AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:

Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

Date:

Thursday, 3 June 2021

Time:

4.00pm

Venue:

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville

Panel Members:

Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Juliet Grant (Expert Panel Member)

Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

George Vardas (Community Representative)

Sue Francis (Alternate Chairperson for Item LPP025-21)

 

  

1. On Site Inspections

a)   143-149 Boundary Road and 689-691 Forest Road Peakhurst

b)   51 Laycock Road Penshurst

c)    7 Rickard Road South Hurstville

d)   47 Kyle Parade Kyle Bay

e)   591-611 Princes Highway Blakehurst

f)     2-24 Princes Highway Kogarah

2. Opening

3. Consideration of Items and Verbal Submissions

4. LPP Deliberations in Closed Session

LPP020-21        7 Rickard Road South Hurstville – DA2020/0358

(Report by Independent Assessment)

LPP021-21        47 Kyle Parade Kyle Bay – DA2020/0362

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP022-21        51 Laycock Road Penshurst – DA2021/0003

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP023-21        2-24 Princes Highway Kogarah – DA2019/0337

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP024-21        143-149 Boundary Road and 689-691 Forest Road Peakhurst - Planning Proposal – PP2019/0003

(Report by Strategic Planner)

LPP025-21        591-611 Princes Highway Blakehurst – REV2020/0032

(Report by Independent Assessment)

5. Confirmation of Minutes

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 June 2021

 

LPP Report No

LPP020-21

Development Application No

DA2020/0358

Site Address & Ward Locality

7 Rickard Road South Hurstville

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Change of use from a dwelling house to a place of public worship with associated works

Owners

H M Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

Applicant

H M Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

Planner: Planning Ingenuity

Date Of Lodgement

16/09/2020

Submissions

Fifty six (56) submissions

Cost of Works

$80,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The number of unique submissions exceeds 10 in accordance with the Ministerial Direction.

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastrucutre);  Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2013,

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020, Draft Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

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

Architectural Plans, Statement of Environmental Effects

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Independent Assessment

 

 

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?

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, as the application is recommended for refusal.

The refusal reasons can be reviewed when the application is published.

 

Site Plan

 

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of subject site outlined in blue, 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville and surrounding area. (Source: GRC, 2020).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.         Council is in receipt of a development application seeking a change of use from a dwelling house to a place of public worship with associated works on land at 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville.

 

2.         In detail, the proposal is described as follows:

 

-     Internal works to meet the requirements of the BCA and Accessibility standards.

-     Change of use to a Place of Public Worship with the following layout:

Basement floor – three (3) areas of storage.

Ground floor – double garage, entry porch, accessible bedroom, laundry, accessible bathroom, dining room, kitchen, resting area/sunroom, meditation area and worship room.

First floor – meditations room with ensuite and storage area, bathroom, sutra/script study and transcribe room and four (4) bedrooms.

-     Activities on the site include meditation, script writing and learning. The site will also provide accommodation for a maximum of nine (9) Venerable (Reverends or Monks) visiting the site and staying for short or long term periods.

-     The maximum capacity proposed for the premises is twenty (20) people (Venerable and Devotees)

-     Visiting hours are proposed between 8am and 6pm, 7 days a week.

-     Parking on the site is proposed to use the existing garage (double) and at-grade driveway with a total of four (4) x car spaces provided in a stacked arrangement.

 

3.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. A place of public worship is permitted with consent in the zone. The proposal predominantly meets the definition of a place of public worship; however the accommodation component is considered to be a Boarding House which is also permitted in the zone. 

 

4.         The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020, with place of public worship prohibited in the R2 zone under the Draft Plan, however a boarding house remains a permissible form of development.

 

5.         Whilst consideration is given to the provisions of the Draft Georges River LEP 2020, the provisions have no determining weight as a result of proposed operation of Clause “1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications” which provides “If a development application has been made before 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”.

 

6.         The proposal does not satisfy Section 1.3 Objects of the Act of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 whereby the proposal does not satisfy objective (c) which is to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land, in this instance, the proposal seeks a maximum capacity of twenty (20) x patrons including up to nine (9) x Venerable (Reverends or Monks) who are proposed to be provided accommodation – short or long term stay on the site. The proposal fails to provide accommodation of a size and configuration suitable for the nine (9) Venerable proposed and also provides deficient carparking in both number and configuration.  A total of four (4) car spaces in a stacked arrangement is considered insufficient and not functional for the proposed purpose.  As such the traffic and parking generated by the proposed use is considered to be unacceptable due to its anticipated impacts upon on-street parking availability and the surrounding street network.

 

7.         The proposal fails to meet the objectives and provisions of Part B4 – Parking and Traffic contained within the Kogarah DCP 2013. The parking rate applied to places of public worship pursuant to Part B4.1 of the DCP requires 7.9 (8) x car spaces to be provided based on the floor space of the proposed worship room. It is noted the proposal fails to consider other areas allocated for worship within the building which collectively would require sixteen (16) spaces. This parking demand is not met with only four (4) on-site parking spaces proposed to be provided on the site, in an unsatisfactory stacked arrangement.  Where the accommodation component is assessed against the boarding house provisions in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP), two (2) further spaces would be required taking the total to eighteen (18) x spaces. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of Part B4 of the DCP which are:

 

a)    Minimise traffic congestion and ensure adequate traffic safety and management;

b)    Ensure an adequate environmental quality of parking areas (including both safety and amenity);

c)    Provide adequate car parking for building users and visitors, depending on building use and proximity to public transport.

 

8.         The proposed development includes both a place of public worship and a residential component (short or long-term accommodation) and the combined nature of the proposed uses will result in adverse impacts upon on-street parking availability. In addition, the proposal does not demonstrate satisfactory accommodation conditions for the proposed lodgers. In this regard it fails to meet any of the requirements for a boarding house set out in the ARHSEPP as follows:

 

a)   The room configurations with four bedrooms of sizes 1 x 14sqm and 3 x 16 – 17sqm are sufficient to accommodate a maximum of seven (7) lodgers only.

b)   No rooms are permitted to accommodate three (3) lodgers.

c)   No car parking, bicycle parking or motor bike parking has been provided specific to the lodgers.

d)   No private open space has been specifically allocated to the lodgers.

e)   The proposed configuration of stacked parking in the front setback will result in a landscape area that will be incompatible with the streetscape.

 

9.         Further, the proposal fails to give adequate information to assess the likelihood of acoustic impacts, given that the submitted acoustic report and Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) refers loosely to teaching and learning activity noise, and worship activity noise, and states a predicted average noise level for praying/chanting.  No details are submitted around other noise sources such as bells, gongs, amplified prayers and/or music which are understood to be aspects of Buddhist rituals/prayer. The submitted acoustic report is based on a total of eighteen (18) patrons on the site, which is inconsistent with the maximum proposed (twenty (20) patrons).

 

10.       Notwithstanding Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 (DLEP2020) nominates this use as a prohibition, a review of the proposal has also been undertaken having regard to the Draft Georges River Development Control Plan 2020 (Draft DCP). The proposal does not meet the provisions relating to places of public worship with respect to site requirements. Section 34.3, Control 4.3.1 of the Draft DCP requires a minimum allotment size of 800sqm and lot width of 20m for new places of public worship. The site area of 696.8sqm and lot width of 15.24m is insufficient with respect to these provisions. Further, the proposal does not comply with Section 34.3, Control 4.3.6 of the Draft DCP which requires vehicles to be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

11.       As detailed further within this report, whilst it is noted that this section of the DCP is a draft and does not technically apply to the proposal, these controls are largely a result of Council’s previously adopted Draft Planning Control & Guidelines for Places of Public Worship adopted by Council on 1 May 2017. The intent of this Draft Guideline was for it to be included as part of the Georges River DCP.  Therefore, it is considered that the Guideline forms part of the assessment of the application and as such; the relevant controls of the Draft Georges River DCP have been included in this assessment.

 

12.       The proposal was re-notified as a result of objections received from neighbouring properties which claimed they had not been notified of the proposal during Council’s Notification Process. All issues raised within the objections from both notification periods have been considered in the assessment of this application.

 

Site and Locality

13.       The subject site is legally described as Lot 91 in DP 6862 and is known as 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville.

 

14.       The site has a frontage to Rickard Road of 15.24m, a maximum depth of 45.72m and a total site area of 696.8sqm. The site has a slight fall from the front boundary to the rear of approximately 2m across a length of 45.72m.

 

15.       The site currently contains a two-storey dwelling house with attached double garage.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

16.       The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is for a change of use to a Place of Public Worship which is a permissible use in the zone with development consent. As detailed previously, Places of Public Worship are a prohibited land use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the Draft Georges River LEP 2020. It is noted that the Draft LEP contains a savings provision and as such does not apply to the proposal.

 

17.       The accommodation aspect of the proposal does not fit into the definition of Place of Public Worship. A boarding house is the closest definition that conforms with the proposed use:

 

boarding house means a building that—

(a)  is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

(b)  provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

(c)  may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

(d)  has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

Note - Boarding houses are a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

 

18.       It is noted that the proposal does not identify whether the short term accommodation is longer than three (3) months but has been assumed resulting in this element of the development being permissible in the zone.

 

19.       The proposed accommodation component does not meet the definition of any other residential land uses which are permitted in the zone, namely: 

 

dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

 

dual occupancy means a dual occupancy (attached) or a dual occupancy (detached).

 

group home (transitional) or transitional group home means a dwelling—

(a)    that is occupied by persons as a single household with or without paid supervision or care and whether or not those persons are related or payment for board and lodging is required, and

(b)    that is used to provide temporary accommodation for the relief or rehabilitation of people with a disability or for drug or alcohol rehabilitation purposes, or that is used to provide half-way accommodation for persons formerly living in institutions or temporary accommodation comprising refuges for men, women or young people, but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applies.

Note - Transitional group homes are a type of group home—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

 

Submissions

20.       The DA was publicly notified/exhibited to neighbouring properties between 30 September and 16 October 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

21.       The proposal was re-notified/exhibited between 21 October and 18 November 2020 as a result of objections received from neighbouring properties that raised concern that the original notification letters were not received by the intended properties.

 

22.       In response, across both notifications/exhibition periods a total of fifty six (56) submissions were received raising concerns regarding traffic congestion, parking, acoustic amenity, zoning, residential area impacts, hours of operation, economic impacts, social impacts, safety issues, not in the public interest and the use is operating. The issues raised within the submissions have been considered and addressed accordingly in further detail within this assessment report.

 

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

23.       The application for a Place of Public Worship is required to be determined by the Georges River Local Planning Panel according to Council delegations. Further, the application received greater than ten (10) unique submissions from the neighbour notification/exhibition periods and therefore is required to be determined by the Georges River Local Planning Panel via Ministerial Directions.

 

Conclusion

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

 

25.       The proposal being a Place of Public Worship and a Boarding House comprise permissible land uses in the zone with consent, however, the proposal fails to meet the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, objectives of the Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy or the objectives of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, and objectives and provisions contained in the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012.

 

REPORT IN FULL

Description of the Proposal

26.       Council is in receipt of a development application seeking a change of use from a dwelling house to a place of public worship with associated works on land at 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville.

 

27.       In detail, the proposal seeks conversion of the existing dwelling on the subject site for use as a Buddhist place of public worship. It is noted that the submitted SEE seeks ‘continued use of the site’ as a place of worship, with objections raised during the notification/exhibition period that the proposed use has operated on the site without development consent.

           

28.       The proposal also seeks internal works to meet accessibility requirements. The ground floor of the existing building is largely retained with minor internal works central to the ground floor to create a meditation area (area – 5sqm), new laundry room, and convert an existing bathroom to an accessible toilet. Further, the ground floor level will retain the existing double garage, worship room (area – 36sqm), kitchen, dining area, accessible bedroom, and sunroom. No works are proposed at the first-floor level. The existing first floor level is to contain a meditation room (area – 22.5sqm), Sutra/Script Study and Transcribe Room (area – 16sqm), three (3) bedrooms (areas – 14sqm – 17sqm), and two (2) bathrooms.

           

29.       The proposed activities on the site include meditation, script writing and learning. The site will also provide accommodation for a maximum of nine (9) Venerable (Reverends or Monks) visiting the site and staying for short and/or long-term periods. The maximum capacity proposed for the premise is twenty (20) people (Venerable and Devotees). Operating hours are proposed between 8am and 6pm, 7 days a week.  Parking on the site is proposed to use the existing garage and at-grade driveway and some of the landscaped area within the front setback with a total of four (4) car spaces, including an accessible space provided in a stacked arrangement. Permeable pavers are proposed within the front setback to provide for the additional parking proposed.

 

30.       No works are proposed to the external elements of the existing building or rear yard. The ground floor worship room and accessible bedroom have windows orientated towards side boundaries. The first floor front bedroom, meditation room, and script study room each have access to balconies orientated towards the street and rear yard.

 

Description of the Site and Locality

31.       The subject site is legally described as Lot 91 in DP 6862 and is known as 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville

 

32.       The site has a frontage to Rickard Road of 15.24m, a maximum depth of 45.72m and a total site area of 696.8sqm. The site has a slight fall from the front boundary to the rear of approximately 2m across a length of 45.72m.

 

33.       The site currently contains a two storey dwelling house with attached double garage.

 

34.       The streetscape is characterised by a mix of 1-2 storey dwelling houses and multi-dwelling housing developments.  The adjoining property to the west of the subject site – 9 Rickard Road contains a single storey dwelling.  The site to the east 1- 5 Rickard Road is in the later stages of construction of a town house complex with multiple dwellings and basement garaging. The site is located at a zone boundary with R3 Medium Density zoned land to the north, east, and south of the subject site.

 

A picture containing text, outdoor, sky, road

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Photograph of front of subject site 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville (Source: GRC, 2020).

 

A picture containing floor, indoor, ceiling, wall

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Photograph of prayer room within subject site, 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville (Source: GRC, 2020).

 

Aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 4: Aerial Photograph of subject site outlined in red, 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville and surrounding area. (Source: GRC, 2020).

 

Zoning and Permissibility

35.       The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is for a change of use to a Place of Public Worship and a boarding house which are permissible uses in the zone with development consent.  It is noted that the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020, with a place of public worship prohibited in the R2 zone under the Draft Plan, the boarding house remains permissible with consent.

 

36.       Whilst consideration is given to the provisions of the Draft Georges River LEP 2020, the provisions have no determining weight as a result of proposed operation of Clause “1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications” which provides “If a development application has been made before 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”.

 

Chart, treemap chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Extract of zoning map of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 – site outlined in blue (Source: Kogarah LEP 2012).

 

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

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

 

            Table 1: SEPP Considerations

SEPP Title

Complies

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

Yes

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

No

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       The site has a history of residential uses, is currently occupied by a dwelling house and as such, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

 

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

41.       The stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and can drain to the street satisfying the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment. It is noted that the proposal seeks to drain to the front of the site to Council’s kerb and gutter. The proposed stormwater disposal has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer. This aspect of the proposal is acceptable.

 

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

42.       The proposal does not involve any substantial alterations which would trigger the requirements of Statement Environmental Planning Policy BASIX.

 

43.       Consideration has been given to the residential component of the proposal. If the rooms in a boarding house are capable of being used as a separate domicile, therefore meeting the definition of a 'dwelling', a BASIX certificate for the development will be required. The layout of the floor plan is not considered to result in the boarding rooms being considered ‘dwellings’ or capable of being ‘dwellings’, in this regard no BASIX certificate is required for this development. In this regard, the requirements of the SEPP have been reasonably satisfied.

 

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

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

 

45.       The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

 

a)    Native vegetation above the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) threshold where a proponent will require an approval from the Native Vegetation Panel established under the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016; and

b)    Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s development control plan (DCP).

 

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

48.       The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The DA was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. In response, Ausgrid advised that there are no impacts to Ausgrid assets.

 

49.       In this regard, the provisions and requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP have been adequately satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

50.       As detailed previously, the proposal includes a residential component (short and long-term accommodation). The accommodation aspect of the proposal does not fit into the definition of Place of Public Worship. A boarding house is the closest definition that conforms to the proposed use for accommodation, and it is noted that the proposal does not identify whether the short-term accommodation is longer than three months.

 

51.       As a guide, the relevant provisions of the ARHSEPP have been considered to assist in the assessment of the lodging/accommodation components of the proposal. These provisions are addressed in the table below:

 

Table 2: State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

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

Landscaped Area

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

The proposed configuration of stacked parking in the front setback will result in a landscape area that will be incompatible with the residential streetscape.

No

Parking

(iia) 0.5 spaces per boarding room (14 boarding rooms) x 0.5 = 7 spaces required.

 

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

Four bedrooms = two (2) car spaces required.

 

The proposal does not dedicate the proposed car spaces to the proposed accommodation components.

 

As discussed further within this report, the proposal does not comply with the parking rate for places of public worship in combination with the parking demand generated by the use of bedrooms for 9 x Venerable.

No

Accommodation Size

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

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

or

(ii) 16sqm in any other case

The proposal seeks to accommodate up to 9 x Venerable.

 

Bedroom sizes:

-     1 x 14sqm

-     3 x 16 – 17sqm

 

The proposal is insufficient and can only accommodate a maximum of 7 lodgers.

No

Bicycle and motor cycle spaces

(h) At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms (4/5 = 0.8).

No bicycle or motorcycle parking proposed.

No

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)

Zoning

52.       The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is for a change of use to a Place of Public Worship and a Boarding House are permissible uses in the zone with development consent.

 

53.       The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

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

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

 

54.       It is considered that the proposal fails to consider the objectives of the R2 low density zone as the site is considered too small to cater for the combined residential and place of public worship uses and therefore results in activities and impacts that are antipathetic to the zone objectives.

 

55.       The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Table 3: Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2013

KLEP 2013 Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

R2 Low Density

Residential

The proposal meets the definition of a Place of Public Worship and Boarding House which are permissible uses within the zone.

Yes

2.3 Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

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

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

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are not met by the proposal.

 

The proposed residential component of the proposal is inadequate to accommodate the proposed 9 x Venerable for short and long-term accommodation.

 

The proposed parking arrangement within the front setback will result in a development that is not characteristic of the low density residential environment.

The potential acoustic impacts that may result from the proposal are considered inappropriate for a low density residential zone.

No

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

No change to building height.

N/A

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.55:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

No change to FSR.

N/A

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The FSR and site area has been calculated according to the criterion of this clause.

N/A

5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this clause are;

(i) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

(ii) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.

The proposal does not directly adjoin or is located within the immediate vicinity of any environmental heritage item nominated under KLEP 2012.

N/A

6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage

The site is not affected by Acid Sulfate Soils under KLEP 2012.

N/A

6.2 Earthworks

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

No earthworks are proposed.

N/A

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

56.       Consideration is given to the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 in the assessment this application. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020, with places of public worship prohibited in the R2 zone under the Draft Plan. A boarding house remains permissible under this draft plan.

 

57.       In this regard, the provisions of the Draft LEP 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.”

 

Draft Environment SEPP

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

 

59.       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

 

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

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

62.       The main changes proposed include the expansion of categories of remediation work which requires development consent, a greater involvement of principal certifying authorities particularly in relation to remediation works that can be carried out without development consent, more comprehensive guidelines for Councils and certifiers and the clarification of the contamination information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Development Control Plan

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

66.       The proposal has been considered in accordance with the relevant chapters of the KDCP2013 below.

 

PART B4 – PARKING AND TRAFFIC

67.       The proposal has been assessed against the key requirements of Part B4 of the DCP as provided below.

 

Table 4: Kogarah Development Control Plan Part B4 Parking and Traffic

1. Parking Requirements

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Places of Public Worship

1 space / 5 seats or

1 space / 5sqm of public seating, whichever is greater

 

 

Maximum 20 persons on site at any one time (9 residents and 11 visitors)

 

79.5sqm worship room (15.9 spaces)

 

4 car spaces on the site (2 within the existing garage and 2 at grade)

No

Boarding Houses

ARHSEPP:

 

(iia) 0.5 spaces per boarding room (14 boarding rooms) x 0.5 = 7 spaces required.

