS 1428 Parts 1, 2 and 4)

This could be a condition of consent if the application was to be supported.

Yes

 

(h) Car parking and garages allocated to adaptable dwellings must comply with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard for disabled parking spaces.

Car parking and garage spaces can comply with Australian Standards. This would be a condition of consent to be certified at the Construction Certificate stage if the application was to be supported.

Yes

5.3.2 Floor Space Ratio

(a) The maximum FSR of all buildings must comply with the Hurstville LEP 2012 FSR Map.

The proposal seeks a maximum FSR of 2.28:1, the maximum permitted is 2.5:1.

Yes

 

(b) Where appropriate site amalgamation in accordance with Section 5.3.1 of this DCP is achieved, buildings must not exceed the maximum FSR as shown on the Hurstville LEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio Map. 

An amalgamation plan does not apply to the subject site or immediate adjoining properties along The Avenue, Hurstville.

N/A

 

(c) Maximum FSR can only be achieved where it can be demonstrated that the building envelope enables solar access to private open space and the public domain in keeping with solar access controls (refer section 6.1.3) and other amenity issues have been adequately addressed.

The proposal seeks a floor space ratio of 2.28:1; the maximum permitted is 2.5:1.

Yes

5.3.3 Building Height

(a) The maximum height of all buildings must be in accordance with the Hurstville LEP 2012 Height of Buildings Map. 

The proposal seeks a variation to the height of building for the lift overrun and communal roof top areas and balustrading as previously discussed within this report.

No

 

(b) Maximum building heights can only be achieved where it can be demonstrated that the building envelope: 

Enables solar access to private open space and the public domain in keeping with solar access controls (refer Section 6.1.3);

Adequately addresses other amenity issues;

Optimises lot amalgamation;

Provides for satisfactory traffic, parking and servicing outcomes.

The proposal has demonstrated adequate solar access to the existing adjoining properties. However it is noted that the breach in height above 15m may detract from the amenity of the any future redevelopment at 30 The Avenue, Hurstville. No analysis has been provided between the impacts of a compliant development and that of the development proposed development with the height breach.

Yes

 

(d) Where there is no street wall /podium nominated as required in the Height of Buildings Map of Hurstville LEP 2012, the buildings on those sites shall incorporate design elements on the building façade to express the street wall/podium design.

The proposal incorporates winter gardens fronting The Avenue, Hurstville.

Yes

Floor to Ceiling Heights

(e) Indicative floor to ceiling heights, portrayed in Figure 5.3.3, enable flexibility and adaptability in future building use. The following floor to ceiling heights as well as structural service and air-conditioning zones (services zone) are required for development:

Non-residential uses: Ground floor retail requires 3.6m with 0.9m services zone (4.5m floor to floor height) and first floor retail or commercial use will require either 4.5m or 3.6m floor to floor height based upon being either retail or commercial;

Level 3 and Level 4 (and any non-residential use above) minimum 3.3m with 0.3m services zone (3.6m floor to floor height); and

 

All residential uses: All levels minimum 2.7 metres with 0.3 services zone (3.0 metre floor to floor height).

 

(f) The services zone for structural services and air-conditioning must be sufficient to incorporate all servicing into the ceiling space between floors, as detailed in

 

(i) above. Air-conditioning units and services must be screened or integrated into the building design to ensure they are not visible from the adjoining public domain; occupants of adjoining commercial or retail buildings, private dwellings or private open space.

 

Height in Metres vs Number of Storeys

 

15m

 

 

B4 mixed use zone, 15m No of storeys: 1 ret + 1 commercial + 2 residential or 1 ret + 4 residential.

Under the provisions of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development  - 6A Development control plans cannot be inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide;

(1)(e) ceiling heights

 

 

3.65m - 4.05m for ground floor commercial tenancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.7m for each floor and 0.3m for services.

 

 

 

 

Services can be provided.

 

Air conditioning units can be screened from the public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks a built form of 4 storeys comprising of one storey of commercial and three stories of residential above facing the street. The rear is a four storey residential flat building.

Previously addressed within SEPP 65 - ADG assessment.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.4 Street Setbacks

Build to boundary 30-70% max (active lobbies)

 

(c) Between 30-70% of a building frontage on certain streets as identified in Figure 5.3.4 Activation, Accessibility and Alignment Map must be built to boundary.

 

(e) All lower levels of buildings (first four storeys) must maintain a consistent building alignment and must be built to side boundaries, so that a continuous frontage to the street is maintained.

 

Any new building is to be designed to maintain solar access requirements as detailed in Section 6.1.3.

 

(h) Buildings located on sites which adjoin residential land (identified as the Interface in Figure 5.3.4 Activation, Accessibility and Alignment Map) must be set back from the common boundary to provide suitable building separation to maintain amenity to adjoining residential properties (in terms of solar access and privacy).

 

 

 

The proposal seeks a nil boundary alignment of 5.24m for the ground floor of an allotment that is 15.24m in width equating to 34.38%.

 

 

The proposal contains a nil boundary setback partially on the ground floor and a nil boundary setback on levels 1 to 3.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal retains appropriate levels of solar access to adjoining properties.

 

 

The site adjoins residential to the north east of which a setback of 9m has been proposed to rear boundary.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.5 Building Separation

Any residential or the residential components of mixed use development must provide adequate separation between habitable rooms, balconies and non-habitable rooms, consistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and the recommendations of any accompanying design guide.

Council may consider a variation to the building separation distances, but only where the applicant can demonstrate that the variation has been made in response to site and context constraints and that the variation is not made at the expense of amenity

The proposal provides insufficient spatial separation between the internal facing terraces and internal balconies on level 1.

No

5.3.6 Solar Access

(a) Shadow diagrams shall be submitted in respect of all development proposals indicating the over shadowing impacts on both the public and private domains.

 

(b) Demonstrate access to sunlight is to be substantially maintained so that existing private and public open spaces, first and second order street footpaths and the existing windows of all habitable rooms in adjoining buildings receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (winter solstice).