 

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

Four bedrooms = two (2) car spaces required.

 

The proposal does not dedicate any car spaces to the proposed short and/or long term residents.

 

As discussed further within this report, the proposal does not comply with the parking rate for places of public worship in combination with the parking demand generated by the use of bedrooms for 9 Venerable.

No

 

68.       The application fails to provide sufficient parking on the subject site, noting a total of 7.2 spaces are required to accommodate the worship room with an area of 36sqm. Whilst only this area was utilised to assess the parking demand generated by the proposed use, it is noted that the other worship areas within the development have areas of:

 

-      Ground Floor Meditation Area – 5sqm

-      First Floor Suite/Script Study and Transcribe Room – 16sqm, and

-      First Floor Meditation Room – 22.5sqm

 

69.       It is considered that the total area of spaces associated with worship within the development is 79.5sqm, which requires a total of 15.9 (16) x car spaces pursuant to the parking requirements of the DCP.

 

70.       Further to the above, the traffic report submitted with the application does not consider the separate residential and visitor components of the proposed use, noting the proposal seeks a maximum of 20 patrons on the site made up of 11 visitors and 9 Venerable (Reverends or Monks) visiting the site and staying for short and/or long term periods. It is considered that the traffic generated by the combination of these patron components will result in unacceptable on-street parking impacts upon the surrounding street network.

 

71.       While the proposal is supported by traffic management techniques including encouragement of visitors to travel by foot, mini bus, or public transport, compliance with this would be difficult to ensure and the impracticalities of utilising the existing driveway  garage would more than likely result in cars parked on the street. Whilst the use of the site for a 4+ bedroom dwelling house may likely result in three (3) or four (4) cars owned by the residents. The visitor component of the proposal is likely to place additional strain on the site’s ability to support the concurrent uses and could not be compared to a dwelling of any size.

 

72.       The above issues form part of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Draft Georges River Development Control Plan 2020 (Draft GRDCP 2020)

73.       The Georges River Local Planning Panel at its meeting on 17 September 2020 considered a report on the Draft Georges River DCP 2020, as delegate of the Georges River Council, and resolved to place the plan on public exhibition, and insert amendments including a Savings Clause that states:

 

74.       “If an application has been made before the commencement of the DCP in relation to land to which the DCP applies, and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if the DCP had not commenced. All applications received after the commencement date of an amendment to the DCP are subject to the DCP as amended.”

 

75.       The Local Planning Panel has resolved for the Draft Georges River DCP to be in effect following the gazettal of the Draft Georges River LEP.

 

76.       Given the draft DCP is yet to be formally adopted the provisions of the Draft DCP have no determining weight in the assessment and determination of this DA. Notwithstanding this, an assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Draft DCP is provided in the following sections.

 

77.       It is noted that Council’s Draft Policy for the Assessment of Places of Public Worship 2016 has been appropriated for the Draft Place of Public Worship controls contained in the Draft DCP. As such, the proposal has been assessed against the key requirements of the Draft Georges River DCP, which includes existing provisions contained within Council’s Draft Assessment Policy for place of worship land uses.

 

Draft DCP Section 3.13 – Parking Access and Transport

78.       The proposal has been assessed against the key requirements of Section 3.13 of the Draft DCP as provided below.

 

Table 5: Draft Georges River DCP Section 3.13 Parking Access and Transport

Parking Requirements

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Places of Public Worship

1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 10sqm GFA

(whichever is greater)

 

Note:

Some places of public worship operate with no

seating arrangement and as such the use of the

word “seat” relates to patronage level (e.g. prayer mats)

 

Transport and Parking Assessment Study required

Maximum 20 patrons on site at any one time (9 residents and 11 visitors)

 

36sqm worship room

43.5sqm (other worship / prayer / transcript rooms)

Total = 79.5sqm

4 car spaces on the site (2 within existing garage & 2 at-grade)

No

 

Draft DCP Section 4.3 – Places of Public Worship (Note: Provisions previously contained in Council’s Draft Guidelines Places of Worship)

79.       The proposal has been assessed against the key requirements of Section 4.3 of the Draft DCP as provided in Table 6 below.

 

80.       In summary, whilst it is noted that this section of the DCP is a draft and does not technically apply to the proposal, these controls are largely a result of Council’s previously adopted Draft Planning Control & Guidelines for Places of Public Worship adopted by Council on 1 May 2017. The intent of this Draft Guideline was for it to be included as part of the Georges River DCP.  Therefore, it is considered that the Guideline forms part of the assessment of the application and as such; the relevant controls of the Draft Georges River DCP have been included in this assessment.

 

Table 6: Draft Georges River DCP Section 4.3 Places of Public Worship

Places of Public Worship

Standards

Proposed

Complies

4.3.1 Location and Site Requirements

Locational Requirements 1. Places of public worship must be located on sites of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed buildings, parking areas, outdoor areas etc.

 

2. The proposed development must maintain the general amenity of the area.

 

3. The proposed development must optimise the use of surrounding and potential infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on public transport.

 

 

 

 

4. Large scale places of public worship should be located a minimum of 250m away from any other existing or approved large-scale place of public worship.

 

5. Places of public worship must not be located on lots with a frontage to a road with a carriageway width less than 10m.

 

6. Places of public worship must not be located on lots where access is via a cul-de-sac.

 

Site Requirements

7. The minimum allotment size for a new place of public worship is 800sqm.

 

8. The minimum allotment width for a new place of public worship is 20m (measured at the front building line) and 15m for a corner allotment

 

No change to existing building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal will result in adverse traffic and parking impacts

 

 

 

Encouragement of visitors to travel by foot, mini bus, or public transport would be difficult to ensure and the impracticalities of utilising the existing driveway / garage would more than likely result in cars being used to travel to the site and cars parked on the street.

 

The proposal is not considered a large scale place of public worship.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achieved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

696.8sqm

 

 

15.24m

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

No

4.3.6 Traffic, Access and Parking

Traffic Management

1. Development must not result in a street in the vicinity of the development site exceeding the environmental capacity maximum. If the environmental capacity maximum is already exceeded, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street.

 

2. Development must not result in a street intersection in the vicinity of the development site to have a level of service (LOS) below Level B. If the existing level of service is below Level B, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street intersection.

 

 

3. Worship services shall not commence until thirty minutes have elapsed following the completion of any preceding service. This requirement may be imposed as a condition of development consent.

 

4. All vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

 

5. A clear distinction must be made between vehicle traffic and pedestrian movements, both on site and off site. Measures should be implemented to separate these two movements and reduce potential conflict through design and management practices.

 

Car Parking

6. The car park, manoeuvring areas and the set-down and pick-up areas must be located separately behind the front building line.

 

7. On-site car and bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the requirements in Section 3.13 - Parking Access and Transport of this DCP and must be provided either at-grade or as basement parking.

The submitted Traffic Assessment forming part of the Application has not completed an accurate assessment of the existing traffic volumes surrounding the site, corresponding to the peak operation of the subject site.

 

The external peer review prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering on behalf of Council confirms that the inconsistencies between the submitted Plan of Management and Traffic Report do not clearly outline the operations of the site.

 

In addition, the remaining issues raised with the submitted Traffic Assessment form part of the reasons for refusal, noting the peer review confirms the proposal will result in “undesirable overflow on-street car parking impacts during visitations”.

 

The proposal does not include details of services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No – Pedestrian & vehicular conflicts within the front setback due to an angled car space above pavers and an accessible space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

4.3.7 Amenity Impacts

Noise

1. The location and design of places of public worship must consider the projection of noise from various activities to avoid any adverse impacts on the residential amenity of adjoining land.

 

 

 

2. The design of the proposed place of public worship should minimise the projection of noise from the various activities anticipated to occur within the site. Adjoining and nearby residents should not be exposed to unreasonable levels of noise arising from the proposed use.

 

3. The noise impact statement must measure the noise readings over a 15 minute period and must provide details of all modelling assumptions including: source noise data, noise monitoring positions, receiver heights and locations, prevailing meteorological conditions during the monitoring, confirmation of the methodology adopted and modelling input and data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The maximum height for any noise attenuation walls and fences along the side and rear property boundary is 2m.

 

5. Noise from all plant and equipment (including air conditioning and mechanical ventilation) or any other continuous noise source must comply with the EPA Industrial Noise Policy.

 

Visual privacy

6. The location of windows, doors or balconies within a place of public worship must be located to avoid overlooking the private open space of adjoining residential uses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Landscaping must be used to reduce the impact of overlooking where it cannot be avoided.

 

The proposed use of the existing dwelling as a place of worship is considered to result in acoustic impacts beyond that envisioned for the zone noting the proposal utilises an existing dwelling and not a purpose-built facility whereby acoustic impacts could be managed through design.

 

The submitted SEE refers to daily rituals and chanting once in the morning and afternoon by Venerable and occasionally day time chanting and worship by devotees. It is considered that the proposed patron capacity of 20 patrons will result in unreasonable acoustic impacts upon the adjoining properties.

 

 

The submitted acoustic report incorrectly refers to the Hurstville LEP and DCP with respect to noise emission requirements. The activity noise emissions are based on a total of 18 patrons praying/chanting or teaching/learning within the premises and does not reflect the maximum patrons proposed on the site being 20 patrons.

 

The acoustic report does not take into consideration any bells or gongs that are understood to be part of the religious rituals of Buddhists.

 

The recommendations of the submitted acoustic report include assumptions of external glazing and construction, noting these works are not reflected on the architectural plans.

 

No walls are proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

Plant equipment has not been located on the plans, nor has it been assessed by the acoustic study.  The report states that this can be dealt with at CC stage. This is unsatisfactory.

 

 

 

The use of the existing dwelling for a place of worship does not allow for purpose-built design to mitigate the visual/overlooking impacts of the proposal. Notwithstanding, the main worship room is located on the ground floor with two windows facing east towards the western façade of the townhouse development.  There is little opportunity for overlooking from the first floor as the script study room has windows orientated to the north directly over the subject site and not towards neighbours. Only one first floor bedroom has a window facing east which could be conditioned to have translucent glass below 1.5m height; however the application is not supported for other reasons.

 

N/A

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

Impacts

Natural Environment

81.       The proposal will not impact upon the natural environment noting no tree removal or significant building works are proposed. It is noted that there is removal of vegetation within the front setback is required to facilitate the additional carparking and the shared zone for the accessible space. The accommodation of this vehicle accommodation results in the landscape presentation to the street being inconsistent with the residential form.

 

Built Environment

82.       The proposal will not have any impacts upon adjoining properties or the broader locality with respect to built form or bulk and scale noting the works proposed are internal to the building or for permeable pavers.

 

83.       The proposed car parking arrangement within the front setback will compromise the landscaping within the front setback, and result in an adverse visual impact upon the street.

 

84.       The anticipated parking impacts of the proposal and potential acoustic impacts are considered to be unacceptable for the subject site.

 

Social Impact

85.       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. The proposal does not adequately cater for up to nine (9) residents on site.  The potential acoustics impacts are considered to disrupt the ability for the residents of the precinct to enjoy the quiet amenity of their own homes.

 

Economic Impact

86.       There is no apparent adverse economic impact given the nature of the proposal. Whilst submissions included concern with respect to decreases in property values as a result of the proposal, this objection does not form part of the considerations of the EP&A Act 1979.

 

Suitability of the site

87.       The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. A Place of Public Worship and a Boarding House are permissible forms of development in this zone however the proposal fails to meet the aims of the LEP and the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan. The proposal is likely to result in unacceptable parking impacts upon the street. The submitted documentation does not accurately address the parking and acoustic impacts of the proposal as detailed previously and it is anticipated that the proposed use is likely to result in acoustic impacts upon the adjoining properties. Further, the proposed residential accommodation component of the proposal is insufficient to accommodate the maximum of 9 Venerable on the site for short and/or long-term accommodation. For these reasons, and others discussed throughout this report, the application is not supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

Submissions and the Public Interest

88.       The DA was publicly notified/exhibited to neighbouring properties between 30 September and 16 October 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. The proposal was re-notified between 21 October and 18 November 2020 as a result of concerns raised that not all adjoining property owners had been notified during the first notification/exhibition period. In response, fifty six (56) submissions were received from both the notification/exhibition periods. All concerns raised within the submissions have been considered. The key issues raised within the submissions have been addressed below.

 

            Traffic and Congestion Impacts

89.       Comment: Concerns raised with respect to traffic and congestion impacts have been noted as part of this assessment. It is noted that the peer review prepared on behalf of Council by McLaren Traffic Engineers raises concern with the lack of detail submitted as part of the application with respect to traffic generation and operating details of the proposal. The application is deficient in this regard.

 

            On-street Parking Impacts

90.       Comment: As detailed throughout this report, the proposal is likely to result in on-street parking impacts as a result of parking non-compliances and the number of patrons proposed. This impact forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

            Safety (Vehicle / pedestrian conflict)

91.       Comment: Concern was raised with respect to safety impacts as a result of increased traffic within the locality. It is considered that the proposed parking arrangement within the front setback of the site is likely to result in vehicle/pedestrian conflict for patrons entering the site by foot and persons using the pedestrian footpath on the road. Further, vehicles will be unable to exit and enter the site in a forward direction. As such, the proposed pedestrian and vehicular entry on the site is considered unacceptable and forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

            Exceeding development capacity of the local area, noting recent medium density development and local school

92.       Comment: Objections noted. Whilst the proposal is for a permissible land use within the zone, the cumulative use of the site as both a place of worship and residential accommodation (short or long-term stay) will contribute to an over intensification of activities on the site that will be incompatible with the R2 Low Density Residential zone. 

 

            Economic Impacts (Devaluation of neighbouring properties)

93.       Comment: Submissions included concern with respect to decreases in property values as a result of the proposal; this objection does not form part of the considerations of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

            Difficult to enforce proposed capacity, parking and use of premises

94.       Comment: Objections raised concerning difficulty of enforcing maximum capacity have been noted as part of this assessment.

 

Proposal has been operating on the site without consent

95.       Comment: Objection was raised that the subject site has been used for a place of worship without development consent. Council’s Compliance Unit has been notified of this objection. A site inspection confirmed the space has been fitted out as a place of public worship, see photos above.

 

            Noise/Acoustic Impacts

96.       Comment: Further, the proposal fails to give adequate information to assess the likelihood of acoustic impacts, given that the submitted acoustic report and SEE refers loosely to teaching and learning activities noise, and worship activities noise, and states a predicted average noise level for praying / chanting.  No details are submitted around other noise sources such as bells, gongs, amplified prayers and or music which are understood to be aspects of Buddhist rituals / prayer. The submitted acoustic report is based on a total of 18 x patrons on the site, which is inconsistent with the maximum proposed being 20 patrons.

 

            Proposal inappropriate for a residential area (refer to Council’s Draft Guidelines for Places of Public Worship)

97.       Comment: The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the applicable planning controls and with regard to Council’s Draft Guidelines & Policy for Places of Public Worship 2017, with these provisions forming part of the Draft Georges River DCP. The proposal does not meet the minimum site dimensions for a place of public worship with respect to the Draft DCP and guidelines. It is also noted that the accommodation component of the proposal does not meet the requirements of a boarding house with respect to parking and room sufficiency, nor can it be defined as any other permissible residential use.

 

            Public Interest

98.       Comment: The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons contained within this report. The proposed use contravenes the relevant planning instruments, the site is not suitable to accommodate the proposal and the cumulative impacts of the proposed use and associated activities including residential accommodation are likely to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding locality.

 

Referrals

Council Referrals

Traffic Engineer

99.       An independent traffic engineering assessment was undertaken.

 

Consultant Traffic Engineer – Peer Review

100.    The application was externally referred for peer review of the proposal and submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by ML Traffic Engineers. The peer review raises concern with the reliance of the proposal upon on-street parking with no detailed parking surveys during the proposed hours of operation provided as part of the application.

 

101.    Further, the peer review states that as the proposal includes both residents (9) and visitors (11) to the Place of Public Worship being a total of twenty (20) patrons, the separate components of the patrons should be assessed separately based on the nature of the proposal which includes boarding/residents as part of the maximum patrons.

 

102.    In summary, the peer review states the following:

 

The findings of the peer review are detailed within Section 1 of this report and indicated that the ML Report is substandard for the following reasons:

·      Has not completed an accurate assessment of the existing traffic volumes surrounding the site, corresponding to the peak operation of the subject site. This is a direct result of the inconsistencies between the Plan of Management and Traffic Report which do not clearly outline the operations of the site:

Notwithstanding this, the capacity of the site for up to 20 patrons (11 to 15 external visitors), is unlikely to cause significant traffic impact to the surrounding road network, such that traffic modelling may not be required.

·      Requires greater detail into the proposed operations of the subject site to determine the peak operation of the site and corresponding parking requirements of the subject site:

The report does not adopt the correct car parking requirements for the subject site;

Any shortfall in car parking should be accommodated by parking surveys and a detailed assessment of the developments parking impact upon on street car parking.

Fails to detail the anticipated number of visitors to the site per day;

Fails to detail how the operation of proposed car parking will work considering the tandem arrangements and if any of the residents residing on-site will require the use of their vehicle during services;

Does not undertake any assessment against Council’s bicycle requirements;

Does not undertake an assessment for disabled car parking.

·      Has not undertaken a compliance assessment of the proposed car parking and access arrangements with respect to relevant Australian Standards, including the provision of car parking and bicycle parking.

·      The requirement of visitors accessing the site by invitation only is a good way to ensure the patronage of the site does not exceed the proposed operating capacity of 20 patrons.

 

103.    As detailed, information regarding this impact is not provided within the ML Report, the traffic report is deemed to be inadequate in order to identify the likely parking demand and external traffic impact of the proposed development.

 

Environmental Health Officer

104.    Council’s Environmental Health Section has assessed the proposed subject development in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The assessment also includes the review of:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 1 September 2020.

·      DA Acoustic Assessment (Place of Worship) – 7 Rickard Road South Hurstville – Prepared by Acoustic Logic – dated 13 August 2020

 

105.    The health section proposed a number of acoustic related conditions should the proposal receive approval. 

 

106.    As discussed elsewhere in this report, the full planning assessment has found the proposal deficient in its consideration of noise sources (gongs, bells and amplified music) and only loosely addresses teaching and learning activity noise related to the proposal.  In addition, the acoustic report is based on 18 patrons on site which is inconsistent with the maximum 20 proposed.  Overall, it is considered that the existing dwelling may not be adequately designed to manage noise and that the proposed use may result in acoustic impacts beyond that envisioned for the low density residential zone.  Therefore, in the absence of a correct and comprehensive acoustic assessment, the proposal cannot be supported, and conditions of consent are not appropriate in this instance.

 

External Referrals

Ausgrid

107.    The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. In response, Ausgrid advised there are no issues with the proposal subject to as minimum clearance distances from Ausgrid’s Infrastructure.

 

Conclusion

108.    The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. As discussed within this assessment report, the proposal fails to meet the minimum parking provisions of the Kogarah DCP 2013, and is inconsistent with the Place of Public Worship provisions of the Draft Georges River DCP2020, noting these controls formed part of Council’s previous Draft Guidelines & Policy for Places of Public Worship 2017.

 

109.    The proposal will result in an adverse impact upon on-street parking availability, acoustic impacts upon the adjoining residential properties, and pedestrian/vehicular safety conflicts due to the proposed parking and vehicular access within the front setback. The proposal will result in adverse amenity impacts upon surrounding properties. As such, the proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site and the immediate context.

 

110.    The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined below.

 

Determination and Statement of Reasons

Statement of Reasons

111.    The reasons for this recommendation are:

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy Section 1.3 Objects of the Act of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 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 proposed number of car parking being four (4) spaces in a stacked arrangement are deficient in both numbers (should be 16) and arrangement as vehicles are unable to enter and leave in a forward arrangement and require the two (2) uses to coordinate parking which would be inconvenient and would likely result in cars parked on the street.

 

·      Parking within the front setback is unsatisfactory and will have an adverse visual impact and will likely result in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at the front boundary.

 

·      The cumulative parking & traffic impacts of the place of public worship and residential components being a boarding house with a total of 20 patrons on site will have an adverse impact upon on-street parking availability.

 

·      The proposed residential component cannot adequately accommodate the proposed maximum of 9 Venerable staying on the site.

 

·      The proposed development will likely result in an adverse acoustic impact upon adjoining properties noting insufficient/inconsistent information has been provided with respect to the acoustic impacts of the proposal.

 

·      The proposal has not adequately presented or considered the potential acoustic impacts of the development which may have unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding environment.

 

·      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

112.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse Development Application DA2020/0358 for a change of use from a dwelling house to a place of public worship  with associated works for a maximum of 20 patrons on Lot 91 in DP 6862 and is known as 7 Rickard Road, South Hurstville for the following reasons:

 

1.    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 satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

(a)     The proposal fails to satisfy The Aims of the Plan, including:

 

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

 

3.    Development Control Plan – Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the objectives and provisions of Part B4 – Parking and Traffic contained within the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012.

 

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

 

(a)  The cumulative parking & traffic impacts of the place of public worship and residential components being a boarding house with a total of twenty (20) patrons on site will have an adverse impact upon on-street parking availability.

(b)  The proposed residential component cannot adequately accommodate the proposed maximum nine (9) Venerable staying on the site. The parking arrangement within the front setback will have an adverse visual impact and will likely result in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at the front boundary.

(c)   The proposed development will likely result in an adverse acoustic impact upon adjoining properties noting insufficient/inconsistent information has been provided with respect to the acoustic impacts of the proposal.

 

5.    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)  The proposal is likely to result in unacceptable parking impacts upon the street and broader locality.

(b)  Appropriate vehicular access and parking and pedestrian access to and from the site has not been demonstrated.

(c)   The existing accommodation does not meet the minimum requirements of the Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy to support nine (9) venerable as proposed. 

(d)  It is anticipated that the proposed use is likely to result in acoustic impacts upon the adjoining properties.

 

6.   Public Interest - Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons contained within this report. The proposed use contravenes the relevant planning instruments and development controls, is not suitable for the subject site, and the cumulative impacts of the proposed use and associated activities including residential accommodation are likely to adversely affect the adjoining properties and surrounding locality.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Elelvations and Site Plan - 7 Rickard Road South Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 June 2021

LPP020-21              7 Rickard Road South Hurstville

[Appendix 1]           Elelvations and Site Plan - 7 Rickard Road South Hurstville

 

 

Page 1

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 June 2021

Page 1

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 June 2021

 

LPP Report No

LPP021-21

Development Application No

DA2020/0362

Site Address & Ward Locality

47 Kyle Parade Kyle Bay

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Alterations and first floor additions to a dwelling house, conversion of garage to a secondary dwelling, construction of a garage and front fence

Owners

Mr and Mrs Tiricovski

Applicant

Mr N Tiricovski

Planner/Architect

Mitz Design

Date Of Lodgement

17/09/2020

Submissions

Round 1: Three / Round 2: Two

Cost of Works

$450,000.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

Pursuant to the General Manager’s Delegation, the Manager of Building and Development  considers it to be in the public interest for the application to be determined by the Local Planning Panel.

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

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

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020. 

 

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

Architectural plans, Stormwater Plan, Survey Plan, Statement of Enviromental Effects, Submissions

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated 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?

Variations to height and FSR are proposed however written requests have not been submitted with the application

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

 

No, the application is recommended for refusal

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         Development consent is sought for alterations and additions to a dwelling house, conversion of a garage to a secondary dwelling and new front fence.

 

Site and Locality

2.         The lot is an irregular shape and has a site area of 738sqm and a frontage of 16.96m to Kyle Parade. The site slopes from the street to the rear boundary with a fall of approximately 6m.

 

3.         Currently occupying the site is a dual occupancy. The lower ground floor is approved as a second dwelling (DA106/92). Should the application be approved, this consent will be required to be surrendered.

 

4.         The rear yard contains an in-ground swimming pool. There is no vegetation in the rear yard.

 

5.         In the wider context, the subject site is located in an established R2 Low Density Residential Area containing a mixture of traditional and contemporary dwelling houses and dual occupancies. Just north of the neighbouring site is a small set of local shops containing two cafes a hairdresser and a florist shop.

 

6.         Immediately adjoining the site are two storey dwelling houses to the north, south and east.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

7.         The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012). Dwelling houses and ancillary development are permitted with consent.

 

Submissions

8.         The original plans lodged with the DA received three submissions. The amended plans submitted during the assessment process received two submissions.

 

Conclusion

9.         An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the applicable assessment criterion as outlined in this report and the proposal is not considered worthy of support for a number of reasons.

 

10.      Based upon the information provided to date, it is assessed that the proposal will have an adverse and unreasonable environmental impact in the following regard:

 

o Variations are proposed to the height and FSR development standards of the KLEP 2012, and floor space standard of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 – written variation requests have not been submitted with the application;

 

o Insufficient information to allow proper assessment of the height of the proposal or changes to the natural landform in the rear yard, including the site survey plan and details provided on the architectural drawings;

 

o The proposal will have an adverse visual privacy impact on adjacent residential properties with views from additional balconies facing the rear of the property;

 

o Unacceptable bulk and visual impact on adjoining properties as a result of the proposed parking arrangement, non-compliant side setbacks, height and FSR;

 

o The amended stormwater fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter.

 

11.      As a result of the concerns, deficiencies and inadequacies of the proposal the application is recommended for refusal.

 

12.      Having regard to the matters for consideration under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment, the proposed Development Application (DA2019/0347) is recommended for refusal for the reasons contained within this report.

 

Report in Full

PROPOSAL

13.      Council is in receipt of an application seeking development consent for alterations and additions to a dwelling house, conversion of an existing garage into a secondary dwelling and a new front fence. A detailed description of the proposal is as follows:

 

Lower Ground Floor:

-     Addition to the front of the existing garage and conversion to a secondary dwelling;

-     “Surrender” of the secondary dwelling approval and closure of the access from the rumpus room to the subfloor area currently approved for use as a secondary dwelling; and

-     Construction of a semi-basement car parking area beneath the proposed garage and carport, to be access via a hydraulic lift within the proposed garage.

 

Ground Floor:

-     Internal alterations to the existing dwelling house; and

-     Construction of a double garage and double carport.

 

First Floor:

-     Additions to the front of the existing floor to provide three additional bedrooms, bathrooms and a study.

 

14.      The proposed site plan is provided in the figure below.

 

Figure 2: Proposed site plan

 

15.      There is a current Building Identification Certificate (BIC) under assessment for unauthorised works on the site. The works include:

 

-     a retaining wall at rear of house,

-     brick pier support to middle of rear veranda,

-     absorption tank,

-     privacy wall to side of dwelling at rear veranda, and

-     concrete around the in-ground pool

 

16.      Finalisation of the BIC will depend on the decision of the Panel in relation to this application as the items above are included in the proposal that this application seeks approval for.

 

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

17.      The site is identified as Lot 2 in DP 21299 known as 47 Kyle Parade, Kyle Bay.

 

18.      The lot is an irregular shape and has a site area of 738sqm and a frontage of 16.96m to Kyle Parade. The site slopes from the street to the rear boundary with a fall of approximately 6m.

 

19.      Currently occupying the site is a dual occupancy. The lower ground floor is approved as a second dwelling (DA106/92). Should the application be approved, this consent will be required to be surrendered.

 

20.      The rear yard contains an in-ground swimming pool. There is no vegetation in the rear yard.

 

21.      In the wider context, the subject site is located in an established R2 Low Density Residential Area containing a mixture of traditional and contemporary dwelling houses and dual occupancies. Just north of the neighbouring site is a small set of local shops containing two cafes a hairdresser and a florist shop.

 

22.      Immediately adjoining the site are two storey dwelling houses to the north, south and east.

 

BACKGROUND

23.      This application was lodged on 17 September 2020. Amended plans were requested of the applicant on 3 December 2020 to address the following non-compliances and design issues listed in the table below.

 

24.      The applicant submitted amended plans on 5 February 2021.

 

25.      A comment is provided against each issue providing detail on how the amended plans addressed each request.

 

Issue

Request

Comment on amendments made

Building Height

The proposal exceeds the development standard height of 9m as referenced in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

All proposed works must be amended to show compliance with the permitted height of 9m.

 

In accordance with the Kogarah DCP 2013 any proposed work must not exceed 7.2m to the underside of the upper ceiling, and 7.8m to the top of the parapet, and the maximum number of levels is two.

 

The plans as submitted are three levels in some parts and are not supported.

 

A new roof is proposed in the amended plans which increases the height and area of non-compliance with the height standard. A 4.6 variation request was not submitted.

 

 

 

New work maximum:

8.28m to ceiling

9.7m to ridge

 

 

 

 

 

The semi-basement car parking results in the southern elevation of the dwelling having three levels. Car parking was requested to be provided at grade and was not – see comments later in the table in relation to car parking.

Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area

The application exceeds the maximum floor space ratio for the site of 0.55:1 as referenced in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 clause 20 (3) (a) details A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless— (a) the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument.

 

The application is to be amended to show compliance with the maximum floor space ratio of 0.55:1.

 

A plan showing the areas included as floor space must accompany the amended plans.

 

Refer also to design change requirements below.

The stated maximum FSR is incorrect. The letter should have stated the maximum FSR as 383.9sqm pursuant to Clause 4.4A of KLEP 2012.

 

The amended proposal has a gross floor area of 426sqm and exceeds the maximum permitted by the LEP.

 

The applicant has failed to include the patio area on the lower ground floor (45sqm) which should have been included in the GFA as it is enclosed on three sides with walls and is roofed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not provided.

Building Setbacks

The development fails to comply with the setback controls of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.  All new work must comply in full with the relevant setback controls.

 

 

 

The amended plans must show all site boundaries on every floor plan and the proposed setbacks to each.

New work that does not comply with setbacks:

 

Secondary dwelling (addition to existing garage): Proposed 270mm (0.63m breach/70% variation)

First floor addition: Min. 0.9m

 

The amended plans fail to show the site boundaries on all floor plans.

Depth of Upper Level

The existing garage/proposed secondary dwelling extends beyond the maximum permissible 60% of the depth of the allotment in accordance with Section 1.2.1(7) within Chapter C1 of KDCP2013. No new work is permitted to extend past 60% the depth of the lot, and so the proposed balcony to the secondary dwelling must be deleted.

 

Blank walls exceed 10m in length which does not comply with Section 1.2.1(5) within Chapter C1 of KDCP2013. The plans must be amended to comply with this control.

No new work extends beyond the rear of the existing dwelling and garage.

 

The balcony has been deleted from the proposed secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first floor addition results in a wall having a length of 15.5m.

 

Parking

The elevated height of the garage adds to the unacceptable bulk and scale of the proposal. Parking for two cars is to be provided at grade.

 

The parking has not been provided at grade, rather the four car garage has been changed to a double and double carport in front, with hydraulic lifts in the garage to access a semi-basement parking area below.

 

The semi-basement car parking results in the southern elevation of the dwelling having three levels.

Front Fence

The front fence exceeds the 1.4m height limit referenced in the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed portico must be deleted and the fencing amended to comply with the DCP controls.

The front fence has been reduced to a maximum 1.4m in height.

Deep Soil Landscape Area

The proposed development does not comply with Council’s deep soil landscaped area control contained within KDCP 2013.

 

In accordance with the development control, the required landscaped area for the site is 15% of the site area  The plans must be amended to demonstrate compliance with this control and a plan showing the areas nominated as deep soil is to be submitted.

20% of the site is shown on the amended plans as deep soil landscaping. It noted though that the areas proposed as landscaping in the side passages are currently concrete and would require replacement with grass or garden to comply as shown on the plans.

Design Changes

In addition to the matters raised above, the following changes must be included in the amended design:

 

-     The outdoor entertainment area on the lower ground floor plan is fully enclosed and contributes to floor space as well as increasing the height and bulk of the proposal. It must be deleted.

 

-     The covered and substantially enclosed outdoor terrace adjacent to the rumpus room on the lower ground floor plan contributes to floor space and must be included in the gross floor area calculations.

 

 

-     The plans do not show a floor plan of the subfloor area discernible from the rear. This area appears to be capable of accommodating habitable floor space and a floor plan of this area needs to be included in the revised submission.

 

 

 

 

 

This area has been deleted and replaced with semi-basement parking and parking for up to 6 cars.

 

 

 

The 45sqm patio area on the lower ground floor in enclosed on three side and roofed and has not been included in the GFA for the dwelling which results in the FSR being exceeded.

 

 

Provided.

Swimming Pool Fencing

The plans are to show the location of the swimming pool fence which is compliant with the swimming pool legislation.

 

The amended plans show a pool fence that complies with the legislation, however the balustrade to the patio area will need to be 1.2m high to comply. Additionally, the site boundary fences do not comply with the legislation.

 

This could be made a condition of consent should the application be approved.

Section plan/levels

Please provide a section plan of the rear yard showing the previous levels with the pavers that surrounded the pool and the current levels between the pool and side and rear boundaries.

This information was not provided.

BASIX Certificate

An amended BASIX Certificate is required to be submitted that reflects the design changes listed in this letter. All commitments indicated on the BASIX certificate must be included on the submitted plans.

An amended BASIX certificate was not provided. The BASIX commitments shown on the plans relate to the original design and certificate.

Shadow Diagrams

Amended shadow diagrams are to be submitted reflecting the design changes listed in this letter.

Provided.

Detailed Stormwater Concept Plan

The application has not been accompanied by a stormwater drainage plan in accordance with Council’s water management policy.

 

All roof water is to drain to the street. The hardstand areas in the rear yard may drain to an absorption trench in the rear yard.

 

In this regard a drainage plan will need to be prepared in accordance with Council’s criterion which can be found by the following link:

 

https://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Development/Building-and-Construction/Stormwater-management

An amended stormwater plan was submitted which required additional changes, which were requested on 8/3/21 and submitted on 26/4/21.

 

Council’s engineer has reviewed the amended plan and advised the design fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter.

Plan Details

The amended plans must:

 

-     Show all site boundaries on each plan and the proposed setbacks to each boundary.

-     Be at a scale of 1:100.

-     Include 3D perspectives.

-     A section plan through the proposed development (east to west) including the maximum height lines to demonstrate compliance of any proposed work with the LEP and DCP height limits.

-     Updated and correct Site Calculations on the site plan.

 

 

-     Not provided on all plans.

 

 

-     Provided.

-     Not provided.

-     Not provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-     Provided.

 

Compliance and Assessment

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

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

28.         State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH) applies to secondary dwellings within the Georges River Local Government Area in zones R2, R3 and R4.

 

29.         SEPP ARH applies to the State and the extent of any inconsistency between it and any Local Environment Plan (Cl. 8) and as such, the prescribed zones stipulated under Clause 22 overrides Clause 5.4 of the Kogarah LEP 2012 as outlined in Clause 8 of the SEPP ARH.

 

30.         An assessment is undertaken in accordance with Division 2 of Part 2 of SEPP ARH.

 

SEPP Provision Requirement

Proposal

Complies

19 Definition

 

Development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling includes the following:

 

a.   The erection of, or alterations or additions to, a secondary dwelling,

b.   Alterations or additions to a principal dwelling for the purposes of a secondary dwelling.

 

Note: The standard instrument defines secondary dwelling as follows:

 

secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

 

a.   is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

b.   is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and

c.   Is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

The existing garage of the principal dwelling is to be increased in size and converted to a secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed secondary dwelling will be constructed in conjunction with the existing dwelling house.

 

The proposed secondary dwelling is located on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling.

 

 

 

The proposed secondary dwelling is separate (detached) from the principal dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

20 Land to which Division applies

 

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones, but only if development for the purposes of a dwelling house is permissible on the land:

 

(a) Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

 

 

 

The subject site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

 

 

Yes

 

22 Development may be carried out with consent

 

1.   Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.

 

2.   A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies if there is on the land, or if the development would result in there being on the land, any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling.

 

3.   A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless:

 

a.   the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

b.   The total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60sqm or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

4.   A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on either of the following grounds:

 

a.   site area if:

 

i.    the secondary dwelling is located within, or is attached to, the principal dwelling, or

ii.   the site area is at least 450sqm,

 

b.   parking if no additional parking is to be provided on the site.

 

 

 

This division permits a secondary dwelling development on the subject allotment.

 

The development is limited to only one secondary dwelling. The development will not result in there being any dwellings other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR) according to the KLEP 2012 is 0.53:1. The proposed FSR is 0.596:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The total floor area is 53sqm, which is below the maximum permitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The secondary dwelling is detached from the principle dwelling.

 

 

 

The site area is 738sqm. 

 

 

No additional parking is proposed.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – a written 4.6 request to vary the standard has not been submitted.

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

24 No subdivision

 

A consent authority must not consent to a development application that would result in any subdivision of a lot on which development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

 

This application will not result in the subdivision of the lot.

 

 

Yes

Total floor area is not a defined term; in this regard the assessment has been undertaken using the definition of gross floor area under the KLEP 2012 in order to establish the development does not exceed the residential floor space ratio applicable to the site.

 

31.      Based on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provisions, all relevant provisions have been considered and it has been determined that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 22(3)(a) as the total floor area of the principal and secondary dwellings exceeds the maximum FSR permitted on the site and no 4.6 request has been provided. This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

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

 

33.      A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site. The proposed works do not include any change to the use of the land that would result in any concerns with respect to contamination. There is no indication of previous uses that would cause contamination. In this regard there is no indication that the land is contaminated.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

34.      The trigger for BASIX Certification is when the estimated cost of works for residential development (new dwelling(s)/alterations and additions) is equal to or above $50,000. BASIX Certification is also triggered when proposing a swimming pool with a volume of 40,000 litres.

 

The changes made to the original design triggered the need for an amended BASIX Certificate, which was not submitted with the amended plans. The minimum requirements of SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 are not met.

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS) 2017

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

 

36.      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). 

 

37.      The objectives of the SEPP are to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas and preserve the amenity of non-rural areas through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This policy is applicable pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the SEPP as the site is within both Georges River Council and the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

38.      Pursuant to Clause 8(1) of the SEPP, clearing does not require authority under the policy as it is a type of clearing that is authorised under Section 60O of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (specifically, that associated with a development consent issued under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

39.      No trees are proposed for removal.

 

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 — GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

40.      The main aims and objectives of this plan include but are not limited to the following:

 

·      To maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries and ensure that development is managed in a manner that is in keeping with the national, State, regional and local significance of the Catchment,

 

·      To protect and enhance the environmental quality of the Catchment for the benefit of all users through the management and use of the resources in the Catchment in an ecologically sustainable manner,

 

·      To ensure consistency with local environmental plans and also in the delivery of the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the assessment of development within the Catchment where there is potential to impact adversely on groundwater and on the water quality and river flows within the Georges River or its tributaries,

 

·      To establish a consistent and coordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment for land along the Georges River and its tributaries and to promote integrated catchment management policies and programs in the planning and management of the Catchment,

 

41.      The proposed stormwater drainage system has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and has been found to be unsatisfactory. The amended stormwater fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter and this forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

Draft Environmental SEPP

42.      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.

 

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

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

44.      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.

 

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

 

Draft Design and Place SEPP

46.      The Draft Design and Place SEPP will repeal and replace SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The explanation of intended effect of the draft SEPP was publicly exhibited in February/March 2021. Following submissions of the EIE the draft SEPP will be on public exhibition in late 2021.