 

(c) Living spaces of at least 70% of apartments in new developments must receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (winter solstice).

 

 

 

(d) Living spaces and open spaces must be located to maximise access to sunlight.

 

 

(e) Adjustable shading devices for shading and glare control shall be provided where required.

 

 

(f) Windows are to be of adequate size and proportion.

 

(g) Reflected light from light coloured walls and ceilings should be used.

Shadow diagrams have been considered as part of this assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunlight is maintained to the existing private and public spaces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64.70% of apartments meet this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living spaces are reasonably orientated to maximise northern aspects.

 

 

Shading devices over balconies satisfy this provision.

 

 

 

Windows are generally considered adequate.

 

 

Lighter tones can be used.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, however complies with SEPP 65 - ADG requirement of 2hrs minimum which prevails.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.7 Natural Ventilation

(a) Ensure each dwelling can be naturally ventilated: By siting and the layout of rooms.

 

Through the arrangement and selection of windows, doorways and other openings to allow free internal air movements and the capacity of residents to control and manipulate the movement of air through a unit.

 

By avoiding double loaded corridor apartment layouts.

 

(b) All new development should promote natural ventilation of habitable rooms.

 

(c) A minimum of 60% of residential units must achieve natural cross-flow ventilation.

 

(d) In noisy locations, acoustic design must ensure that such ventilation can be achieved as well as ensuring that noise levels are reduced to acceptable levels in habitable rooms.

 

(e) In locations where wide footpaths already exist, or are proposed, ensure ground floor shops can satisfy ventilation requirements for operating a restaurant.

 

 

 

(f) Design of commercial developments must incorporate mixed modes of ventilation.

Each room is ventilated with windows to habitable rooms.

 

 

The proposal allows for reasonable levels of cross ventilation given window placement and layout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal does not seek a double loaded corridor apartment layout.

 

The proposal contains windows to key habitable rooms.

 

 

14 of the 17 equating to 82.23% of units provide cross-flow ventilation.

 

 

The proposal incorporates winter gardens for the units facing The Avenue, Hurstville on levels 1 to 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed ground floor contains double front entry doors to assist with ventilation. One door swings onto the public domain, If the application was to be approved this would need to be amended and swing inwardly.

 

Ventilation and services can be provided.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.8 Visual, Acoustic and Vibration Amenity

Visual Amenity

 

(a) Adequate separation between habitable windows, private open space and public open space in the proposed residential or mixed use development must be designed in accordance with the building separation guidelines in SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Design Code 2002 as shown in the table on Building Separation requirements above.

 

(b) Balcony amenity must be managed by providing operable screens / louvers.

 

(c) Adequate screening must be provided between balconies to protect the privacy of residents.

 

(d) Overlooking must be minimised by offsetting the windows from one building to another building and orientating the main living spaces within apartments to the street and/or communal open space.

 

Acoustic and Vibration Amenity

 

(a) The internal layouts of apartments and the location of courtyards, terraces, balconies, and openings should be designed so as to minimise noise transmission.

 

(b) In mixed use developments, the design should seek to minimise the transfer of noise between residential and non-residential uses and service areas by separation, noise attenuation measures and through building design to minimise the potential for conflict between uses.

 

(c) Where residential development is proposed in proximity to railway lines or major noise generating activity, appropriate materials with acoustic properties must be incorporated in the design of the dwellings.

 

(e) Noise reduction must be achieved whilst still allowing windows to be open sufficiently for good ventilation.

Under the provisions of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development  - 6A Development control plans cannot be inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide;

(1)(a) visual privacy. This has been previously addressed within SEPP 65 - ADG assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal contains adequate screening with full height blade walls.

 

 

As stated above, the proposal provides screening in the form of blade walls.

 

 

The proposal seeks to orientate the main living room windows to either The Avenue, Hurstville or to the rear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal incorporates openings to the front, rear and central courtyards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks to incorporate one commercial tenancy having an area of 116sqm which fronts The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appropriate materials and design which includes winter gardens for the front facing balconies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appropriate materials and design including winter gardens for the front facing balconies.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.9 Building Entrances and Lobbies

The preferred lobby design principles are summarised in Figures 5.3.8 and 5.3.9 and reinforced in the following controls.

 

(a) All entrances must be clearly visible and identifiable from the street and public areas through the use of colour, materials and articulation in the building design to assist in entrance visibility.

 

(b) All letter boxes, lifts and signage must be located and accessed from within the lobby area.

 

(c) The lobby area must have a generous street frontage, with the lift located to maximise visual casual surveillance.

 

(d) All entrances and lobbies must provide suitable and appropriate lighting.

 

(e) This section of the DCP must comply with the CPTED principles (Section 5.3.12).

 

 

(f) Lobbies to residential units to be designed to provide opportunities for residents to interact.

 

The proposal is narrow and irregular shaped which is undesirable from a functionality and surveillance perspective.

 

 

The entrances are clearly visible from The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letterboxes are in the entranceway with the lifts and signage accessed from the lobby area.

 

 

 

The lobby area is centrally located within the building facade.

 

 

 

Lighting can be provided and would be conditioned if the application was to be supported.

 

The proposal is generally unsatisfactory with CPTED principles given that the proposal incorporates poor sight lines and blind spots.

 

The lobby is centrally located within the frontage, the letter boxes are on the outside of the lobby entrance doors providing opportunities for residents to interact.

Internally the lobby is poorly design dur to the constrain nature of the allotment width.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.10 Building Facades and Articulation

a) A balance of horizontal and vertical facade elements that relate to the scale of the building and adjacent facades in terms of cornices, balconies, balustrades, roofs, eaves lines, door/window heads to reinforce the street rhythm must be provided.

 

(c) Building frontages with long facades must be articulated using shop front separations, attached columns steps in the façade, vertical windows, lighting, changes of texture and colour, and the like.