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

47.      The Local Planning Panel considered the report on the outcomes of the Public Exhibition and Finalisation of Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 (DLEP2020) on 25 and 26 June 2020. In relation to this development site the zoning, height and floor space ratio are unchanged.

 

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

 

49.      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.”  

 

KOGARAH LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

50.      The proposal is subject to the Kogarah LEP 2012. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

 

Figure 5: Land Zoning Map as per KLEP 2012 (subject site outlined in red)

 

51.      The extent to which the proposed development complies with the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) is detailed and discussed in the table below.

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

Part 1 – Preliminary

1.2 – Aims of the Plan

In accordance with Clause 1.2 (2)

The development is not considered to be consistent with the aims of the plan.

No, refer to comments below

 

Discussion on Aims of the Plan

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

 

·      To guide the orderly and sustainable development of Kogarah,

·      To encourage a diversity of housing choice suited to meet the needs of the current and future residents of Kogarah,

·      To promote economic development and facilitate the continued growth of commercial, medical-related and industrial employment-generating opportunities,

·      To protect and enhance Kogarah’s natural environment, foreshores and waterways,

·      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,

·      To conserve Kogarah’s environmental heritage.

 

53.      The development is not considered to be consistent with the aims of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, as the proposal has not been designed to satisfy the criteria relating to the orderly and sustainable development given the insufficient drainage of the development and the height and density breaches. The proposal is not considered to be well suited to meet the needs of the current and future residents of the locality.

 

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1.4 - Definitions

Dwelling House means:

 

a building containing only one dwelling.

 

Secondary dwelling means:

 

a self-contained dwelling that—

(a)  is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b)  is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and

(c)  is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling.

The proposed development is consistent with the definitions.

Yes

Part 2 - Permitted or prohibited development

2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table

Meets objectives of R2- Low Density Residential Zone.

 

 

Development must be permissible with consent

The proposal fails to meet all objectives.

 

 

The proposal is permissible with development consent.

No, refer to comments below.

 

 

Yes

 

Discussion on zone objectives

54.      The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone as identified in KLEP 2012 are as listed below:

 

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

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

 

55.      The proposed development presents unreasonable visual bulk and scale compromising the amenity of the surrounding area and as such fails to meet the first objective of the zone.

 

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

Maximum 10.5m.

 

The existing roof slightly exceeds the 9m limit at the rear of the first floor and the original plans submitted with the DA proposed a flat roof.

 

The amended proposal includes a new skillion roof which further increases the height non-compliance.

 

A 4.6 variation request was not submitted with the application.

No.

 

The applicant has not provided a Cl.4.6 variation request.

 

This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Discussion on height

56.      Following a review of the plans submitted with the application, the applicant was requested to provided amended plans to ensure that no part of the proposed additions breached the maximum building height of 9m for the site.

 

57.      The amended plans demonstrate that part of the new roof encroach the 9m height limit. No variation request was submitted in support of the breach. This forms part of the reasons for refusal.

 

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

Despite clause 4.4 (2), the floor space ratio for residential accommodation on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Clause 4.4A applies.

Refer to Clause 4.4A

4.4A – Exceptions to floor space ratio for residential accommodation in Zone R2

2) Despite clause 4.4 (2), the floor space ratio for residential accommodation on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is not to exceed the maximum floor space ratio specified in the table to this subclause.

 

less than 800 square metres but not less than 650 square metres

 

[(lot area − 650) × 0.3 + 357.5] ÷ lot area:1

 

Site area: 738sqm

 

0.52:1 or 383sqm

The proposed development has a total FSR of 440sqm or 0.596:1.

 

45sqm exceedance or a 11.7% variation.

No.

The applicant has not provided a Cl.4.6 variation request.

 

This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Discussion on Floor Space Ratio

58.      The applicant was advised that the patio on the lower ground floor at the rear of the dwelling was to be included as gross floor area as it is roofed and enclosed on three sides with walls greater than 1.4m in height.

 

59.      The applicant has failed to include this area in the GFA calculations and as such the proposal exceeds the maximum FSR for the site by 57sqm. No variation request was submitted with the amended plans and this forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

In accordance with Clause 4.6 (1) through to and including (8)

The proposal varies the maximum height and FSR for the site however a 4.6 variation request was not submitted.

No

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.4 - Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses

(9) Secondary dwellings on land other than land in a rural zone If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this Plan on land other than land in a rural zone, the total floor area of the dwelling, excluding any area used for parking, must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater—

(a)  60 square metres,

(b)  13% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling.

The proposed secondary dwelling has a floor area of 53sqm.

Yes

Part 6 - Additional Local Provisions

6.1 – Acid sulfate soils

(2) Development consent is required for the carrying out of works described in the Table to this subclause on land shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being of the class specified for those works.

 

Class 5: Works within 100 metres of adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land.

Subject site is located in a Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils Area.

 

Although land is within 100m of adjacent class 2 area, the land is not below 5m AHD therefore an Acid Sulfate management Plan is not required.

Yes

6.2 Earthworks

(2) Development consent is required for earthworks unless—

(a) the earthworks are exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument, or

 

(b) the earthworks are ancillary to development that is permitted without consent under this Plan or to development for which development consent has been given.

The proposed earthworks are ancillary to the proposed development and are acceptable for this form of development.

Yes

6.3  Flood planning

(2) This clause applies to—

 

(a) land identified as “Flood planning area” on the Flood Planning Map, and

 

(b) other land at or below the flood planning level.

The proposed development is not located in a mapped flood prone area.

Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

60.      The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Interim Policy - Georges River Development Control Plan 2020 and the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. The following comments are made with respect to the proposal considering the objectives and controls contained within both DCPs.

 

Kogarah DCP 2013

C1- Low Density Housing

Control

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1.2 Building Scale and Height

1.2.1 Floor space Requirements

 

(5) Blank walls and flat facades should be avoided. Walls longer than 10m should be articulated by a minimum 300mm projection or indentation in the façade.

 

(6) The overall building should present a building mass that is in proportion with the allotment size, provides opportunities for modulation and articulation of the building and does not detract from the satisfaction of any other applicable design principle.

 

(7) Where proposed development includes a two (2) residential level element, then the second level should not extend beyond 60% of the depth of the allotment measured from the street boundary. Where side boundaries are of varying length, the second level is limited to a line across the block between the points on both boundaries.

The proposed development is sufficiently articulated albeit the bulk exceeds that envisaged in this zone.

 

 

 

 

The proposed building mass is not considered to be suitable for the allotment size as the proposal exceeds the floor space ratio and height development standard. A Clause 4.6 variation the development standards has not been submitted with the DA.

 

The existing dwelling and garage (above subfloor area) exceeds the 60% lot depth line of the site. No part of the proposal extends beyond the existing rear of the dwelling or garage.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.2 Building Heights

 

(1) The maximum building height must comply with the requirements specified in table below:

 

Dwelling Type

Single dwelling;

 

Maximum Height

7.2m to the underside of the upper ceiling;

7.8m to the top of the parapet;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.28m to ceiling

 

9.7m to ridge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

No

 

1.2.3 Rhythm of the Built Elements in the Streetscape

 

(1) The primary building façade should not exceed 40% of the overall width of the total frontage.

(2) The secondary building façade should be set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from the primary building façade.

 

(3) Where the dominant built form in the streetscape provides for a pitched hip or gable ended presentation to the street, the new buildings and/or additions should reflect that roof form.

The primary façade does not exceed 40% the width of the frontage.

 

The proposed secondary building façade is setback 1.5m from the primary.

 

 

 

The streetscape is characterised by a mix of pitched and parapet roofs. The proposed development incorporates a parapet design which is acceptable.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

1.2.4 Building Setbacks

 

 

 

1.2.4.2 Front Setbacks

 

(1) Where the setback of an adjacent building is greater than 5m, an appropriate setback may be achieved by ensuring development is set back:

 

(i) the same distance as one or the other of the adjoining buildings, provided the difference between the setbacks of the two adjoining buildings is less than or equal to 2.0m (Figure 9); or

 

1.2.4.3 Side & Rear Setbacks

 

(1) The side and rear boundary setbacks should comply with the table below.

 

Rear Setback

Buildings are to have a minimum rear setback of 15% of the average site length, or 6m, whichever is greater.

 

Side Setbacks

For buildings having a wall height of 3.5m or less, the minimum side boundary setback is 900mm.

 

For buildings having a wall height of greater than 3.5m, the minimum side boundary setback is 1200mm.

 

 

The proposal is setback a minimum 5.5m from the front boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15% equates to 6.3m to 6.7m.

Development is setback 10m

 

 

 

Northern side setback

Lower Ground: new work is 0.24m

Ground floor: 900mm to 1.2m

First floor: 1.2m to 1.6m

 

 

 

Southern side setback

Lower ground: no change

Ground floor: no change

First floor: 900mm to 1.34m (aligns with existing)

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

-

 

No

 

 

1.2.5 Fenestration and External Materials

(1) New buildings and alterations and additions should present a primary building façade and roofing that is constructed of materials, and within a colour range, that is complementary to the dominant character of buildings in the streetscape.

 

(2) Garage doors should not dominate the street front elevation (Figure 16).

 

(3) The roof should be similar to the angle of pitch, materials and colour of roofs in the streetscape (Figure 14).

 

(4) The colours of garages, window frames, and balustrading on main facades and elevations are to be integrated with the external design of the building.

 

(5) Glazing shall be limited to a maximum 35% of the total area of the overall street front façade. This includes both primary and secondary façade bays (Figure 15).

 

(6) Where garaging is in the front façade it should be limited to a maximum of two garage bays, with separate garage door openings of a maximum width of 3m.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the existing dwelling design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed development includes one garage door approximately 6m.

 

The immediate vicinity demonstrates both pitched and parapet roofs, the proposal is consistent with the streetscape.

 

The external facades of the proposed development are considered appropriate for the locality.

 

 

 

 

The proposed front façade does not exceed the maximum 35% glazing.

 

 

 

 

 

One 6m garage door proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

1.2.6 Street Edge

(1) New developments should provide front fencing that complements fencing within the streetscape.

 

(2) Fencing is to be consistent with the requirements of Section 4.2.

 

(3) Existing vegetation in the front building line setback or on the street verge that contributes to the character of the streetscape should be preserved.

 

(4) The driveway location should not result in the removal of any street trees or removal of substantial trees on the site.

The proposed development provides sufficient front fencing to complement the streetscape.

 

Fencing is consistent with the Section 4.2 requirements.

 

 

No tree removal proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing to remain.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

1.3 Open Space

1.3 Open Space

(1) 15% of the site area must be deep soil landscaped area.

 

(2) Private open space should be adjacent to and visible from the main living and/or dining rooms and be accessible from those areas.

 

(3) Development should take advantage of opportunities to provide north facing private open space to achieve comfortable year round use.

 

(4) Where soil and drainage conditions are suitable, unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas should be maximised and designed to facilitate on site infiltration of stormwater.

 

(5) Existing significant trees and vegetation must be incorporated into proposed landscape treatment.

20%

 

 

 

The proposed development includes a satisfactory area for private open space.

 

 

 

 

The proposed private open space is appropriately located.

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate deep soil areas are provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No trees are proposed for removal.

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

1.4 Vehicular access, parking and circulation

 

(1) Car parking is to be provided in accordance with the requirements in Section B4.

 

 (4) Crossings are to be positioned so that on-street parking and landscaping on the site are maximised, and removal or damage to existing street trees is avoided.

 

(5) Garaging should be setback behind the primary façade.

 

(6) The maximum driveway width between the street boundary and the primary building façade is 4m.

 

2 x garage spaces

2 x carport spaces

2 x ‘basement’ spaces

 

 

 

Existing to remain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The garage is setback behind the primary façade.

 

Existing to remain.

Yes – however refer to discussion

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion on car parking arrangement

61.      The plans submitted with the development application proposed a garage design to accommodate four (4) cars (two (2) x tandem spaces) elevated above natural ground with an enclosed ‘outdoor entertainment area’ beneath. The applicant was requested to deleted the entertainment area and provide parking at grade.

 

62.      The amended plans now propose a double carport in front of a double garage located above a semi-basement parking area for two cars which is accessed by hydraulic lifts.

 

63.      The clearance height of the semi-basement parking level is 1.6m, thus elevating the garage above natural ground level.

 

64.      This arrangement is not supported as it adds bulk to the dwelling, results in three levels when viewed from the neighbouring property and is excessive for a single residential dwelling (noting additional parking is not required for a secondary dwelling).

 

65.      The bulk and scale of the proposal forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Control

Standard

Proposed

Complies

1.5.1 Visual Privacy

(1) Windows from active rooms are to be offset between adjacent dwellings so as to avoid direct overlooking onto neighbouring windows.

 

 

(2) Where terraces and balconies are proposed and are elevated more than 1.5m above ground level (finished) and are located behind the street front façade, they are restricted to a maximum width of 2.5m and must be setback a minimum 3m from any adjoining property boundary.

 

 

 

(3) The area of balconies or terraces greater than 1.5m above ground level is limited to a cumulative total of 40m2 per dwelling.

 

(5) For active rooms or balconies on an upper level, the design should incorporate placement of room windows or screening devices to only allow oblique views to adjoining properties (Figures 18 and 19).

New active room windows are limited to the proposed secondary dwelling rear-facing windows, which are setback 10m from the rear boundary.

 

A first floor balcony is proposed adjacent to one of the proposed bedrooms. This balcony is not supported as it adds to the already large expanse of balconies on the rear elevation of the dwelling, fails to meet the width and setback controls and will have overlooking impacts on the private open space of the property to the south.

 

93sqm in total (including bedroom balcony not supported due to privacy impacts on neighbouring private open space).

 

 

Lower ground floor patio – a privacy screen was requested but not provided in the amended plans. Given its elevation above ground a privacy screen could be conditioned if the application were to be supported.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

1.6 Solar Access

 

(1) At least 50% of the primary private open space of the proposed development should have access to a minimum of four hours of sunlight between 9am–3pm on 21 June.

 

(3) Where the neighbouring properties are affected by overshadowing, at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on 21 June (Figure 21).

The proposed private open space will receive the minimum 4 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on 21 June.

 

 

 

 

The proposed development affects the immediate neighbour to the south, however this property receives a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm to at least 50% of the existing primary private open space on 21st June.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

1.7 Views and view sharing

 

(1) Development shall provide for the reasonable sharing of views. Note: Assessment of applications will refer to the Planning Principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council (2004) NSWLEC140

The proposed development is not expected to impact any adjoining properties or public space access to view corridors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

4.2 Fences and Walls

4.2.1 Front Fences

(1) In cases where an applicant can demonstrate the need for a front fence higher than 1.4m, the maximum height of the fence must not exceed 1.8m.

 

(2) Fences over 1.4m must be setback 1.2m from the street alignment, except where Council considers a lesser distance is warranted due to the siting of the existing residence, levels or width of the allotment or exceptional circumstances of the site.

Maximum 1.4m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA – Maximum 1.4m

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Interim Policy Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

66.      The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Interim Policy Georges River DCP 2020. 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.

 

Section

Interim Policy Control

Proposal

Complies

Building Setback (Front)

 

 

Minimum setback from the primary street boundary is:

 

a) 4.5m to the main building face

b) 5.5m to the front wall of garage, carport roof or onsite parking space

Or

a) Within 20% of the average setback of dwellings on adjoining lots

 

 

 

6m

 

5.5m

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

NA

Building Setback (Rear)

 

 

Buildings are to have a minimum rear setback of 15% of the average site length, or 6m, whichever is greater

 

Where the existing pattern of development displays an established rear setback, development should recognise and respond to site features and cross views of neighbouring properties

10m

 

 

 

 

Consistent

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

Building Setback (Side)

 

The minimum side setback outside the FSPA is 900mm (ground floor) and 1.2m (first floor)

 

The minimum side setback inside the FSPA is 900mm (ground floor) and 1.5m (first floor) with a minimum of 5.5m in front of any proposed new garage.

 

North: 900mm to 1.34m for first floor addition

 

South:

270mm to secondary dwelling;

900mm proposed carport

 

Proposed setback to secondary dwelling is not supported as it will have adverse visual impacts on the southern neighbour in terms of bulk and scale on the boundary.

No

 

 

 

No

Landscaped area

 

Where located outside the FSPA, a minimum of 20% of site area is landscaped open space

 

Where located inside the FSPA, a minimum of 25% of the site area is landscaped open space

 

The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m, designed in a useable configuration 

 

A minimum of 15m2 of the landscaped open space is provided between the front setback and the street boundary in the form of a front yard

 

20%

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

67sqm

Yes

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Private Open Space

 

An area of Principal Private Open Space is to be provided which:

 

a) has a minimum area of 30m2

b) has a minimum dimension of 5m, designed in a useable configuration

c) is located at ground level and behind the front wall of the dwelling

d) is directly accessible from a main living area

 

 

 

 

 

181sqm

 

20m x 8m

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Basement/

Land Modification

 

 

Basements are permitted where Council’s height controls are not exceeded, and it is demonstrated that there will be no adverse environmental impacts (e.g. affectation of watercourses and geological structure).

 

Basements for low grade sites (ie < 12.5% Grade front to rear):

 

a) Basements on land where the average grade is less than 12.5% are permitted only where they are not considered a storey (see definition below) and the overall development presents as 2 storeys to the street.

 

b) A basement is not considered a storey if it is:

 

situated partly below the finished ground and the underside of the ceiling is not more than 1m above the natural ground at the external wall for a maximum of 12m in length, with the exception of the façade in which the garage door is located. 

 

A semi-basement car parking area is proposed beneath the proposed garage and carport.

 

The site has a gradient of 14.3%.

 

The applicant was requested to provide parking at grade in the letter from Council of 3 December 2020. The amended plans did not change the location of the garage, rather amended the design from a four car garage to a double garage, attached double carport and basement level car parking accessed via hydraulic lifts.

 

This design will have adverse visual impacts for the southern neighbour in terms of bulk and scale

No

Solar Access

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

 

Note 1: Development applications for development two storeys and over are to be supported by shadow diagrams demonstrating compliance with this design solution.

 

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

Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to determine the overshadowing impacts of the additions to the dwelling house compared to the shadow cast by the existing dwelling.

 

However it appears that the private open space area of the southern neighbour will receive three hours solar access in the morning during midwinter.

 Yes

 

Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

67.      The Georges River Development control Plan was made by the Georges River Local Planning Panel on 24 March 2021.

 

68.      This does not come into effect until the Georges River Local Environmental Plan is gazetted.

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

69.      The proposed works will not directly impact the natural environment with the built form but will indirectly impact the environment through excavation works and drainage management.  

 

Built Environment

70.      The built form of the proposed development is of a bulk and scale that is inconsistent with contemporary development in the locality. The development presents unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the neighbouring properties along southern (side) and eastern (rear) site boundaries.

 

71.      The proposal will result in a floor area of 440sqm, approximately 45sqm above the permissible floor space, resulting in an FSR of 0.596:1 and a non-compliance of 11.3%.  A Clause 4.6 variation was not submitted in support of the non-compliance.

 

72.      Parts of the proposed additions to the dwelling exceed the maximum 9m height limit for the site, further adding to the unacceptable bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from the rear. A Clause 4.6 variation was not submitted in support of the non-compliance.

 

73.      During the assessment of the application the proposed stormwater drainage system was found to be unsatisfactory and unable to be supported by Council’s Development Engineer. The applicant was advised the submitted plan was not in accordance with Council’s water management policy and was given clear direction as to how the site was to be drained (i.e. all roof water to drain to the street and the hardstand areas in the rear yard may drain to an absorption trench in the rear yard).

 

74.      Council’s engineer has reviewed the amended plan and advised the design fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter.

 

Social Impact

75.      The assessment demonstrates that the proposal in its current form will 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 unreasonable and the application is not supported.

 

Economic Impact

76.      The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable material economic impact.

 

Suitability of the Site

77.      The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. Whilst the proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone, it is considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties in its current form. The proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site and ultimately the site is unsuitable for the development.

 

SUBMISSIONS, REFERRALS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

78.      The application (original and amended) was advertised and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Three submissions were received during the neighbour notification period in Round One and two in Round Two. The issues raised in the submissions are as follows.

 

Issue

Comment

Existing dual occupancy on the site

Should this application be approved, a condition of consent will be imposed for the surrender of the current dual occupancy consent.

Breach of Ceiling and Parapet Heights

Parts of the existing dwelling do not comply with these controls.

 

The new work as part of this proposal does not comply with these controls and this forms one of the reasons for refusal recommended in this report.

60% Site Depth for 2nd Storey

The existing dwelling and garage exceed the 60% lot depth line for the site. No new work is proposed beyond the existing dwelling/garage.

Side Setbacks Non-compliant

Parts of the proposed new work do not comply with the required side setbacks. This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

Excessive bulk and scale driven by breach of heights and insufficient setbacks

For a number of reasons, including height, bulk, scale and the absence of required written 4.6 requests to vary the standards, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

Loss of Aural and Visual Privacy driven by insufficient setbacks and elevated decks

The cumulative impact of the additional balconies on the visual privacy of neighbours forms one of the reasons for refusal.

Insufficient Deep Soil Landscaping – No Landscaping Proposed

The proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area for the site.

Overshadowing

The extent of overshadowing on the neighbouring property is compliant with the DCP control. The proposed additions do not result in the private open space and living areas of adjacent dwellings receiving less than 3 hours sunlight during mid winter.

Stormwater Disposal

Council’s engineer has reviewed the amended stormwater plan and advised the design fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter. This forms one of the reasons for refusal of the application.

Out of character with the streetscape

The presentation to the street of the proposal is considered a suitable response to the streetscape and has not been raised as a concern in the assessment of the application.

Privacy impacts from secondary dwelling

The balcony at the rear of the proposed secondary dwelling was removed in the amended plans and the setback of the rear wall/windows of the secondary dwelling is compliant with the required rear setback pursuant to the DCP.

Impact on view from southern neighbour when reversing up their driveway to the street

The proposed carport is setback the required 5.5m from the front boundary. Council’s engineer has not raised sight lines from the southern adjoining property driveway as an issue of concern.

Unauthorised works

The unauthorised works are the subject of a building certificate application and are also included in the proposed plans forming part of this DA.

 

Should this DA be refused, the outcome of the unauthorised works will be determined by the building certificate application.

 

Should this DA be approved, approval for the unauthorised works is granted under the consent.

Retaining wall on rear boundary

 

 

 

Raised levels of rear yard and boundary fencing

 

 

Illegal tree removal

Council’s Compliance Unit has issued a stop work order in relation to the retaining wall and backfill in the rear yard, concreting of the area surrounding the pool and the removal of landscaped areas in the rear yard.

 

This DA does not propose a retaining wall along the rear boundary and fails to provide details on the ground level surrounding the pool.

 

The property owners will need to respond to the stop work order separately as the issues raised by Council’s Compliance Unit are not addressed in this application.

Non-compliance with FSR

The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR for the site and this forms one of the reasons for refusal recommended in this report.

 

Council Referrals  

Development Engineer

79.      Council’s engineer has reviewed the amended plan and advised the design fails to demonstrate adequate drainage of the development to the street gutter. This forms on of the reasons for refusal of the application.

 

External Referrals

Ausgrid

80.      The application was referred to Ausgrid as per Clause 45(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No objection was raised by Ausgrid to the proposal.

 

Contributions

81.      The development is subject to Section 7.12 (former Section 94A Contribution) contribution as the proposed cost of works exceed $100,000.00. In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017, Section 7.12 – Fixed Development Consent Levies are applicable to dwelling house developments. A condition of consent requiring payment of the contribution will be imposed should the application be supported.

 

CONCLUSION

82.      Development consent is sought for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and conversion of the garage into a secondary dwelling.

 

83.      The application fails to demonstrate compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

84.      The proposal fails to provide a Clause 4.6 submission to justify the necessity for the variation of the Kogarah LEP 2012 requirement for Floor Space Ratio or Height of Building standards.

 

85.      The proposal also fails to satisfy the R2 Low Density zone objectives and a number of DCP controls. The proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site or its locality and is likely to set an undesirable precedent.

 

86.      It is considered that the proposed development is not of a scale and design that is suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography, vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

87.         Statement of Reasons

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

·      The proposal fails to justify departures from the height and FSR standards.

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

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

·      In consideration of the aforementioned reasons, the proposed development is not a suitable and planned use of the site and its approval is not in the public interest.

 

Determination

88.      THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) Georges River Local Planning Panel refuses DA2020/0362 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house, conversion of an existing garage into a secondary dwelling and a new front fence at Lot 2, DP 21299 and known as 47 Kyle Parade, Kyle Bay, for the following reasons:

 

1........... Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the application fails to satisfy Clause 22(3)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as the total floor area of the principal and secondary dwellings exceeds the maximum FSR permitted on the site. No written 4.6 requests to vary the standards have been submitted.

 

2........... Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the application does not include a BASIX Certificate reflecting the current proposal and therefore fails to satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004.

 

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

 

a.      Clause 1.2 – Aims of the Plan;

b.      Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives (R2 Low Density Residential);

c.       Clause 4.3 – Exceptions to height of building for residential accommodation in Zone R2, having regard to the extent of variation sought;

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

e.      Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards – no request to vary the height of building or floor space standards were submitted.

 

4........... Pursuant to Section 4.15 (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013:

 

a...... Control 1.2.1 Floor Space Requirements (6);

b...... Control 1.2.2 Building Heights;

c....... Control 1.2.4 Building Setbacks; and

d...... Control 1.5.1 Visual Privacy.

 

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

 

a........ Built Environment: An adverse impact would result from the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises relating to building bulk, scale and form, and overlooking and impacts upon adjoining neighbours. In addition, the proposed stormwater system fails to adequately drain the development to the street gutter.

b........ Social Impacts: An adverse impact would result from the proposed development on the amenity of the locality and adjoining neighbours and general expectations for a dwelling house in a low density residential area.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site Plan and Elevations - 47 Kyle Pde Kyle Bay

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 June 2021

LPP021-21              47 Kyle Parade Kyle Bay

[Appendix 1]           Site Plan and Elevations - 47 Kyle Pde Kyle Bay

 

 

Page 1

 





Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 June 2021

Page 1

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 June 2021

 

LPP Report No

LPP022-21

Development Application No

DA2021/0003

Site Address & Ward Locality

51 Laycock Road Penshurst

Blakehurst Ward

Proposed Development

Conversion of an existing bedroom to a robe, ensuite and bathroom. These works involve internal demolition works to a heritage item which lists the dwelling and gardens.

Owners

Currently Tang So Property Holdings Pty Ltd

Time of lodgement - Kerrie Kemp and John Sivewright

Applicant

Kerrie Kemp and Patrick Tang

Planner/Architect

Innovate Architects

Date Of Lodgement

13/01/2021

Submissions

Nil

Cost of Works

$42,300.00

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 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; Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012; Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 

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

Architectural plans, Heritage Referral, Heritage Impact Statement, Statement of Environmental Effects. 

 

 

 

Report prepared by

Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

 

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

 

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, the conditions can be reviewed when the report is published.

 

Site Plan

Figure 1 - The subject allotment is outlined in blue.

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.         The application seeks approval to convert an existing bedroom to a robe, ensuite and bathroom. These works involve internal demolition works to a heritage item which lists the dwelling and gardens at 51 Laycock Road, Penshurst.

 

Figure 2 – Site plan of subject site

 

Site and Locality

2.         The subject site is located on the south western side of Laycock Road between Railway Parade to the north west and Hillcrest Avenue to the south east. The allotment is predominantly regular in shape with a frontage of 30.41m, a 52.935m south eastern side boundary, a 52.93m north western side boundary and a 29.11m rear boundary with a total site area of approximately 1,574sqm.

 

3.         The subject site contains a two storey dwelling house listed as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). The heritage item is known as “House and Garden, Kintail” and identified as Item Number 140.

 

4.         The allotment is located within an established residential area of Penshurst (under the former Kogarah Local Government Area) and is surrounded by both single and two storey dwellings. The proposal is classified as a ‘contributory item’ in of the heritage conservation area in the Penshurst Heritage Conservation Area. In addition, the allotment is also surrounded by the following heritage items:

 

·      Laycock Road street trees - (item No. 138) located along Laycock Road;

·      Stables, Kintail - (item No. 141) located at 57 Laycock Road;

·      Penshurst Reservoirs and pumping station - (item No. 139) located to the North of the subject site.  Please refer to figure 3 below.

·      House – (item No. 142) located at 72 Pacific Avenue.

 

Figure 3 - Council’s Heritage Map identifying the Local Heritage Items.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

5.         The subject site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). The proposed changes result in the conversion of a bedroom to a bathroom, ensuite and robe is consistent with the permissible use being a ‘dwelling house’ as per the KLEP 2012.

 

Submissions

6.         The proposal was placed on public notification/exhibition from 3 February 2021 to 3 March 2021. During the notification/exhibition period no submissions were received.

 

Conclusion

7.         The proposed development complies with the planning controls and objectives of KLEP 2012 and the proposal does not seek any variations to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan (KDCP 2013).

 

8.         Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the application and has raised no concerns with the proposal subject to conditions.

 

9.         Following a detailed assessment of the application, this proposal is recommended for approval subject to the conditions referenced at the end of this report.

 

Report in Full

Proposal

10.      Council is in receipt of a development application (DA2021/0003) seeking consent for alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling house. The proposal is seeking consent for the following works:

 

-      Change of use of a bedroom on the first floor of the dwelling to an ensuite, robe and bathroom,

-      The addition of a new door through to the bedroom from the new ensuite,

-      Demolition of a small part of the wall for mechanical ventilation (rear of dwelling),

-      Battening and lining of western wall to provide a cavity for services,

-      Addition of waste pipes between the floor joists,

-      Addition of plasterboard partition walls,

-      Removal of some skirting boards,

-      Tiling floor and walls, and new paintwork on the walls elsewhere,

-      Addition of a false ceiling,

-      Retention of the existing fireplace and hearth,

-      Retention of existing window and associated joinery.  

 

11.      No other parts of the house or the garden are proposed to be altered as a part of the application.

 

The Site and Locality

12.      The subject site is legally identified as Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 16253, which is commonly known as 51 Laycock Road, Penshurst. The allotment is regular in shape and has a site area of 1,574sqm. The slope of the allotment has a natural fall of 1.3m from the north eastern frontage to the south west being the rear.

 

13.      The site currently accommodates a two storey heritage listed dwelling house. The heritage listed dwelling house is identified under Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the KLEP (2012) as “House and Garden, Kintail” and identified as Item Number 140. The subject site is also classified as a ‘contributory item’ within the ‘Penshurst Heritage Conservation Area’.

 

14.      The allotment is surrounded by residential uses containing a mix of one (1) and two (2) storey dwelling houses and is located approximately 280m from a railway corridor and Penshurst Station.

 

15.      The allotment is also surrounded by the following Heritage Items:

-      ‘Laycock Road street trees’ (item No. 138) located along Laycock Road;

-      ‘Stables, Kintail’ (item No. 141) located at 57 Laycock Road;

-      ‘Penshurst Reservoirs and pumping station’ (item No. 139) located to the North-west of the subject site as identified in figure 3.

-      ‘House’ – (item No. 142) located at 72 Pacific Avenue.

 

Background

16.      On 2 August 2016 Council issued a tree removal permit in accordance with Council’s Tree Management Strategy and Clause 5.9 of Kogarah LEP 2012 (now repealed) which allowed the owners to remove several trees on site which were undesirable species and poorly located.

 

17.      A stop work order was issued on 6 July 2018, as works had commencement without development approval. As such a Development Application, DA2019/0020 was lodged and approved on 18 April 2019 via the Georges River Local Planning Panel to complete the works. A Building Information Certificate application (149D2019/0013) was issued by Council on the 9 May 2019 to address the work already been carried out.

 

Planning Assessment

18.    The site has been inspected and the proposed development has been assessed under the relevant section 4.15 (1) “Evaluation” of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

State Environmental Planning Policies

 

Greater Sydney Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP)

19.      There are no changes to the existing method of stormwater disposal as the works are internal.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

20.      Council records indicate that the subject site has been historically used for residential purposes and is unlikely to be contaminated. The proposed works do not involve any foundation works. The site adjoins residential uses therefore contamination from adjoining uses is also unlikely.

 

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

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

22.      In this instance the Vegetation SEPP does not apply to the subject development as there is no change to vegetation.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

23.      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;

                                                                                                                                                 

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

 

Local Environmental Plan

25.      The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP, 2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Table 1: Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 Compliance Table

Applicable LEP Clause

Standards

Proposal

Complies

4.3 – Height of Buildings

9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The height of the dwelling will not be altered as a result of this proposal.

N/A

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

Despite clause 4.4 (2), the floor space ratio for residential accommodation on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Clause 4.4A applies.

Refer to Clause 4.4A

4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratio for residential accommodation in Zone R2

2) Despite clause 4.4 (2), the floor space ratio for residential accommodation on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is not to exceed the maximum floor space ratio specified in the table to this subclause.

 

Site area

·   Maximum floor space ratio less than 650 square metres 0.55:1

 

·   less than 800 square metres but not less than 650 square metres [(lot area − 650) × 0.3 + 357.5] ÷ lot area:1

 

·   less than 1,000 square metres but not less than 800 square metres [(lot area − 800) × 0.2 + 402.5] ÷ lot area:1

 

·   less than 1,500 square metres but not less than 1,000 square metres [(lot area − 1,000) × 0.15 + 442.5] ÷ lot area:1

 

·   not less than 1,500 square metres [(lot area − 1,500) × 0.1 + 517.5] ÷ lot area:1

The proposed development will occupy existing floor space within the dwelling and there will be no change to the gross floor area of the proposal.

N/A

Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

(2) Requirement for consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

 

(a)  demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail,

 fabric, finish or appearance):

 

(i)  a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

 

(b)  altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

 

(c)  disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

 

(d)  Disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

 

(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

 

(5) Heritage assessment The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

 

(a)  on land on which a heritage item is located, or

 

(b)  on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

 

(c)  on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

 

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

 

(6) Heritage conservation management plans

The consent authority may require, after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent under this clause.

The proposed development is seeking approval for minor demolition works (internal) and construction on the first floor of the dwelling.

The changes to the heritage item have been referred to Councils Heritage Advisor; the application is supported subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An assessment has concluded the proposed development to have a negligible impact on the heritage item “Kintail”. The proposed development is seeking to convert a bedroom to provide a bathroom, ensuite and robe will not have an unreasonable impact on the street elevation or heritage impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared by GBA Heritage that concluded the proposal will have an “acceptable heritage impact”. The proponents have submitted a Heritage Impact Statement which addresses the likely impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the site.

 

This has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor and is considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The application has been reviewed by Councils Heritage Advisor and has not required the applicant to submit a heritage conservation management plan

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earthworks (Clause 6.2)

(2)  Development consent is required for earthworks unless:

(a)  the earthworks are exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument, or

 

(b)  the earthworks are ancillary to development that is permitted without consent under this Plan or to development for which development consent has been given.

No earthworks are proposed as apart of this application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Development Control Plans

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

26.      The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013). The following comments in the table below are made with respect to the proposal satisfying the key objectives and controls contained within the KDCP 2013.

 

Table 2: KDCP 2013 Part B1 – Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation areas

Applicable DCP Clause

Standards

Proposal

Complies

General Controls (Clause 1.1)

(1) The relevant requirements of Clause 5.10 of KLEP 2012 are to be addressed for any development relating to a heritage item.

 

(2) Where a heritage management document and/or heritage conservation management plan is required to be submitted to Council, this is to be prepared by an appropriately qualified professional.

Refer to Table 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Heritage Impact Statement provided has been prepared by GBA Heritage.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Heritage Conservation Areas (Clause 2)

 

 

(1) Any development in the Heritage Conservation Areas is

to address and respond to the requirements of the relevant Heritage Conservation Area Guidelines contained in Appendix 1.

 

(2) New development must demonstrate how it respects the heritage values of the Heritage Conservation Area (as

detailed in the Heritage Conservation Area guidelines).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) Council may require the submission of a heritage management document that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development

would affect the heritage significance of the Heritage Conservation Area [Clause 10(5) of KLEP 2012].

Character (Clause 8.1 of Appendix 1)

The proposed alterations will not detract from the character of the original building.

 

 

 

The alterations to the floor plan will have a minimal impact on the heritage value of the conservation area as a majority of the work is internal to the dwelling. There will be a false ceiling so that there is minimal damage to the pressed tin roof with the fireplace and window retained.

 

The proponents have provided a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GBA Heritage which details how the development will have a minimal impact on the heritage significance of the item.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 










 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KDCP 2013 Part C – Low Density Residential

27.      There are no additional clauses that apply to this development as the proposal is largely internal to the dwelling and will not result in any additional openings.

 

Heritage Significance

28.      The existing dwelling house is identified as a “heritage item” of local significance in Part 1 of Schedule 5 in KLEP 2012. In addition, other heritage items such as the “Laycock Road street trees” located along Laycock Road, “Stables, Kintail” (item No. 141) located at 57 Laycock Road and ‘Penshurst Reservoirs and pumping station’ (item No. 139) located to the North of the subject site.

 

29.      The proposal involves:

·    Change of use of a bedroom on the first floor of the dwelling to an ensuite, robe and bathroom,

·    The addition of a new door through to the bedroom from the new ensuite,

·    Demolition of a small part of the wall for mechanical ventilation (rear of dwelling),

·    Battening and lining of western wall to provide a cavity for services,

·    Addition of waste pipes between the floor joists,

·    Addition of plasterboard partition walls,

·    Removal of some skirting boards,

·    Tiling floor and walls, and new paintwork on the walls elsewhere,

·    Addition of a false ceiling,

·    Retention of the existing fireplace and hearth,

·    Retention of existing features including pressed tin roof and fireplace.

 

30.      The applicants have submitted the following information addressing the significance and impact of the heritage item below, the statement indicates that:

 

Kintail is historically significant as it represents grand substantial residential development on the top of the hill overlooking the bay. The building acts as a landmark at the apex of Laycock Road. The Victorian filligree mansion is rare within the locality and in the regional. This mansion has been fully restored including the grounds and outbuildings. This is a large, well preserved and well restored Victorian mansion with excellent details, on a dominant site with panoramic views. It is well complemented by the drive, gates and street trees.

 

31.      Officer Comment: The application has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has supported the application subject to conditions. Councils heritage advisor stated that:

 

the overall quantum and form of the heritage item will be maintained, similarly, the landscaped garden setting will be retained in its current form” and “the proposed alterations and additions have on the whole, been designed to minimise the extent of material affectation

 

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

32.      The proposal is not seeking the removal of any trees or changes to the landscaping on site. Therefore the proposal is not considered to affect the natural environment.

 

Built Environment

33.      The proposal will not have any major impacts on the built environment. The proposed works will retain some of the existing heritage features of the room and a majority of the house will not be altered.

 

34.      In particular, as detailed throughout this report, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the impacts on the Heritage Item as a whole being the dwelling and gardens and has been supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor subject to conditions.

 

Social and Economic Impact

35.      The proposed development will not result in any adverse social and/or economic impacts on the locality. The proposal will not affect the visual amenity of the site thus, having a minimal social or economic impact for residents in the heritage conservation area.