 

(d) Large expanses of glass curtain walling and blank walls must be avoided.

 

(e) Building facades must be designed to clearly define its address to either the street, public open space or corner.

 

(f) Vertical and horizontal lines must be used to align shopfronts and signage

 

Roller Shutters

 

(g) Any security device must have minimal impact upon the architectural features and appearance of a building or the character of the street.

 

(h) Any security grill or shutter must be located behind the glazing of the shopfront.

 

(i) Any security grill or shutter must be 50% transparent.

The proposal generally contains a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements with winter garden balconies located on the first floor to the third floor fronting The Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal provides a curved edge around the commercial shopfront which provides articulation and the letterboxes to be provided.

 

 

 

 

No large curtain walling or blank walls proposed along the street frontage.

 

 

The building façade addresses The Avenue.

 

 

 

 

Vertical and horizontal elements align with commercial tenancy.

 

 

 

 

A roller door is proposed for to the basement entry which is recessed from the front boundary. No roller doors proposed to the commercial façade.

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

 

 

None proposed. The roller door is acceptable.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.11 Awnings and Balconies

(a) Balconies and terraces must be integrated with the design and form of the building and enhance its appearance and contribution to the streetscape.

 

(b) Balconies and terraces must provide usable private open space for commercial and residential uses.

 

(c) Balcony enclosures must be consistent with Georges River Council's Policy on "Balcony Enclosures in RFBs"

 

(d) Terraces or roof gardens must be considered on podiums and upper floor building setbacks to provide additional private open space.

 

(e) Balconies and terraces must allow outlook to public spaces or the street to increase casual surveillance.

 

 

(f) Each dwelling must have at least one primary balcony that is located adjacent to a main living area such as living room, dining room or kitchen.

 

(g) Primary balconies must have a minimum depth of 2.5m and have a minimum area of 10sqm.

 

(h) The design of balconies should avoid excessive use of clear glass balustrades.

 

(f) Awnings must cover as much of the footpath as possible. For footpaths of more than 4.5m in width, the awning must be setback 1.5m from the kerb to provide suitable space to accommodate street furniture, street trees and other public amenities. For smaller footpaths widths, awnings must be setback 600mm from the kerb to accommodate street furniture, low level landscaping and other public amenities. In cases where traffic signal poles are located, further setbacks may be required to the satisfaction of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

 

(g) All awnings must provide under awning lighting to enhance public safety and to facilitate night use of the City Centre.

 

(h) Awning fascias should match those of the adjoining awnings and contain, where appropriate, motifs, patterns or detailed joints to enrich the streetscape.

Balconies and terraces are integrated into the front façade of the building on levels 1 and 3. Wintergardens are proposed.

 

 

 

Several balconies provide insufficient space for several residential units.

 

 

 

Balcony enclosures are consistent with this Policy.

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks to provide communal open space on the roof top.

 

 

 

 

 

The street facing balconies and roof top terraces face The Avenue. The communal open space is however recessed.

 

Each dwelling contains a balcony directly adjoining a room specified in this criterion.

 

 

 

The provisions of SEPP 65 prevail over Council’s DCP in relation this criterion.

 

Balconies are a mixture of masonry walls and frosted balustrades.

 

 

The proposal seeks to incorporate a ground floor awning which extends over Council’s footpath and includes a cut out to retain the tree canopy of the existing tree in the road reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lighting can be provided and would be conditioned if the application was to be supported.

 

 

 

The awning extends across the full frontage of The Avenue, Hurstville with the exception of cut out element to accommodate the Street Tree.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.3.12 Active Street Frontages

(a) In the City Centre, active street frontages must be in accordance with the Hurstville LEP 2012 Active Street Frontages Map and the street hierarchy, (as described in this section), including:

 

 

First and Second Order Streets: All frontages on these streets must be active at ground floor of the building.

 

Third Order Streets: All frontages adjoining and immediately surrounding important pedestrian connections, such as entrances to and intersections with arcades and second order streets must be highly active at ground floor of the building.

 

(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.

 

(e) For active frontages above ground floor the following should be considered:

 

Encourage uses and building design, which provide transparency, and visual contact with the street.

 

Orient primary openings in living areas toward the street and/or rear gardens to integrate indoor and outdoor active spaces.

 

Integrate landscaping above ground floor levels to provide interest in design and amenity for uses of these spaces.

 

(f) Buildings must be located on the street edges at street corners and promote active uses.

 

(g) Blank walls at ground floor of a building fronting the street must be prohibited.

The proposal is considered to result in a poor active street frontage whereby a 30m allotment frontage is envisaged to provide continuation of shop frontages as the key characteristic of the streetscape at the pedestrian level.

Yes

5.3.14 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Objectives of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design to be satisfied.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design given that the lobby contains poor sightlines and blind spots.

No

5.3.15 Landscaping

(a) All development applications must include a landscape plan prepared by a qualified person. The landscape plan shall focus on common open space areas and/or areas which can be viewed from the street.

 

(b) A survey plan is to accompany a development application indicating the precise location of existing trees, their condition, species and crown size, and which trees are proposed to be removed.

 

(c) Landscaping is to generally incorporate indigenous and water efficient species to the area, and those which will not cause damage to adjacent buildings and driveways. Plants that have a short life, drop branches, gum or fruit, or which interfere with underground pipes, must be avoided.

 

(d) Landscaped areas must be irrigated with recycled water.

 

(c) Landscaping is to generally incorporate indigenous and water efficient species to the area, and those which will not cause damage to adjacent buildings and driveways. Plants that have a short life, drop branches, gum or fruit, or which interfere with underground pipes, must be avoided.

 

(d) Landscaped areas must be irrigated with recycled water.

Trees

 

(a) Where possible, the site layout must retain all existing mature trees.

 

(b) Trees planted must optimise shade in summer and allow sunlight in winter and must be positioned appropriately.