 

Suitability of the site

36.      It is considered that the proposed development being internal to the dwelling is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions of consent.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

37.      The proposal was publicly notified/exhibited in the Leader from 3 February 2021 to 3 March 2021 during which time no submissions were received.

 

Council Referrals

 

Heritage Advisor

38.      The Applicants have submitted a Heritage Impact Statement alongside a Statement of Environmental Effects clarifying the works proposed. These documents together with the submitted architectural plans were reviewed by Council’s Heritage Consultant and the works are considered to be appropriate and the application is considered satisfactory and supportable subject to conditions.

 

Development Contributions

39.      Under the provisions of the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017 the development is not subject to a Section 7.12 (former Section 94A Contribution) contribution as the proposed costs of works registered with Council do not exceed $100,000.00. No contributions have been levied.

 

CONCLUSION

40.      This application has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Following a detailed assessment it is considered that on planning grounds DA2021/0003 is worthy of approval subject to conditions.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

41.      Statement of Reasons

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

·      The proposed development satisfies the Heritage criteria of the site and is considered not to undermine the heritage significance of the dwelling.

·      The proposed development is considered to be appropriate for the site and the character of the locality. Subject to the implementation of the recommended conditions, the development will have no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the natural or built environment.

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

 

Determination

42.      Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), the Georges River Local Planning Panel grant development consent to Development Application No. DA2021/0003 for alterations and additions to a local heritage listed dwelling at Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 16253, at 51 Laycock Road, Penshurst, subject to the conditions below:

 

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

Existing and Proposed Floor Plans

01

April 2021

B

Innovate Architects

Interior Section and Bathroom Details

02

December 2020

A

Innovate Architects

Site and Roof Plan

03

December 2020

A

Innovate Architects

Bathroom Water and Power Reticulation

04

May 2021

B

Innovate Architects

Bathroom Water and Power

05

May 2021

A

Innovate Architects

 

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)     Placing or storing materials or equipment;

 

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

 

(c)     Erecting a structure or carrying out work

 

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

 

(e)     Pumping concrete from a public road;

 

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

 

(g)     Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

 

(h)     Establishing a “works zone”;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

 

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

 

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

 

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

 

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

 

Please contact Council prior to the payment of Section 7.11 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted by Council.

 

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

 

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

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

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

Builders Damage Deposit

$1,900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$155.00

 

General Fees

 

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

 

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

 

a)      Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $1,900.00

 

b)      Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $155.00

 

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

 

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

 

6.         Site Management Plan - A Site Management Plan detailing all weather access control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

7.         Consistent with Approval – Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate a suitably qualified Heritage Consultant shall certify that the works are consistent with the approved plans and documents.  

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.         Heritage - Building works to comply with BCA - Heritage Buildings - Any building works required to ensure compliance with the BCA or new building standards not specified in the submitted/approved plan must not damage existing fabric and building features.

 

If such upgrading works will potentially impact on existing fabric and features, details of the works must be submitted and approved by Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Photographic Archival Recording

Prior to the commencement of any works, including the dismantling of fabric or demolition, a simplified Photographic Archival Recording shall be undertaken of the interior and exterior of the dwelling (limited to the areas affected by the approved works) and submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

 

The Photographic Archival Recording shall be prepared and produced in a digital format and shall contain:

a)   A brief report or introduction which explains the purposes of the Photographic Archival Recording and gives a brief description of the subject site, as well as details of the sequence in which images were taken;

b)   A plan of the building and site marked up to indicate where the photographs were taken and the direction of the photograph;

c)    A complete set of digital image files saved as JPEG or TIFF files with associated metadata, and cross-referenced to catalogue sheets.

 

The Photographic Archival Recording shall be submitted to Council on a suitable portable electronic storage device (such as USB), or uploaded to a suitable file-sharing platform that is freely accessible. The digital version of the Photographic Archival Recording shall be arranged as a single parent folder containing the report, reference plans saved as individual PDF documents. All electronic image files shall be arranged by their file type and saved as individual files, grouped in separate sub-folders, as set out below:

 

-      Photographic Archival Recording - [Property Address]

o Report and Reference Plans - [Property Address]

o Electronic Image Files - JPEG - [Property Address]

 

10.       Structural details - Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns and other structural members. The details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to construction of the specified works.

 

A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA.

 

11.       Waste Management Plan - A Waste Management Plan incorporating all requirements in respect of the provision of waste storage facilities, removal of all materials from the site that are the result of site clearing, extraction, and, or demolition works and the designated Waste Management Facility shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)      Set out before commencing excavation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

During Construction

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

20.       Heritage - Conservation works to be overseen by Heritage Consultant - A Heritage Consultant experienced in conserving buildings of significance is to be commissioned to work with the consultant team throughout the design development, contract documentation and construction stages of the project. The Heritage Consultant is to be involved in the resolution of all matters where existing significant fabric and spaces are to be subject to preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptive reuse, recording and demolition. The Heritage Consultant is to be provided with full access to the site and authorised by the applicant to respond directly to Council where information or clarification is required regarding the resolution of heritage issues throughout the project.

 

Evidence and details of the above commission on the above terms are to be provided to Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to commencement of work on site. The heritage consultant must sign off the completed project and submit a final report to Council’s Heritage Advisor specifying how the heritage conditions are satisfied prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate or the commencement of the use, whichever is earlier.

 

General Heritage

(a) The works are to be carried out in a manner that minimises demolition, alterations and new penetrations/fixings to the significant fabric of the existing heritage item.

(b) The fabric and features to be retained by the proposal must be properly protected during the process of demolition and construction.

(c) All conservation and adaptation works are to be in accordance with the Articles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (2013).

(d) New services are to be surface mounted rather than chased-in to existing walls to minimise impact on significant heritage fabric.

(e) Appropriately qualified tradespersons (as appropriate) are to be commissioned who are skilled in traditional building and engineering trades to carry out the proposed scope of works.

(f)   Penetrations to walls for services, including anchoring and fixing points, shall be limited to the mortar joints only.

 

21.       Uncovering of concealed architectural features or detailing - Should any concealed architectural features or detailing, not previously noted in the DA documentation, be discovered during demolition or building works, all works are to immediately cease immediately and the architectural features or detailing to be photographically recorded and Council advised immediately.

 

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

 

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

 

Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

 

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

 

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

Prescribed Conditions

 

31.       Clause 97A - BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

 

32.       Clause 98 - Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.  In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

 

33.       Clause 98A - Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.  The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the PCA and the Principal Contractor.

 

34.       Clause 98B - Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council.  The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

35.       Clause 98E - Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

 

36.       Clause 98E - Site Excavation - Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans.  All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.

 

All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

 

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

 

If the soil conditions require it, retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil shall be provided and adequate provision shall be made for drainage.

 

37.       Clause 98E - Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

 

Advice

 

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

 

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

 

39.       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.

 

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

 

41.       Long Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986. More information about the scheme and the levy amount you are required to pay to satisfy a condition of your consent can be found at http://www.longservice.nsw.gov.au.

 

The required Long Service Levy payment can be direct to the Long Service Corporation via their web site https://online.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy.  Payments can only be processed on-line for the full levy owing and where the value of work is between $25,000 and $6,000,000. Payments will be accepted for amounts up to $21,000, using either MasterCard or Visa.

 

42.       Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

 

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

 

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year.  Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

 

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

 

43.       Council as PCA - Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA.  However, if an alternative fire solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation.  In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

 

44.       Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

 

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Site and Roof Plan - 51 Laycock Rd Penshurst

 


Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 3 June 2021

LPP022-21              51 Laycock Road Penshurst

[Appendix 1]           Site and Roof Plan - 51 Laycock Rd Penshurst

 

 

Page 1

 


Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 3 June 2021

Page 1

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 03 June 2021

 

LPP Report No

LPP023-21

Development Application No

DA2019/0337

Site Address & Ward Locality

2-24 Princes Highway Kogarah

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposed Development

Demolition of existing structures and the construction of a six (6) storey mixed use development comprising of serviced apartments (56 dual key apartments), conference centre, associated amenities, three ground floor retail tenancies, basement car parking for 130 vehicles, landscaping and site works

Owners

Landmark Element Pty Ltd

Applicant

Landmark Element Pty Ltd

Planner/Architect

 SWA Group Architects and Rod Logan Planning

Date Of Lodgement

7/08/2019

Submissions

Nil

Cost of Works

$18,507,500.00

Local Planning Panel Criteria

The subject site is an important gateway location.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy – (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2007, Draft Environement State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation State Environmental Planning Policy,

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land,

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan and Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

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

Amended Architectural Plans,

Clause 4.6 Statement

Traffic Assessment Report

Detailed Site Investigation and Remediation Action Plan

Report prepared by

Senior Development Assessment Planner

 

 

Recommendation

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

 

Yes 

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

 

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Not Applicable

Yes – Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio control

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?

 

Yes – the applicant has reviewed the conditions

 

 

Site Plan

Site Plan: Subject site is outlined in red (hatched).

 

Executive Summary

Proposal

1.      The development application (DA2019/0337) was lodged with Council on 7 August 2019 with amended plans received on 25 September 2020. The original proposal sought development consent for the demolition of all structures on site and the construction of a part three (3) storey, part seven (7) storey mixed use development comprising of two (2) commercial/retail tenancies on the ground floor, conference facilities, main lobby, central courtyard including fifty six (56) ‘dual key’, one (1) and two (2) bedroom serviced apartments comprising of a total of one hundred and twelve (112) apartments, basement car parking for one hundred and thirty (130) vehicles, landscaping and associated site preparation works at 8-10 Princes Highway (also known as 2-24 Princes Highway) Kogarah.

 

2.      Given the nature of the primary land use that is proposed (serviced apartments) it does not fall within the requirements of SEPP 65 and can be determined under delegation as the statutory non-compliance with the floor space ratio is less than a 10% variation to the control. No public submissions have been received by Council in respect to the proposed development which was notified on two (2) occasions.

 

3.      Given the site’s strategic and gateway location, scale of development proposed it was determined that Georges River Local Planning Panel determine the application. This was a direction from management.

 

4.      A photomontage of the originally proposed building as viewed from Princes Highway is provided at Figure 1 below.

 

Figure 1: 3D Photomontage of the originally proposed design when viewed from the Princes Highway (courtesy: SWA Group, 2019)

 

Key Issues

 

Traffic, access and parking

5.      In accordance with Clause 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) the application was referred to Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW), the former Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) since the development fronts the Princes Highway, an arterial roadway concurrence from TfNSW is required. On 20 October 2020, TfNSW provided formal comments and did not issue concurrence subject to the following issues being addressed in more detail;

·    Whilst TfNSW supports access via Gray Lane, it is concerned about the issue of safety and network efficiency along this laneway. The Authority would like to ensure two-way traffic movement can be accommodated.

·    The proposal will generate additional pedestrian movements and pedestrian safety is of concern. An assessment of pedestrian movements needs to be undertaken.

·    The proponent is required to extend the median strip along Rocky Point Road which will restrict any right turns into the laneway.

 

6.      The Applicant provided the additional information on 27 January 2021 and this information was referred back to TfNSW for comment. TfNSW formally responded on 11 March 2021 and provided concurrence subject to the imposition of a series of specific conditions if approval is granted. TfNSW would like the Applicant (at their cost) to upgrade the existing signalised traffic crossing at the intersection of Princes Highway and Rocky Point Road to become a signalised pedestrian crossing. This will improve pedestrian safety. Although these conditions are referred to as “deferred” they are to be satisfied prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate. TfNSW also included a series of standard conditions.

 

7.      In addition to concerns raised by TfNSW, Council’s Traffic Engineers also raised a series of concerns regarding access arrangements and the design of the basement car park. The following issues were highlighted in their referral response;

·    In regards to the Loading Bay and requirements pursuant to AS2890.2:2018 and under that new update the standard requires a 4.5m minimum vertical clearance for Medium Rigid Vehicles, not 3.5m as stipulated in the Traffic report.

·    The location of the development’s vehicular access and loading and unloading facilities on Gray Lane, will most likely result in the loss of all the parking along Gray Lane.  The Traffic Impact study did not address this issue or how will the development compensate for the loss of public parking.  

·    Swept path diagrams are required to ensure that manoeuvrability within the development is compliant with the Australian Standards.

 

8.      The Applicant provided updated information in response to Council’s concerns regarding swept path diagrams, loading bay heights and parking along Gray lane at the rear. It was confirmed by Council’s Traffic Engineers upon a more detailed examination that there are supposed to be “no parking” signs located along Gray Lane to allow for two-way traffic movements. Unfortunately, some of these signs have been removed and currently vehicles parking along the laneway are doing so illegally. Council will need to reinstate these signs so that there is no parking along the laneway and two-way access can be maintained. The additional information lodged has now satisfied Council’s Traffic Engineer.

 

9.      The development requires concurrence from Water NSW as it falls within Section 90 of the Water Management Act since the proposed basement could reach ground water and will need to be pumped out during construction which may require an activity approval. The Applicant modified the Geotechnical report to include the proposed method of tanking the basement as opposed to draining it. On this basis Water NSW was satisfied with this arrangement and issued General Terms of Agreement (GTA’s) which form part of the development consent.

 

Architectural treatment and urban design

10.    Whilst the proposal is not subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP65), the application was referred to the Georges River Design Review Panel (DRP) for their design consideration and comments on 10 October 2019. The Panel was generally satisfied with the proposed built form and scale however the Panel suggested some changes that could be integrated into the design including:

·    The application does not show any evidence of serious consideration of the potential forms of development on this adjacent land. Although the building height and massing will not cause any serious impacts on the south western site and the ambulance station it seems long term and ADG compliant separation would be possible should this site redeveloped in the future.

·    The commercial spaces, substation and fire stair along Princes Highway should be set back the same as the rest of the ground floor to enable continuous planting of a more appropriate scale along the highway frontage of the building (evergreen canopy trees reaching 12-13m at maturity along the whole frontage). The Panel also notes that this setback would be required to eliminate the problem of commercial/retail doors opening across the footpath. The structure above associated with the communal open space should also move back to the same alignment.

·    To facilitate tree planting on the Highway frontage of the residential section the projections at Ground, 1 and 2 levels need to be removed. However the different façade treatment creating a strong base should be retained, to provide continuity with the façade of the commercial section to the south west.

·    In a large development of this scale it would be highly desirable to include sustainability measures including rainwater recycling, solar collectors, greening of roof tops, etc.

·    Because of the extreme noise and pollution from the Highway and Rocky Point Road, it will be very difficult to achieve natural cross ventilation to the serviced apartments. However all possible measures should be explored to deal with noise issues and avoid necessity for 24hr air conditioning of the units. Winter garden treatments to balcony areas would be appropriate and should not be included in FSR calculations where used.

·    A 6m wide space is proposed on the south western end of the site. Tree species selected are an appropriate size however this space is of very limited utility for the occupants of the development being inaccessible and remote.

·    Natural light should be provided to the lobbies on each level immediately adjacent to the pair of lifts.

·    The basement layout design needs to be amended so that the split levels all have easy access to the lifts.

 

11.    The DRP suggested changes to the layout, arrangement and design of the development however maintained that the overall aesthetics, amenity, built form and scale is considered acceptable and reasonable subject to the changes suggested above. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 below which show the elevations of the originally proposed scheme.

 

Figure 2: 3D Photomontage of the originally proposed design when viewed from the southern side, Rocky Point Road (courtesy: SWA Group, 2019)

 

12.    Despite the DRP’s comments, Council raised serious concerns with the overall massing, built form, articulation of the building, its design and overall site planning. On 8 November 2019, a detailed letter was sent to the Applicant raising the following concerns;

 

·    Site Isolation – The proposed development is isolating No.26 Princes Highway. It was requested that the Applicant consider purchasing this site and consolidating this site as part of the proposal to create a more integrated development.

 

·    Architectural Design, scale and built form – The proportions and scale of the building are inappropriate for the site with seven (7) storey elements tapering down to a three (3) storey scale along the western side will not sit comfortably with the intended four (4) to five (5) storey scale of development further along the Princes Highway frontage to the west.

 

The bulk, scale and massing of the building was considered inappropriate and poorly resolved creating a highly dominating built form when viewed from the south (Rocky Point Road) and the Princes Highway frontage. The Applicant was advised that the site planning and form needs to be reconsidered with the removal of projecting elements and the introduction of more recessive features. The visual appearance of the building needs to be broken up with bays with the colour palette to be amended to create a softer residential feel and appearance. The original design was considered dominating, solid and heavy.

 

·    Communal open space – The originally proposed area of open space is poorly located and adjoins the proposed substation and has limited and disjointed relationship to the development.

 

·    Desired future character – The proposal does not satisfy the KDCP provisions in relation to the urban design outcome for development within the southern precinct and the objectives and controls set out in Section 5.7.1 of the KDCP

 

·    Parking and access – Council’s Traffic Engineers raised a series of concerns relating to the access and parking arrangement proposed off Gray Lane.

 

13.    The Applicant considered the written advice and the concerns raised by Council and in response engaged GMU Urban Design Consultants to review the site planning, built form and urban design outcome for this landmark site. An Urban Design Study was initially developed and Council held several meetings with the Applicant, Architect and Urban Design Consultants and several design options were investigated and scoped. The preferred design outcome was a curvilinear built form with two buildings (known as Building A and Building B) separated by an upper-level bridge connecting the two and the provision of a ground floor courtyard which assists in breaking up the building and activating the ground floor area. Formal amended plans were submitted to Council on 25 September 2020. Figures 3 and 4 below show the amended design in a three-dimensional form.

 

 

Figure 3: 3D Photomontage of the amended design when viewed from the Princes Highway frontage (courtesy: SWA Group, 2020)

 

 

Figure 4: 3D Photomontage of the amened design when viewed from the southern side, Rocky Point Road (courtesy: SWA Group, 2020)

 

14.    The amended design is considered to be high quality and exceptional architectural response to this difficult but very important and visible, key site which acts as a gateway to the Georges River LGA. The amended plans are considered to be a significant improvement to the overall design of this property.

 

Planning non-compliances

15.    The proposed development is within the overall height control and generally satisfies the development controls, however given the large integrated nature of the development there is a discrepancy in the height and floor space across the development site. An anticipated future built form envelope is established by the height, setbacks, landscaping controls and the like. In this case, the anticipated building envelope anticipates a larger amount of floor space than the FSR control of 2:1 permits as stipulated in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP).

 

16.    The proposed development in its amended form satisfies the anticipated urban design response and the scale and form of the development is consistent with the desired future character for this precinct. In this case to achieve the intended built form outcome the maximum FSR was originally exceeded by just over 4%. The original GFA calculations excluded a series of elements including some lobby and corridor space that should have been included in accordance with the GFA definition within the KLEP. The Applicant was requested to reconsider the GFA calculations and also update the Clause 4.6 Statement which will need to reflect the changes in the FSR. The Applicant modified the proposal and removed apartment No.B207 and recalculated the FSR and provided an updated Clause 4.6 Statement. The non-compliance with the GFA now amounts to 4.4%.

 

17.    The Applicant has lodged an updated Clause 4.6 Statement which has been assessed in detail later in this report and is considered to be well founded and considering the architectural merit of the proposal the bulk and scale of the development is warranted in this case and the articulated form reduces the visual bulk and the proposal satisfies the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the zone objectives. In this unique case the variation is considered to be acceptable and can be supported.

 

18.    Section E of the KDCP establishes a series of specific controls for precincts located within the Kogarah Town Centre. The subject site falls into the Southern Retail Precinct of the Kogarah Development Control Plan (KDCP) and subsection 5.7 of the KDCP is relevant to this area. Figure 5 below shows the area and properties covering the Southern Precinct and subsection 5.7.2 include a series of development controls that are relevant to the redevelopment of this area. Assessment of the proposal against these controls is provided later in this report.