 

(c) Protective measures are required around trees during site works and construction. Such measures must be submitted with the development application.

 

(d) All open car parks must be landscaped with adequate trees to shade vehicles, improve amenity and enhance sustainability.

 

5.3.16 Planting on Structures

 

(a) Any Development Application must provide a landscape plan identifying species selection, appropriate soil depth and area of landscaping, as well as the ability for structure to accommodate the nominated landscaped area.

As a guide the following minimum standards are recommended:

 

· Minimum 1000mm depth for tree planting;

· Minimum 500mm depth for shrub planting/lawn.

 

Planting must provide for optimum conditions for plant growth by:

 

· Providing soil depth, soil volume and soil area that is appropriate to the size of the plants to be established;

· Providing appropriate soil conditions and irrigation methods; and

· Providing appropriate drainage.

 

(c) Planters must be able to support appropriate soil depth and plant selection by:

 

· Ensuring planter proportions accommodate the largest volume of soil possible and soil depths to ensure tree growth, and

· Providing square or rectangular planting areas rather than narrow linear areas.

 

(d) Soil depths must be increased in accordance with:

 

·    The mix of plants in a planter, for example where trees are planted in association with shrubs, groundcovers and grass,

·    The level of landscape management, particularly the frequency of irrigation,

·    Anchorage requirements of large and medium trees, and

·    Soil type and quality.

 

(e) Areas with planting on structures must be preferably irrigated with recycled water.

 

(f) Ensure stormwater for structures provides some controlled flow to landscaped areas.

 

(g) Ensure plant species are drought tolerant to minimise the need for irrigation.

A landscape plan accompanied the original application. No amended landscape plan was provided in support of the revised proposal which included the extension of the communal open space over the front rooftop portion of the building towards The Avenue, Hurstville.  This could be conditioned to provide sufficient detail however the application is not supported for other reasons.

No

5.3.17 Site Servicing

Mail Boxes

 

(a) Provide letterboxes for residential building and/or commercial tenancies in one accessible location adjacent to the main entrance to the development.

 

(b) Letterboxes must be integrated into a wall where possible and be constructed of materials consistent with the appearance of the building.

 

(c) Letterboxes shall be secure and large enough to accommodate articles such as newspapers.

Communication Structures, Air Conditioners and Service Vents

 

 

Mail boxes are proposed to be centrally located externally to the main entrance.

 

 

 

 

 

Letterboxes are integrated into the façade of the commercial tenancy before the main entry to the building.

 

 

 

Letterbox designed to satisfy criterion.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

(a) Locate satellite dish and telecommunication antennae, air conditioning units, ventilation stacks and any ancillary structures:

 

·   Away from the street frontage.

·   Integrated into the roof design and in a position where such facilities will not become a skyline feature at the top of any building, and

·   Adequately setback from the perimeter wall or roof edge of buildings.

 

(b) A master antenna must be provided for residential apartment buildings. This antenna shall be sited to minimise its visibility from surrounding public areas.

 

Waste (Garbage) Storage and Collection Refer to Section 6.2.4 Waste Minimisation and Management for waste storage and collection controls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fire Service and Emergency Vehicles

 

(a) For developments where a fire brigade vehicle is required to enter the site, vehicular access, egress and manoeuvring must be provided to, from and on the site in accordance with the NSW Fire Brigades Code of Practice – Building Construction – NSWFB Vehicle Requirements.

 

(b) Generally, provision must be made for NSW Fire Brigade vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction where:

 

·    NSW Fire Brigade cannot park their vehicles within the road reserve due to the distance of hydrants from the building or restricted vehicular access to hydrants; or

·    The site has an access driveway longer than 15m.

 

Residential

 

(a) Provide either communal or individual laundry facilities to every dwelling The public visibility of this area must be minimised. Drying of clothes is only permitted on balconies that are permanently screened from public view.

 

(b) Provide storage at rate of 10sqm per dwelling unit.

 

(c) Make provision for on-site car washing.

 

(d) Make provision for on-site composting.

 

 

Electrical Services

 

Electrical Service substations and transformers should be designed and integrated into the development to allow service access and screening from public areas in accordance with the requirements of relevant authorities.

No details provided on the plans. This could be conditioned however this is not supported for other reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No details provided on the plans. This could be conditioned however this application is not supported for other reasons.

 

 

The proposal has sought to provide separate waste collection rooms for the commercial and residential waste however these space are inadequate in relation to storage areas, access and the ability in which collection is to take place given they have to use the passenger lift to move bins to the street for collection.

 

 

 

 

Access for emergency vehicles into the site cannot occur due to the constrained nature of the site and the height of the vehicles cannot be accommodated within the basement.

 

From a fire safety perspective sprinkler and/or hydrant booster assemblies maybe required to service this development and the location of the boosters on the plan are considered to be undersized and therefore will take up a greater proportion of the frontage therefore further reducing the active nature of the frontage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each unit contains an individual laundry. Each unit fronting The Avenue contains a winter garden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Storage provided in accordance with the AGD.

 

 

The proposal nominates a car wash bay on site.

 

On site composting can occur through small bins. However not nominated.

 

 

 

Electricity can be extended to service the development. No details of substation or investigation of a substation requirement provided.

If required this will further compromise the active street frontage by the incorporate of more plant to the frontage of the site.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

5.4 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

5.4.3.3  Bicycle Facilities

 

 

 

 

(a) Bicycle storage racks must be provided to accommodate a minimum of:

 

1 bicycle space for every 200 square metres of office floor space (116sqm)

 

1 bicycle space per 300 square metres of retail

 

1 bicycle space for every 3 residential units  = 5.6 (6) bicycle spaces

 

(b) Bicycle racks must be easily accessible from the public domain, and within areas that are well lit with adequate levels of natural surveillance.

 

(c) The bicycle parking area must be capable of being made secure to protect the security of cyclists and their belongings with communal showers, changing facilities and lockers for storing cycling attire and equipment provided.