 

19.    The proposal fails to satisfy some development provisions of the KDCP however these are outdated controls that have been superceded by the updated standards in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP) for example, the KDCP stipulates the maximum number of storeys of four (4) and a façade height of 12m is encouraged by the DCP. The KLEP statutory height control is 21m which overrides the DCP controls. In addition, the DCP stipulates that the preferred land uses are supermarkets, specialty retail outlets, business and commercial premises and although residential uses are permitted in the zone they are discouraged. Although serviced apartments are a form of residential development they offer a short term accommodation option which is not prevalent in this locality and given the site’s close proximity to the Hospital this form of development is in demand and considered to be an acceptable land use for this site. The development also provides for a diversity of land uses by integrating some retail floor space.

 

 

Figure 5: The Southern Retail Precinct (refer to subsection 5.7 of the KDCP) in Part E of the Kogarah Town Centre

 

20.    In terms of isolating the adjoining property, 26 Princes Highway, the redevelopment of the subject site will not prohibit its redevelopment potential given that the owner of this site also owns 60B Gray Street at the rear. The Applicant has prepared an Independent valuation of the property and made an offer to the owner which was rejected. The evidence provided to Council satisfies the provisions established by Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251. The Applicant has also provided some potential built form modelling to indicate that a five (5) storey building can be accommodated at No.26 Princes Highway with the inclusion of basement car parking which is a built form which will be consistent with future developments to the west.

 

21.    Despite the non-compliances, the proposed development is considered to be generally compliant with the anticipated built form, bulk and scale of development envisaged along this roadway within this precinct.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

22.    The principal local environmental planning instrument applying to the subject site is Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP), which came into force in February 2013. Amendment No. 2 – (New City Plan) came into force in May 2017 and introduced a range of new height and floor space ratio standards for the site and surrounding area. The LEP provides the local environmental planning provisions for land in the former Kogarah LGA in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument, as required under (the former) Section 33A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The height control for the site was increased to 21m with a Floor Space Ratio of 2:1. These modified statutory standards have not been reflected back into the KDCP which anticipates lower heights.

 

23.    The gazettal of the Georges River LEP 2020 is imminent and the adoption of the Georges River DCP 2020 was endorsed by the Georges River LPP on 4 March 2021. Once the LEP is gazetted the DCP will become effective, the planning controls across the site will be consolidated and there should be no discrepancies between controls.

 

24.    The subject site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). The proposal is a mixed-use development and specifically including serviced apartments which is a form of “Tourist and Visitor accommodation” and commercial/retail premises. Both land uses are permissible with consent in the zone and the proposal in its current form satisfies the zone objectives.

 

25.    A full and detailed assessment and consideration of the proposal against the key KLEP statutory planning provisions is provided later in this report.

 

Submissions

26.    The DA was notified to adjoining properties on two (2) occasions in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP2013) for a statutory notification period of 14 days. No submissions were received in response to both notification periods.

 

Conclusion

27.    The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The proposed built form despite its non-compliance with a series of local planning controls is considered to achieve the desired planning, streetscape and urban design outcome that is envisaged for this precinct. The development will create a positive contribution to the streetscape and immediate locality through its high-quality design.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 

28.    The amended application seeks consent for the construction of a six storey mixed use development comprising of three (3) retail/commercial tenancies on the ground floor, a total of fifty-six (56) twin or dual key serviced apartments (total of 112 apartments), and one two levels of basement car parking for a total of 130 vehicles and associated facilities including a conference room, business centre and associated staff and visitor amenities, landscaping and communal facilities including pool and roof top terrace area on Level 3 and loading dock and drop off/pick up bay.

 

29.    Further details of the proposal are as follows; 

 

Basement Level 2 Plan

A total of sixty eight (68) car parking spaces broken in the following configuration:

-    Four (4) spaces dedicated to the conference facility on site.

-    Two sets of fire isolated fire stairs

-    Two sets of lifts servicing each building (Building A and Building B)

 

Basement Level 1 Plan

A total of sixty two (62) car parking spaces in the following configuration:

-    Seven (7) retail car parking spaces

-    Eight (8) accessible spaces

-    Two (2) retail car parking spaces

-    Forty seven (47) car spaces for the serviced apartment component

-    Two sets of lifts

-    Two sets of fire isolated stair access

 

Ground Floor Plan

Building A

-    Main lobby, staff room, reception area and associated amenities

-    Conference room and business centre

-    Main entry and access from Gray Lane and from the Central courtyard

-    Landscaped central courtyard space

-    Loading Bay and main vehicular access through to the basement from the rear Gray lane.

-    Substation, plant room and associated services located off Rocky Point Road.

 

Building B

-    Three (3) retail tenancies with GFA’s of 126sqm, 75sqm and 62sqm for each tenancy in Building B.

-    Main entry off the central courtyard

-    Lift lobby and associated amenities

-    Fire isolated staircases

 

Level 1 Plan

Building A

-    Apartments A101, A102, A103, A104, A105, A107 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Unit A106 (dual key apartment comprising of 1 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 1 bedroom)

-    Central lift lobby area

-    Access to one set of fire isolated stairs

 

Building B

-    Apartments B101, B102, B103, B104, B105, B106 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Central lift lobby area

-    Access to two sets of fire isolated stairs

 

Level 2 Plan

Building A

-    Apartments A201, A202, A203, A204, A205, A206, A207 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Central lift lobby area

-    One set of fire isolated staircase

 

Building B

-    Apartments B201, B202, B203, B204, B205, B206, B207 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Two sets of fire isolated stairs

-    Main lift lobby

 

Level 3 Plan

Building A

-    Apartments A301, A302, A303, A304, A305, A306 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Set of fire isolated stairs

-    Main lift lobby

-    Pedestrian bridge and access connecting Building A to Building B including a swimming pool and associated deck.

 

Building B

-    Gym and associated amenities

-    Apartments B301, B302, B303 (dual key apartments comprising of 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Lift lobby

-    Fire isolated staircase

 

Level 4 and 5 Plan

Building A

-    Apartments A401, A402, A403, A404, A405 and A406 (dual key apartments comprising 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Apartments A501, A502, A503, A504, A504, A505, A506 (dual key apartments comprising 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Fire isolated staircase

-    Lift lobby

 

Building B

-    Apartments B401, B402, B403, B404 (dual key apartments comprising 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Apartments B501, B502, B503, B504 (dual key apartments comprising 1 x studio and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment)

-    Main lift lobby

-    One set of fire isolated stairs

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

30.    The subject site comprises of one (1) consistent allotment legally known as Lot 1 DP 1108502 and has a total site area of 2,579sqm. The subject site is located on a prominent corner where the Princes Highway intersects with Rocky Point Road (southern side). The site currently includes a series of older detached commercial/industrial buildings including a car sales business and car wash facility and café. The site is largely paved and includes a number of driveway access points along Princes Highway.

 

31.    The site has a slight cross fall from the east to west by some 600mm and a significant fall from the front (north) to the rear (south). Figure 6 below is an extract of the site survey.

 

32.    Immediately to the south (rear) of the site is a newly constructed purpose-built Ambulance NSW building, to the west and south west is the former RMS office buildings currently occupied by the Al-Jaafaria Islamic Centre and includes a large, open, at grade car parking area at the rear. To the north are a series of larger scale medium density residential flat buildings which abut the St George Hospital precinct and to the north-east is Moorefield Girls High School. To the east are low scale detached residential houses situated along Rocky Point Road.

 

33.    Figure 7 below shows the site within the context of the locality.

 

 

Figure 6: The survey plan of the site (courtesy: SWA Group)

 

Figure 7: The subject site within the local context (courtesy: Rod Logan Planning, 2020)

 

Photo 1: Existing view of the subject site when travelling along Princes Highway to the south

 

Photo 2: The subject site within view (to the right) when travelling to the north along Princes Highway

 

Photo 3: The subject site when viewed along the corner of Rocky Point Road and the Princes Highway

 

Photo 4: the front of the subject site when viewed from Princes Highway

 

Photo 5: The rear of the site when viewed from Gray Lane

 

Photo 6: Development to the north across the road along Princes Highway

 

34.    The site is very conveniently located and accessible with close proximity to the Kogarah Town Centre, the Railway Station, services such as the St George Hospital and other land uses such as Moorefield Girls High School and James Cooke Boys Technology High School and within close proximity to a number of other commercial land uses.

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

 

Table 1: Summary of SEPPs and general compliance

State Environmental Planning Policy

Complies

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

Yes

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

N/A

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Yes

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

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

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

 

N/A

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

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

 

·     to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries and ensure that development is managed in a manner that is in keeping with the national, State, regional and local significance of the Catchment,

 

·     to protect and enhance the environmental quality of the Catchment for the benefit of all users through the management and use of the resources in the Catchment in an ecologically sustainable manner,

 

·     to ensure consistency with local environmental plans and also in the delivery of the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the assessment of development within the Catchment where there is potential to impact adversely on groundwater and on the water quality and river flows within the Georges River or its tributaries,

 

·     to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment for land along the Georges River and its tributaries and to promote integrated catchment management policies and programs in the planning and management of the Catchment.

 

37.    The proposed drainage system and method of stormwater disposal relies on a series of pits and a gravity fed system which disposes of stormwater across the site down to the rear through Gray Lane and out to a pit located at Gray Street being the lowest point. Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and do not raise any concerns in relation to the proposed system subject to the imposition of conditions if consent is to be issued.

 

38.    The stormwater arrangement is generally consistent and in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and satisfied the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment.

 

39.    The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the waterway and the Georges River catchment. The proposal aims to protect the existing water quality and use and functionality of the wider catchment.

 

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

40.    This SEPP is not applicable to this form of development as it relates generally to residential accommodation. A BASIX affected building “is any building that contains one or more dwellings ,but does not include a hotel or motel”. Given that the development falls within the category of “tourist and visitor accommodation” it is not considered to be a BASIX affected building and the SEPP does not apply in this case.

 

41.    Despite not requiring a BASIX certificate one was prepared for the development and justifies compliance No.1000477M.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

42.    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.

 

43.    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. 

 

44.    A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was prepared by Martens Consulting in 2019. The key findings of the PSI are outlined below;

 

The site appeared to have been cleared of vegetation with structures observed in the northern portion in 1930. These structures were demolished between 1930 and 1943 with structures constructed in 1943. A possible service station was constructed in the central portion of site between 1953 and 1961, and subsequently demolished between 1975 and 1986. Current structures were constructed in the southern portion of the site between 1975 and 1986. The site became used as a carwash between 2004 and 2010, and was expanded between 2010 to 2014.

 

Observations during site walkover included:

·    The site contained of two car sale yards (owned by Car Sales Australia) and one car wash (Sydney Car Wash).

·    One brick shed used by Sydney Car Wash in the central portion of the site. The shed housed cleaning products and carwash equipment.

·    One concrete structure to the north and one brick shed to the south of the site used by Car Sales Australia.

·    The remainder of the site was paved and used for car parking.

·    One potential fill point and three groundwater monuments were noted to the northern portion of the site.

·    The Sydney Car Wash had an onsite water treatment system including an oil and water separator.”

 

45.    As a result of the PSI findings it was considered a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) be prepared which includes soil and ground water sampling and analysis of the Contaminants of potential concern (COPC). A DSI was undertaken in May 2019. This involved the excavation of 11 boreholes (refer to Figure 8 below), surface and sub-surface soil investigations and groundwater collection via the installation of a monitoring well.

 

Figure 8: Extract from the DSI showing the borehole locations within the investigation area (courtesy: Martens, 2019)

 

46.    The results of the DSI found that there were no traces of asbestos however there were some hotspots where traces of cadmium, copper, zinc and nickel were found which exceeded the adopted levels and hydrocarbon contamination was spotted which will require remediation. Ground water was also considered to be an area of concern. The DSI recommended that a Remediation Action Plan be prepared given the levels of contamination that have been found across the site.

 

47.    A RAP was prepared by Martens Consultants and dated August 2019. The RAP includes an updated Conceptual Site Model which summarises the potential contaminants and their treatment. Figure 9 below outlines the receptors and the proposed management measures to be adopted to remediate and treat these areas.

 

Figure 9: Extract from the RAP outlining the receptors and their management (courtesy: Martens, 2019)

 

48.    The RAP noted that Ecological screening is not required in this case as the top 2m of soil on the site is to be removed and where any remaining soils are to be retained to support planting on site, these areas will need to be assessed against ecological investigation levels.

 

49.    In respect to potential ground water contamination the RAP states “As no onsite use of groundwater is proposed, elevated heavy metal levels are unlikely to impact on future users of the site. The absence of elevated heavy metals in soils indicates that heavy metal concentrations in groundwater are not likely to have been derived from site soil contamination. Therefore it is concluded that remediation of groundwater contamination is not required and only management of any discharged groundwater is required”.

 

50.    A number of soil remediation options were considered i.e treating of contaminated material onsite (known as a technique called landfarming) or offsite with the preferred option being onsite treatment, excavation, waste classification and offsite disposal with any contaminated soil identified and sent to landfill or the appropriate authority. The later is a more preferred, efficient and cost effective option.

 

51.    The RAP includes 6 stages of management and associated works to clean the site from Stage 1 – Notification through to Stage 6 – Site Validation. The RAP was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who was satisfied with the report and suggested methods of remediation. A number of conditions have been imposed to ensure all the recommendations of the RAP are implemented if consent is issued.

 

52.    By implementing the RAP the site will be made good for the intended use and there will be no contaminated matter left. In this regard, the proposal will satisfy the provisions and requirements of SEPP 55.

 

Integrated Development

53.    The Remediation Action Plan (RAP) identified that the amount and degree of excavation will be likely to hit ground water and will require a referral to Water NSW in accordance with Section 90(2) of the Water Management Act where it triggers the need for an activity approval.

 

54.    The application was referred to this authority and an additional information request was issued on 30 April 2021 seeking additional information regarding the method of extracting the ground water. A tanked basement was the preferred option however if a drained basement was proposed then a series of Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) requirements would need to be satisfied.

 

55.    The Applicant amended and updated the Geotechnical report to reflect a tanked basement extraction method and Water NSW granted their concurrence based on this updated information and on 6 May 2021 provided concurrence and issued GTA’s which form part of the consent.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

56.    The aim of this Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. The Policy also examines and ensures that the acoustic performance of buildings adjoining busy arterial roads is acceptable and internal amenity within apartments is reasonable given the impacts of adjoining infrastructure.

 

57.    Clause 102 (Development fronting a classified road) is relevant as the proposal adjoins the Princes Highway, a designated arterial road. A Classified Road is defined as a roadway that carries a daily annual traffic volume of 40,000 vehicles. The Princes Highway satisfies this requirement. Clause 101 states that;

 

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

 

(a)  in any bedroom in the residential accommodation—35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am,

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

 

58.    The development is not technically “residential” in nature and this Clause is therefore not applicable however it is important that even short term accommodation in the form of the serviced apartments is designed and implemented, the apartments are high quality and amenity outcomes are satisfactory.

 

59.    The application was accompanied by an Acoustic report prepared by Sebastian Giglio and dated March 2019 which was later updated and dated August 2020 to reflect the amended design plans. The findings of the report were based on the results from the Noise Logger which was located on the corner of Princes Highway and Rocky Point Road and was installed between 21 February to 1 March 2019. The key noise impact is traffic noise and the Princes Highway (north) and Rocky Point Road (east) street frontages will be the most impacted.

 

60.    In respect to traffic noise impacts the assessment also considers the measures required to satisfy the provisions within the Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines 2008. These standards are aligned with the noise requirements in the Infrastructure SEPP. The standard provisions state that if internal noise levels exceed the noise requirements by more than 10db with windows open these spaces need to be mechanically ventilated which will allow noise levels to be achieved with windows and openings closed. So indoor noise levels should not exceed 45dB in any bedroom between 10pm and 7am and 50dB elsewhere in the building. The assessment was also conducted against the EPA’s Noise Policy for Industry (NPI) Guidelines.

 

61.    In summary, if windows are closed to bedrooms they are to achieve a max 35dB, living rooms achieve a max 40dB and if windows are opened to bedrooms a max 45dB is to be achieved and living spaces a max 50dB.

 

62.    The acoustic assessment suggested a number of construction measures and mechanisms to be adopted to reduce noise impacts including specific glazing to windows and any openings, a concrete roof slab, external walls should incorporate brick veneer with insulation batts and alternative ventilation is also proposed and also suggests particular hebel external cladding specifications. The report does not insist on double glazing although this would be a preferrable option given the location and that the spaces are habitable. The report also assumes the internal spaces are carpeted apart from the non-habitable areas (kitchens/bathrooms). When windows are required to be kept closed to meet indoor acoustic goals, then alternative ventilation must be provided by way of ducted air-conditioning or the installation of an aeropack which is an acoustic rated ventilator and/or a Silence Air passive acoustic ventilator which relies on exhaust fans within the apartment being interlocked with Silence Air vents. The acoustic report states that whichever option is implemented, “a mechanical engineer should certify that the ventilation requirements have been met”. The development caters for a space at the roof level of 1m in height to cater for any mechanical ventilation or ducting that may be installed.

 

63.    In respect to the treatment of the commercial components of the development (shops and conference facility), these spaces need to comply with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2107:2016. The report suggests a series of glazing requirements and external walls will need to be an insulated brick-veneer wall.

 

64.    Given that the swimming pool and deck will be used for passive and active recreational purposes, a solid noise barrier is required around the pool. The acoustic assessment recommends that a solid fence or barrier be installed around the full perimeter of the site and the material may be transparent, translucent, opaque or a combination of materials. A condition will require this element to be detailed in the construction certificate plans to ensure appropriate architectural quality and integrity is maintained.

 

65.    In conclusion the report states “All facades will be affected by traffic noise, as well as the pool deck area. Sound-rated windows have been recommended for all apartments and for commercial areas. Rooms must have mechanical fresh air ventilation. The pool deck must have a solid noise barrier all the way around. This can be transparent or partially transparent. Noise goals have been set for design purposes for noise emission from mechanical plant and equipment. It is concluded that the project can comply with established acoustic criteria for both noise emission as well as noise impacts on the development itself.”

 

66.    Appropriate conditions have been included if consent is to be issued which ensure the findings and recommendations of the acoustic report are adhered to.

 

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

 

68.    The main changes proposed to this SEPP include the expansion of categories of remediation work which requires development consent, a greater involvement of principal certifying authorities particularly in relation to remediation works that can be carried out without development consent, more comprehensive guidelines for Councils and certifiers and the clarification of the contamination information to be included on Section 149 Planning Certificates.

 

69.    Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings in respect to contamination at the Site as outlined earlier.

 

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

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

 

71.    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). 

 

72.    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.

 

73.    The subject site is currently vacant and fully concreted and does not include any plants, trees or vegetation. The development will therefore not remove any significant or important vegetation.

 

Draft Environment SEPP

74.    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.

 

75.    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.

 

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

 

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

77.    State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) was gazetted on 26 July 2002 and applies to the assessment of DAs for residential flat developments of three or more storeys in height and containing at least four dwellings. Amendment 3 to SEPP 65 commenced on 17 July 2015 and implemented various changes including the introduction of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to replace the Residential Flat Design Code. Given the nature of the development proposed, SEPP 65 applies.

 

78.    The proposed development does not fall within the requirements of SEPP 65 as the development relates to visitor and tourist accommodation not residential accommodation. Given the prominence of the site, the original proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) for general design advice.

 

79.    The DRP conducted a site inspection and assessed the proposal against the Design Principles of SEPP 65. Formal DRP advice was provided on 10 October 2019. Table 2 below provides a comprehensive assessment that was provided against the design principles of SEPP 65.