 

(d) Notwithstanding (b) and (c) above, bicycle storage facilities for residential uses can be provided within private garage areas, where it is demonstrated that:

 

There is sufficient storage within the garage for a bicycle and the required number of vehicles; and There is a safe path for cyclists to leave the garage area.

 

 

 

 

As the commercial tenancy comprises of 116sqm, the proposal does not trigger the requirement to provide bicycle parking spaces for any office or retail spaces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 bicycle spaces provided within the basement levels.

 

Bicycle racks located within the basement levels which share common access for residents.

 

 

 

Bicycle racks located within the basement levels which share common access for residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle spaces are located in common areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycles can exit the basement via the common driveway or lift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

5.4.4. Parking and Service Delivery

Requirements

 

5.4.4.1 Vehicle Parking Rates

 

 

 

 

 

(a) Parking areas must be designed to facilitate the safe and efficient movement and circulation of vehicles and pedestrians, including safe pedestrian access within car parks.

 

(b) Parking areas and loading/unloading facilities must be designed to comply with the requirements of the latest Australian Standards for standard vehicles as defined

by AS 2890.

 

(c) Car park location and design needs to be carefully considered to ensure pedestrian safety, clear sight lines and to maintain streetscape character and amenity. All car parking must be positioned below ground level as demonstrated in Figure 5.4.1 below. Should site constraints restrict parking below ground level, parking must be concealed behind retail development, as demonstrated in Figure 5.4.2.

 

(d) Provide on-site car parking, including visitor parking at the minimum rates stated in the car parking table below.

 

 

 

 

(e) Where parking calculations produce a fraction, the number is rounded up e.g. 3.2 spaces = 4 spaces.

 

(f) For mixed use development the allocation of car spaces among the uses is to be indicated on the DA plans.

 

 

(g) The use of car spaces is restricted to the occupiers(s) and visitors of a development.

 

(h) Any non-residential development that cannot provide all of the required car parking on-site will be required to pay a contribution for each deficient car parking space in accordance with Council’s adopted section 94 contributions plan.

 

(i) Development generating high amounts of traffic, as defined under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, is to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for consideration. Schedule 3 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 outlines the provisions of developments that need to be referred to the RMS.

 

 

 

 

 

Parking areas provide insufficient turning areas within each level. The location of lift entries to the basement generates a potential conflict with the vehicular circulation.

 

 

No loading area provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed layout generates a conflict in relation to pedestrian and vehicular movement. The rear of the car park is not located below ground level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four (4) car parking spaces have been provided in excess of the requirement of RMS GTTGD, in addition to one car wash bay which can be nominated as visitor spaces.

 

Calculation of car spaces has been rounded up.

 

 

 

 

Allocated of car parking spaces have been nominated on the plans for either residential or commercial and one (1) car wash bay. No visitors nominated.

 

The residential have not been allocated to individual units.

 

 

Two (2) spaces required ad two (2) provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal seeks to provide 25 car parking spaces in total. The use is not classified as a traffic generating development.

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Figure 5.4.2 Parking positioned below ground

The proposal seeks a rear car park element which is located above ground however it is noted that this is only accessible via the basement car park.

No

 

Business Premises and office premises in B4 Mixed Use Zone

1 space per 100sqm (B4 Mixed Use)

 

Residential Rates:

Dwelling (1-2 bedrooms) = 1 space per dwelling

 

Dwelling (3 bedrooms) = 2 spaces per dwelling

 

Dwelling – Visitor spaces = (1 space per 4 dwellings (or part thereof)

 

 

 

116sqm = 2 car spaces provided

 

15

 

 

 

4

 

 

5

 

 

No, however the proposed car parking complies with the RMS GTTGD under SEPP 65 which prevails over Council’s car parking controls.

5.4.3.2 Other parking controls

Visitor Parking

 

(a) Designate disabled and visitor car parking spaces as common property.

 

 

 

Car Parking for Adaptable Dwellings

 

(a) Developments containing adaptable housing must allocate at least one accessible parking space to each adaptable dwelling.

 

 

Car Wash Bays

 

(a) For residential developments containing 4 or more dwellings, a car wash bay is to be provided within the visitor parking area. The car wash bay may comprise a visitor car space.

(b) The wash bay is to be adequately drained and connected to the sewer line.

 

 

 

An accessible space has been nominated there are no visitor spaces nominated and the residential has not been allocated to individual units.

 

 

 

Two (2) accessible spaces proposed, three (3) are required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal contains 17 units. 1 car wash bay is proposed on B1.

 

 

 

 

 

Car wash bay can be drained and connected to sewer line. This would be conditioned if the application was supported

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.4.5 Vehicular Access and Manoeuvring

Location of Vehicular Access

 

(a) Vehicular access points must be provided in accordance with Figure 5.4.4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(e) One vehicle access point only (including the access for service vehicles and parking for non-residential uses within mixed use developments) will be permitted per site. More than one vehicular access point may be permitted on larger sites where it can be demonstrated to meet the above objectives.

 

Design of Vehicular Access

 

(a) Vehicle entries must have high quality finishes to walls and ceilings as well as high standard detailing. No service ducts or pipes must be visible from the street.

 

(b) Vehicle access is to be designed to:

 

Minimise the impact on the street, site layout and the building façade design; and

 

If located off a primary street frontage, be integrated into the building design.

 

(d) All vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction

 

(e) Separate and clearly differentiated pedestrian and vehicle access must be provided.

 

(f) Vehicular access must be located a minimum of 3m from pedestrian entrances.

 

(g) Vehicular access may not ramp along boundary alignments edging the public domain, streets, lanes parks and the like.

 

(h) Driveway crossing width and the profile must comply with Council Standards and the relevant Australian Standards (AS2890 or as amended)

 

(i) Driveway widths must comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

(j) Driveway grades, vehicular ramp width/grades and passing bays must be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard, (AS 2890.1or as amended).

 

(k) Access ways to underground parking should not be located adjacent to doors or windows of the habitable rooms of any residential development.

 

 

 

 

As the vehicular access point is not consistent with this figure as no access point in indicated on the map for this site. An access point is indicated for 30 The Avenue, Hurstville as it was envisaged amalgamation would happen in this location. It is acknowledged the access point is in a similar location to that existing.

 

One access point proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High qualify finishes provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Singular access point proposed however this single width driveway is not considered to be adequate to service the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.

 

 

 

Separate entries provided.

 

 

 

 

Less than 3m away from central entry.

 

 

 

Access ramps from boundary alignment. A platform lift is proposed to service the commercial tenancy.

 

Compliant with Australian Standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single access compliant with the Australian Standards.

 

Single access compliant with the Australian Standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Located sufficiently away from doors and windows.

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Figure 5.4.4 Vehicle Access Map

 

Note: 32 The Avenue does not indicate that a car park entry is permitted. 30 The Avenue, Hurstville prescribes that a car park entries permitted.

The proposal is not identified as a site whereby car parking entries are permitted. Given this, the location of a single access driveway within a T intersection is not considered to result in a desirable outcome from a pedestrian and vehicle safety perspective.

No

5.4.6 Loading/Unloading facilities and Service Vehicle Manoeuvring

 

(a) For the development of all new buildings, site design must allocate adequate space for the loading, unloading, parking and manoeuvring of delivery and service vehicles within the subject property. Design of these areas shall comply with AS 2890 or as amended.

 

(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.

 

The proposal has not provided a vehicle loading bay on site, or any form of delivery area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No loading bay or any form of delivery area has been provided on site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal has not demonstrated that delivery vehicles are able to enter and exit in a forward direction given the basement circulation layout.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

5.4.7 Pedestrian Access and Mobility

(a) Access to public areas of buildings and dwellings must follow the principles of universal access, with any development providing continuous paths of travel from all public roads and spaces as well as unimpeded internal access.

 

(b) Access must be direct

and without unnecessary barriers. Avoid obstructions, which cause difficulties including:

 

Uneven and slippery surfaces;

 

Steep stairs and ramps;

 

Narrow doorways, paths and corridors; and

 

Devices such as door handles which require two hands to operate.

 

(c) Ensure that barrier free access is provided to the common areas of all buildings, and not less than 20% of dwellings in each development.

 

 

(d) 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).

 

(e) The development must provide at least one main pedestrian entrance with convenient barrier free access in all developments to at least the ground floor.

 

(f) Pedestrian access ways, entry paths and lobbies must use durable materials commensurate with the standard of the adjoining public domain (street) with appropriate slip resistant materials, tactile surfaces and contrasting colours.

The proposal has provided adequate public access into and internally within the building. This is facilitated by access ramps and a lift. It is acknowledged however that the internal access to the lift is convoluted.

 

 

 

Access is considered to be direct. Much of the criterion in this clause would be considered and implemented in construction level details if the application was supported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barrier free access is provided to common areas of the buildings. Amendments maybe undertaken to accessible units to achieve barrier free access.

 

2 accessible spaces (referenced as residential spaces 3 and 4) are located on Basement level 1 and contain a shared space between. The development however requires three (3).

 

 

 

Main central entrance is barrier free and is required to satisfy the accessible Australian Standards.

 

 

 

 

Durable materials could be conditioned to be incorporated into the development as part of the construction phase if the application as to be supported.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

130.    Section 6. Site Planning Controls

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

6.1 Public Domain

Requirement of Public Domain to be satisfied

The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the public domain existing.

Yes

6.2 Environmental Management

Requirements of Environmental Management to be satisfied.

The proposal is satisfactory regarding environmental management. Conditions to reinforce this would be imposed if the application was supported.

Yes

6.2.2 Water Management

(a) The drainage network must provide capacity to safely convey stormwater run-off resulting from storm events by taking into account roof drainage and site drainage. Adequate provision must be made for the control, reuse and disposal of stormwater from the site.

 

(b) New building or structures will not be permitted over drainage lines, overland flow paths or within stormwater easements.

 

(c) Please refer to Council’s Drainage and On-Site Detention Policy (Appendix 2) for further details on stormwater and drainage.

 

Groundwater

 

(a) Disturbances to ground water flows through diversion/extraction or other uses are to be managed to ensure there is no adverse impact on groundwater quality or quantity.

 

(b) Ground water is to be recharged where possible while still protecting and/or enhancing ground water quality.

 

The proposal has been assessed by Councils Council’s Development Engineer and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

An acceptable drainage design has been proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

6.2.4 Waste Minimisation and Management

(a) 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.

(b) Include on-site composting where possible, either in each dwelling or as a shared facility.

 

(c) Recycling and reuse of materials should occur at all stages of development including demolition of existing buildings, selection of materials and during building construction stages.

 

(d) Where possible, reuse of existing buildings to be undertaken

 

(e) All development applications must be accompanied by a waste management plan that addresses:

 

Best practice recycling and reuse of construction and demolition materials;

 

Use of sustainable building materials that can be reused or recycled at the end of their life;

 

Handling methods and location of waste storage areas in accordance with the provisions of the DCP, such that handling and storage has no negative impact on the streetscape, building presentation or amenity of occupants and pedestrians; and

 

Procedures for the on-going sustainable management of organic and putrescible waste, garbage, glass, containers and paper, including estimated volumes, required bin capacity and on-site storage requirements.

 

Describe and detail the manner in waste and recyclable material is to be stored on site, including the size and location of bin storage areas, the size and number of bins to be used to store waste and recyclable material, and any other information relevant to the storage and servicing of bins.

 

The waste management plan is to be prepared by a specialist waste consultant and is subject to approval by Council.

 

(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.

 

(i) The storage area must be located in a position which is:

 

Not visible from the street;

 

Easily accessible to dwelling occupants;

 

Accessible by collection vehicles (or adequately managed by the body corporate to permit relocation of bins to an approved collection point);

 

Has water and drainage facilities for cleaning and maintenance; and

 

Does not immediately adjoin private open space, windows or clothes drying areas.

 

(j) Where a sufficient sized kerbside collection point cannot be provided for the number of bins to stand in single file one metre apart without encroaching neighbouring properties, Council will require details of an alternative garbage collection service. Council staff should be consulted in these situations, as it may be necessary to engage a private waste collection contractor.

 

(k) Developments are to incorporate convenient access for waste collection, noting that Council does not provide collection from within private properties or roads. Should a private waste collection vehicle be required to enter a property, access driveways and internal roads must be designed to provide adequate clearance and manoeuvring space to allow the waste collection vehicle to enter and exit in a forward direction without impeding upon general access to, from or within the site.

 

(l) In the case where a development proposes to use a dumpster/bulk bins, access is to be provided from the street level without the need for manual handling with sufficient space for the collection vehicle to drive to the collection point, empty the bin safely and exit without traffic interference or any height restrictions. This service is generally not provided by Council’s waste contractor, and arrangements may be required.

Separate waste rooms have been provided for commercial and residential; however they are not of sufficient size to accommodate the necessary bins.

 

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

A satisfactory waste management plan has been provided; a revised plan will be required for any on-going use if the application was supported.

 

 

 

 

This is a new building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inadequate bin storage areas proposed.

 

 

Not referenced.

 

 

 

 

 

The waste areas are within the basement; however they are of insufficient dimensions. A waste vehicle cannot access the basement and the bins will need to be moved to the street for collection by either the driveway ramp or the passenger lift. Both are not ideal from a safety and amenity perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient sized rooms proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are within a basement.

 

Achieved.

 

 

A waste truck cannot access the basement; the bins need to be moved to the street.

 

 

 

 

Insufficient detail provided. Could be conditioned if supported.

 

Achieved.

 

 

 

 

Can be achieved kerbside but not a safe location given this site is centrally located within a signalised intersection. There is no alternate location available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single bins required as no waste truck can access the basement.

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

6.2.3 Stormwater Management

Stormwater management requirements to be satisfied.

The site is affected by overland flow and the proposal seeks to connect to an easement at the rear. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied in relation to, flooding, stormwater impacts and disposal.

Yes

6.4 Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

Preservation of trees and vegetation requirements to be satisfied.

The proposal seeks the retention of one (1) street tree within the road reserve fronting The Avenue, Hurstville and protection of seven (7) trees within adjoining properties.

Yes

 

SUBMISSIONS

131.    The application was notified accordance with the provisions contained within the Hurstville City Centre Development Control Plan No. 2. In response, no submissions were received. The amended plans have been considered as part of this assessment report however these plans were not renotified as the proposal did not result in any greater material environmental impact

 

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

132.    The development application was referred to the relevant officers within Council. The responses are outlined as follows.

 

Consultant Arborist

133.    The original application was reviewed by Council’s Consultant Arborist who supported the original proposal subject to conditions relating to removal, protection and tree replenishment.

 

134.    Planning comment: No amended landscape plan was provided in support of the revised proposal which included the extension of the communal open space over front rooftop portion of the building towards The Avenue, Hurstville however sufficient landscaping details could be conditioned if supported.

 

Environmental Health Officer

135.    The original application was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health who raised no objections to the proposal. The extent of works were largely unchanged regarding health considerations and did not require a re-referral.

 

Traffic Engineer

136.    The amended application has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer, no objections were raised to the proposal.

 

137.    Planning comment: The proposal has not satisfactorily addressed vehicular sight lines, provided correspondence from TfNSW regarding phasing of traffic lights or provided a vehicle loading bay on site which detracts from the functionality of the proposal for future occupants. Given the above matter, the proposal is not considered to have adequately satisfied Council’s concerns in providing safe pedestrian and vehicular access.

 

Drainage Engineer

138.    The site is affected by overland flow and the proposal seeks to connect to an easement at the rear. The amended application was reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer who supports the proposal.

 

Waste/Environmental Services

139.    The amended application has been reviewed by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Sustainability Officer whom does not support the proposal based on inadequate bin storage on site and vehicular access issues in relation to the collection of waste. Onsite waste collection is preferred for this site.

 

140.    Infrastructure Engineer

The original application was reviewed by Council’s Design Engineer who supported the proposal. The amended proposal did not seek any changes to the driveway layout or works to infrastructure.

 

GIS Officer

141.    The original application was reviewed by Council’s GIS Officer who supported the proposal.

 

External Referrals

142.    The development application was referred to the external referral bodies.

 

New South Wales Police Force 

143.    The application was reviewed by the New South Wales Police Force. Council received correspondence dated 8 September 2020, no concerns with the proposal were raised.

 

Ausgrid

144.    The application was referred to Ausgrid under Clause 45(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Council received correspondence on 20 May 2020 which supported the proposal subject to compliance with Ausgrid Network Standards.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

145.    The proposed development is unlikely to generate adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 

Built Environment

146.    The proposal seeks variations to the built form controls as the site has an inadequate allotment width and floor plate. The proposal results in poor levels of amenity for future occupants in terms of layout, functionality and privacy impacts. The proposal results in an undesirable precedent whereby the minimum allotment frontage and floor plate has not been achieved which detracts from the amenity for future occupants and visitors. The proposal seeks a significant variation to the height of building for the lift overrun, balustrades and communal open space; however justification for the extent of this variation has not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.

 

Social Impacts

147.    The proposal is likely to result in adverse pedestrian and vehicle conflicts resulting in social impacts for occupiers, visitors and persons around the site given the nature of the proposal.

 

Economic Impacts

148.    The proposed development is likely to generate adverse economic impacts given the relatively small size of the single commercial 116sqm tenancy proposed which is not considered to meaningfully satisfy the B4 Mixed Use zone objectives within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The proposal has not provided an adequate active street frontage which detracts from the functionality and serviceability of future commercial tenants.

 

Suitability of the Site

149.    The proposed physical built form is of a scale and design that is unsuitable for the site having regard to its size, shape, topography, relationship to adjoining developments and evolving character of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

Public Interest

150.    The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons contained within this report. Further that the reduced frontage and limited floor plate results in an undesirable precedent regarding future mixed use developments along The Avenue, Hurstville.

 

CONCLUSION

151.    The development 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.

 

152.    Development application DA2020/0165 for is recommended to be determined by way of refusal under the provisions of Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

·      The proposal results in a built form which is inconsistent with the envisaged desired character of the B4 Mixed Use Zone for shop top housing and residential flat buildings.

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy Section 1.3 Objects of the Act of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, namely:

 

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

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

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

·      The design, functionality and internal layout results in poor levels of occupant amenity.

 

·      The design results in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining residential properties.

 

·      The proposed development seeks numerous variations to the planning controls resulting in poor amenity on site for future occupants and adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impacts on the built environment and generates social impacts.

 

·      In consideration of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed development is not a suitable and desired use of the site and its approval is not in the public interest.

 

Determination

153.    THAT Pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse DA2020/0165 for demolition works and construction of a shop top housing development and residential flat building over three (3) levels of basement car parking on Lot 185 DP1595 known as 32 The Avenue, Hurstville, 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 Objects of the Act:

 

(b)     to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant

economic, environmental, and social considerations in decision-making about  environmental planning and assessment;

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

(g)     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 No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development)  in terms of the following:

 

·    3F Visual Privacy

·    3G Pedestrian Access

·    3H Vehicular Access

·    4A Solar Access

·    4C Floor to Ceiling Heights

·    4D Unit Size

·    4D Unit rooms, Location and Sizes

·    4E Private Open Space

·    4M Facades

·    4N Roof Design

·    4U Energy Efficiency

·    4V Water Management and Conservation

 

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 comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index) BASIX 2004 as an amended BASIX Certificate has not been provided.

 

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 satisfy the following objectives of the B4 Mixed Use Zone of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

•        To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

•        To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

•        To allow for residential development in the Hurstville City Centre while maintaining active retail, business or other non-residential uses at street level.

 

(a)     The proposal fails to satisfy The Aims of the Plan

 

(a) to encourage and co-ordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land that is compatible with local amenity.

 

(b)     The proposal fails to comply with Clause 4.3 Height of Building.

 

(c)     The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard.

 

(d)     The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 6.6 Active Street Frontages.

 

(e)     The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 6.7 Essential Services.

 

5.    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 the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2:

 

(a)         Section 3 Hurstville City Precincts.

(b)         Section: 5.3 Controls for Residential, Commercial and Mixed Use Development

(b)(i)      5.3 Built Form Controls

(b)(ii)     5.3.3 Building Height

(b)(iii)    5.3.5 Building Separation

(b)(iv)    5.3.6 Solar Access

(b)(v)     5.3.9 Building Entrances and Lobbies

(b)(vi)    5.3.12 Active Street Frontages

(b)(vii)   5.3.13 Permeability and Accessibility

(b)(viii) 5.3.15 Landscaping

(b)(viii) 5.3.17 Site Servicing

(b)(viiii) 5.4.4.1 Vehicle Parking Rates

(b)(x)     5.4.6 Loading/Unloading facilities and Service Vehicle Manoeuvring

(b)(xi)    5.4.7 Pedestrian Access and Mobility

 

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

 

(a)     The proposal results in poor levels of amenity for future occupants in terms of layout and functionality.

 

(b)     The proposal results in an undesirable precedent whereby the minimum allotment frontage and floor plate has not been achieved which detracts from the amenity for future occupants and visitors.

 

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

 

(a)     Safe vehicular and pedestrian access within, to and from the site has not been adequately 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.

 

8.    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 in particular within The Avenue, Hurstville. Further that the applicant has not provided adequate and consistent information in support of the amended proposal in relation to an amended landscape plan, BASIX Certificate and Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard.

 

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.

 

If you are not satisfied with this determination, you may:

 

(a)       Apply for a Review of a Determination under Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A request for review and the decision by Council of that request must be made within six (6) months of the date of this Notice of Determination and be accompanied by the relevant fee.  You must ensure that an application for review of determination gives Council a reasonable period in which to review its decision having regard to the relevant issues and complexity of the application.

 

OR

 

(b)     Appeal to the Land and Environment Court within twelve (12) months of the date of this determine notice, under Section 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for complying development, designated development or Crown development.)

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Roof Plan - 32 The Avenue Hurstville

Attachment 2

Elevations - 32 The Avenue Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 November 2020

LPP061-20              32 The Avenue Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Roof Plan - 32 The Avenue Hurstville

 

 

Page 131

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 19 November 2020

LPP061-20              32 The Avenue Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Elevations - 32 The Avenue Hurstville

 

 

Page 135

 


 


 


 


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

Page 151

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 19 November 2020

 

LPP Report No

LPP062-20

Development Application No

DA2020/0264

Site Address & Ward Locality

43 Cronulla Street Carlton

Hurstville Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition, alterations and addition to a heritage dwelling and construction of a detached secondary dwelling and carport including landscaping and site works

Owners

Mr Anthony John Papagelis

Applicant

Mr Nicholas Karahalios

Planner/Architect

Planner: Solutions Zane / Architect: Nick Karahalios - Architectural Drafting Services

Date Of Lodgement

1/07/2020

Submissions

No submissions

Cost of Works

$221,900.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Application involves demolition works to a heritage item

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation Of Land; State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017;

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment; Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy; Draft Remediation of Land SEPP; Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020;

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing Diversity) 2020;  Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012; Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide.

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

Architectural Plans, Statement of Environmental Effects, Heritage Impact Statement, BASIX Certificates

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in this report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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