 

Table 2: Part 2 Design Quality Principles under the SEPP

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

DRP Comment

Council Officers comment

Context and Neighbouring 

Character 

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

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

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

The site is in a prominent location at a bend in the Princes Highway where it joins Rocky Point Road. Both roads generate constant heavy traffic and noise. There has been very limited re-development along the south side of the highway to date, as opposed to the north side where there have been recent multi storey buildings. Immediately to the south of the site facing Rocky Point Road and Grey Street is a large ambulance station occupying the entire block, with a bland industrial appearance. To the south west of the site is a building used by Al Jaafrai Islamic Centre. On a piece of land 12.195m wide this site is contiguous with a larger triangular area bordered by Grey Street and Grey Lane. The application does not show any evidence of serious consideration of the potential forms of development on this adjacent land. Although the building height and massing will not cause any serious impacts on the south western site and the ambulance station it seems long term and ADG compliant separation would be possible should this site redeveloped in the future.

 

There is a large Eucalypt tree on the Grey Street frontage of the large triangular parcel of land and a single storey small structure hard against south east corner of the subject site.

 

There is different zoning further to the south where the existing development consists predominately of low scale residential.

Comments noted.

 

The Applicant has approached the owner of 60B Grey Street to purchase this property however they have rejected the offer that was made in accordance with an independent land valuation for this property.

Built Form and Scale 

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

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

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

The commercial spaces, substation and fire stair along Princes Highway should be set back the same as the rest of the ground floor to enable continuous planting of a more appropriate scale along the highway frontage of the building (evergreen canopy trees reaching 12-13m at maturity along the whole frontage). The Panel also notes that this setback would be required to eliminate the problem of commercial/retail doors opening across the footpath. The structure above associated with the communal open space should also move back to the same alignment.

 

To facilitate tree planting on the Highway frontage of the residential section the projections at Ground, 1 and 2 levels need to be removed. However the different façade treatment creating a strong base should be retained, to provide continuity with the façade of the commercial section to the south west.

 

See comments below regarding the open space area at the south west end of the site.

It is appreciated that street planting along the highway would improve the streetscape amenity of this development however this is an arterial road and TfNSW do not favour the provision of larger trees and vegetation as these can obstruct sight lines and also affect larger vehicles or trucks that utilise this roadway. Council’s Public Domain Officer also is against any form of vegetation along this busy roadway as it is difficult for Council to manage. Well paved front spaces are more practical along busy roads. Appropriate conditions will be included.

 

The amended and updated design has created a central courtyard space on the ground floor which creates an attractive green space, breaks up the bulk and scale of the development and compensates for the lack of street planting. A strong podium element has been retained in the amended design with the upper levels recessed behind this element.

Density 

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

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

Subject to confirmation, density complies with the 2:1 FSR for the zoning.

The GFA exceeds the 2:1 FSR control. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted which justifies the non-compliance.

 

The issue of floor space is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Sustainability 

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. 

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

There is no evidence of any provisions which go beyond the basic compliance with planning and Construction Certificate controls. In a large development of this scale it would be highly desirable to include sustainability measures including rainwater recycling, solar collectors, greening of roof tops, etc.

 

Because of the extreme noise and pollution from the Highway and Rocky Point Road, it will be very difficult to achieve natural cross ventilation to the serviced apartments. However all possible measures should be explored to deal with noise issues and avoid necessity for 24hr air conditioning of the units. Winter garden treatments to balcony areas would be appropriate and should not be included in FSR calculations where used.

The updated proposal includes a space for the provision of solar panels on the roof space.

 

In this instance there is no need to green the roof space, given the use of the buildings, their location and the fact the amended design caters for an attractive and functional area of open space at the ground level and on level 3 the roof is able to remain non-trafficable.

Landscape 

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

 

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

 

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

Refer to comments under ‘Built Form and Scale’ for landscaping on the street frontages. The tree species proposed along the south east boundary and Gray Lane are inappropriate (Crepe Myrtles). Much larger evergreen species should be planted in a more informal arrangement along the entire length, for example Eucalypts which will grow to a height of 4-5 storeys.

 

A 6m wide space is proposed on the south western end of the site. Tree species selected are an appropriate size however this space is of very limited utility for the occupants of the development being inaccessible and remote. Measures should be taken in the management of the property to ensure it does not become neglected and derelict.

 

The Panel suggests that this could be integrated with an adjacent Highway fronting coffee shop with outdoor seating space. This space is beneficial in providing some spatial relief to the adjacent site and allowing some flexibility in its development. Note that this would require the repositioning of fire stair and plantroom/substation.

The original proposal included some planting along the rear lane (Gray Lane). The scheme has been modified and Gray Lane will function to allow for secondary points of entry and access to parking, waste management services, back of house, cleaning and laundry services and caters for deliveries and drop off and pick up of customers and visitors. The amended design includes a central courtyard that extends across the site and

 

Amenity 

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

 

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

See comments above concerning road noise and natural cross ventilation.

 

Natural light should be provided to the lobbies on each level immediately adjacent to the pair of lifts.

 

Consideration should be given to providing informal coffee and other facilities in the reception conference area to encourage social interaction.

Noise and acoustic impacts have been addressed in detail given the location of the site.

 

The amended design provides for two lift lobbies both having glazed panels which will allow for solar access and natural light to penetrate into the lobby space.

 

It is very likely that coffee facilities and the like will be included in the reception area to improve the amenity of the development.

Safety 

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose.

 

Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

 

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

The Panel suggests that the 1 in 14 ramp to a loading bay be checked for compliance with the relevant standards.

 

The landscaped open space at the south west end of the development would be a potential security hazard unless activated as suggested above, and/or managed with security lighting, etc.

 

Because the car parks are split level there is no direct access to the residential lifts from the upper half level. The persons using disabled car spaces would have to cross the base of the vehicle ramp to get to the lifts. The layout should be redesigned to address both of these concerns.

The amended design includes a ramp from the rear which is now a 1:20 gradient for Building A and a 1:14 access ramp for Building B from the rear into the building. The application is accompanied by an Access report which confirms compliance with the general provisions for accessibility across the site.

 

The basement parking levels remain split level in their design and arrangement however there are two sets of stairs providing access to the two lift lobby areas. The layout and parking arrangement is improved by the amended plans creating a more systematic and better organised parking area.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction 

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

 

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

 

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

Given that the residential units are serviced apartments for short term occupation associated with the nearby local medical facilities, the unit layouts are considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposed swimming pool and recreation facilities would appear to offer potentially an excellent amenity for residents.

The amended design has improved the layout and functionality of the development and offers better amenity for the unit design.

Aesthetics 

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

 

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

Acceptable, but see recommendations above under ‘Built Form’.

The original design was considered to be acceptable however Council had issues with the articulation and modulation of the built form. The amended design has substantially improved the aesthetics and visual appearance of the development given its prominent corner location.

 

80.    In conclusion, the Design Review Panel supported the proposal “in principle” subject to the changes they suggested being made. Despite the Panel’s general endorsement of the original scheme Council Officers maintained that the design resolution and built form outcome is poor and needs to refined and simplified. The aesthetics were not considered to be acceptable. The Applicant engaged GMU Consultants who conducted an urban design assessment and totally redesigned the scheme to create two alternative urban design options for the site. The preferred option includes the current scheme which comprises of two buildings which are interconnected by a bridge and a central courtyard on the ground floor. The overall design is a substantial improvement to the original scheme.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zoning

81.    The subject site is zoned Zone B4 Mixed Use zone under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). Refer to the zoning map at Figure 10 below. The proposed development is a mixed-use development defined as “shop top housing” which is a permissible land use in the zone.

 

82.    The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the zone which are as follows:

·    To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

·    To allow residential development that contributes to the social vitality of the neighbourhood centre and does not detract from the business function of the zone.

 

Figure 10: Extract from the zoning map as included in the KLEP 2012.

 

83.    The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012) is outlined in the table below.

 

Table 3: KLEP2012 Compliance Table

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Zone

B4 Mixed Use zone

The proposal is a mixed use development that includes “serviced apartments” and “commercial/retail premises”. All land uses are permissible in the zone.

 

Serviced apartments are categorised as “tourist and visitor” accommodation which involves accommodation that is provided on a temporary and short-term basis. The conference centre is ancillary to the use.

Yes

 2.3

Objectives

Objectives of the Zone

Consistent with zone objectives by providing a mixed-use development including a variety of permissible land uses.

Yes

4.3 – Height of Buildings

21m height limit as identified on Height of Buildings Map

The building complies with the maximum height limit of 21m.

Yes – this issue is addressed in more detail below.

4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

2:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map

The maximum FSR permitted for this site is 2:1. The proposal exceeds this control and achieves a total FSR of 2.087:1.

 

The variation to this control is 4.4% which amounts to an additional 224sqm of floor space. This is considered to be a small non-compliance and given the high-quality architectural design and resolution of the built form, prominent corner location and disparity in the height and FSR control across the site the additional GFA is justified in this case. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

No see further discussion below in GFA explanation.

4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area

FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5

The GFA calculations provided by the Applicant have been verified and amendments needed to occur to enable calculations to be accurate.

 

Updated plans show that all areas have been calculated in accordance with the GFA definition.

Yes, calculations have been reviewed and are considered to be accurate.

 

A more detailed assessment of this issue is discussed below

Clause 4.6 –

Exception to development standards

The objective of this clause is to “provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development” and “to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances”.

The building exceeds the FSR by 4.4% which amounts to a total additional gross floor area of 224sqm.

 

A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted with the application to justify the degree of variation. This is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Clause 4.6 Statement submitted which is considered to be well founded in this case and the non-compliance is minor and considered acceptable given the circumstances of the case.

5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of

this clause are;

(i) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah,

(ii) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.

The site is not a Heritage Item or within a Conservation area. The closest item is Item I98 which is the St Patricks Catholic Church located at 143 Princes Highway.

 

The site is within close proximity to the Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area (identified as Conservation Area C3 on the KLEP heritage map_006). This area is significant because it contains a series of single storey Federation style cottages many homes are still intact and retain original and traditional architectural features and elements of the original lower scale residential character of this area.

 

The proposed development is physically separated from the Conservation area and Item of significance and will not adversely affect the integrity or importance of the area and items and is not within the visual catchment of these properties.

Yes

6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)

The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage

The site is not affected by any ASS.

 

 

N/A

6.2 Earthworks

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

The proposal includes the provision of two levels of basement car parking.

 

This is a standard amount of excavation/earthworks for a development of this scale and nature.

 

The proposed earthworks are not considered to be unreasonable.

Yes

6.3 Flood Planning

The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a)  to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land,

(b)  to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change,

(c)  to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.

The site is not classified as Flood Prone Land.

 

 

Yes

6.5 Airspace Operations

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

The height of the proposed development is above the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) level of 15.24m.

 

The application was referred to Sydney Airports for their formal concurrence.

 

Sydney Airports reviewed the proposal and on 22 October 2020 raised no objections to the proposed works. Standard conditions are included that require the Applicant to obtain approval for a Crane Operation at the site (if required).

Yes

 

Height

84.    The original design of the building exceeded the 21m height limit by between 1.2m to 234mm along the north-east corner, the most prominent section of the site. At this point, the building was seven (7) storeys in height and then tapered down to three (3) storeys along the western side. A Clause 4.6 Statement accompanied the application and justified that the non-compliance is minor and concentrated along the corner of the site which is able to cater for some additional height given its landmark location.

 

85.    Council was not supportive of the original design and the amended scheme has created a much more integrated, cohesive and harmonious built form across the site. The amended design is now compliant with the height control however the Applicant has requested a variation to the floor space as the height and floor space controls are not commensurate across the site. There is an imbalance in these controls. Given the compliant height and the substantive separation distances some additional floor space is warranted in this case.

 

86.    The development has been reduced in scale from the seven storeys down to six storeys however the floor to floor height of the ground floor has been increased to create a more prominent entry and access.

 

87.    The maximum height applicable for this site is 21m. The roof of both of the amended buildings (A and B) achieves three overall heights;

·    Top of roof – RL35.20

·    Top of parapet – RL36.35

·    Top of lift overrun – RL36.10

 

88.    The intention of the design is to have a slightly higher parapet feature around part of the building’s which will provide a clearly defined roof form, accentuate the circular form of the building, offer some greater architectural variation to the elevation and intends on screening the lift overrun feature.

 

89.    The Applicant has conducted some 3D modelling (refer to Figure 11 below) of the building and its height showing the 21m height control plane. These plans include existing relative levels (that have been taken off the survey plan) and indicate that no part of the roof exceeds the 21m height plane. These plans and relative spot levels have been reviewed and do seem accurate.

 

Figure 11: 3D Modelling views of the 21m Height plane (courtesy: SWA group 2020)

 

90.    The design of the development includes a base, podium level comprising of three (3) levels with the serviced apartments located above in a recessed configuration. This reduces the bulk and scale of the development and creates an interesting modulated and articulated built form. Both buildings have been designed so that the parapet feature is located along the Princes Highway and this element will sit below the 21m height limit but will also allow for over 1m of space for any future mechanical servicing, ducting, photovoltaic panels etc.

 

91.    The siting, layout and design of the building ensures it is within the 21m statutory height limit.

 

Gross Floor Area calculation

92.    Originally the development complied with the floor space ratio despite the height non-compliance. An FSR of 1.97:1 was achieved which was a total GFA of 5,078sqm. The GFA calculations excluded a series of areas which should have been included so it is questionable that this original proposal complied with the control. No detailed assessment was conducted in respect to this issue given the Applicant agreed to amend the design.

 

93.    The Applicant appointed GMU urban design consultants to assist in providing alternative design options for the site. Both options exceeded the GFA in order to provide a balanced built form across the site.

 

94.    The amended scheme originally exceeded the FSR by some 4%, however after assessing the GFA diagrams there were areas that were excluded that should have been included, for example ground floor corridors, parts of the bridge that were enclosed by louvres on Level 2 which increased the GFA. Council requested that the variation be reduced and so the Applicant decided to remove Apartment B207 which was to be located along the bridge on Level 2 which reduces the floor space a further 73sqm and slight reconfiguration of internal spaces. The reduction in the GFA has resulted in the loss of the bridge element. The updated GFA calculations are now accurate and exclude services, lifts, stairs and a fire stair at the ground Floor Building A.

 

95.    The reduction in the floor space creates a non-compliance of 4.4% is a better planning outcome and a detailed discussion of the variation is discussed in more detail below. The removal of the bridge on Level 2 will reduce the bulk of the development but I don’t believe it is a good planning or design outcome. The bridge connection creates a unified link between the two buildings and integrates the development. Removing the lower-level connection and only having the link at Level 3 is considered too high to create a meaningful relationship when viewed from the ground floor level. It is suggested by way of a deferred commencement that the Level 2 bridge be reinstated but become a traditional open style pedestrian bridge.

 

96.    The 3D montages show that along the northern elevation at Level 1 and 2, the balconies include full height perforated screens. These screens are transparent in that they are not solid and aim to create architectural variety to the façade, visual interest and provide some additional acoustic and visual screening. They are not considered to add to the GFA as they do not enclose the balconies and are not “walls” as per the GFA definition. Despite this, it is recommended that they are opened up a little more to provide more solar access into the balconies and units. A deferred commencement condition will allow a number of alternative design options to be explored i.e sliding screens, removal of sections to open up this façade and/or create geometric cut-outs.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.4 Floor Space

97.    The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to floor space (Clause 4.4 of the KLEP). The LEP identifies a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 2:1 for this site (see Figure 12). The gross floor area (GFA) is calculated in accordance with the definition in the KLEP which states;

 

Gross floor area means “the sum of the floor area of each floor of a building measured from the internal face of external walls, or from the internal face of walls separating the building from any other building, measured at a height of 1.4 metres above the floor, and includes—

(a)  the area of a mezzanine, and

(b)  habitable rooms in a basement or an attic, and

(c)  any shop, auditorium, cinema, and the like, in a basement or attic,

but excludes—

(d)  any area for common vertical circulation, such as lifts and stairs, and

(e)  any basement—

(i)  storage, and

(ii)  vehicular access, loading areas, garbage and services, and

(f)  plant rooms, lift towers and other areas used exclusively for mechanical services or ducting, and

(g)  car parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority (including access to that car parking), and

(h)  any space used for the loading or unloading of goods (including access to it), and

(i)  terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1.4 metres high, and

(j)  voids above a floor at the level of a storey or storey above.

 

98.    Having regard to the above definition, the application has been modified a number of times to ensure all areas within the building that are classified as GFA have been included. Originally the variation was some 4% although this did not include a number of areas and corridors that were enclosed and formed part of the calculation. Council requested that the Applicant amend the plans and reduce the variation.

 

99.    The plans have been amended to remove serviced apartment No. B207 which was located on Level 2 and reconfigure some spaces slightly. The removal of this apartment creates a reduction in 73sqm of floor space and this creates a total gross floor area of 5,383sqm which amounts to a total FSR of 2.087:1.

 

100.  On this basis, the proposed development will exceed the GFA by 225sqm. This is a 4.4% variation to the control. Any variation to the FSR/GFA can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the KLEP.

 

101.  Clause 4.6(1) outlines the objectives of the standard which are to “provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development” and “to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances”.

 

Figure 12: Floor space ratio of the subject site

 

102.  Clause 4.6(3) states that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

103.  To support the non-compliance, the applicant has provided an updated request for a variation to Clause 4.4 prepared by Rod Logan Planning and dated February 2021. The Clause 4.6 statement has been prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012. The request has been prepared having regard to the latest authority on Clause 4.6, contained in the following guideline judgements:

 

·    Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46

·    Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827

·    Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 (‘Four2Five No 1’)

·    Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 (‘Four2Five No 2’)

·    Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 (‘Four2Five No 3’)

 

104.  The Applicants submission states that in preparing the statement “Consideration has been given to the following matters within this assessment:

• Varying development standards: A Guide, prepared by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure dated August 2011.

 

• Relevant planning principles and judgments issued by the Land and Environment Court. The Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 court judgment is the most relevant of recent case law.

Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court confirmed (in the above judgment the consent authority must, primarily, be satisfied the applicant’s written request adequately addresses the ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ and ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds’ tests:

 

“that the applicant’s written request ... has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3). These matters are twofold: first, that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case ... and, secondly, that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard ...”

 

On the ‘Five Part Test’ the following were established under Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827:

 

“The five ways are not exhaustive of the ways in which an applicant might demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary; they are merely the most commonly invoked ways. An applicant does not need to establish all of the ways. It may be sufficient to establish only one way...”

 

That, in establishing ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds’, the focus must be on the contravention and not the development as a whole:

 

“The environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole”

 

105.  The Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed in detail below.

 

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

106.  The Floor Space Ratio control pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the KLEP 2012 is a development standard.

 

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

107.  The objectives of Floor Space Ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of KLEP 2012 are:

(a)  to ensure the intensity of development is compatible with the desired future character and zone objectives for the land,

(b)  to limit the bulk and scale of development

 

What is the context of the variation?

108.  Applicant’s comments:The application proposes a gross floor area of 5383m2 representing a proposed Floor space ratio for the development of 2.087:1 which is a variation to the development standard by 225m2. The calculation of gross floor area has been made in accordance with Clause 4.5 of the LEP. This additional gross floor area can be expressed as a proposed variation of 4.4% to the development standard. It is well established in case law that the extent of the numerical variation does not form part of the test required to be exercised under Clause 4.6. Decisions in respect of Micaul Holdings P/L v Randwick City Council (55% exceedance of height and 20% exceedance of FSR) and Moskovich v Waverley Council (65% exceedance of FSR) support this.”

 

109.  Council’s comments: Numerically, the variation is considered minor given the large, integrated nature of the development across this consolidated site. In this case, a concession of this nature is considered satisfactory given the design excellence of the building and the fact that the development standards across the site are incongruent, meaning, to achieve the desired built form outcome which has a consistent and compliant height of 21m (across the site) and satisfies the setback controls in this B4 zone, the floor space ratio cannot be satisfied unless the height is substantially reduced. In other words, to satisfy the floor space a much lower scaled building would be developed across this site. A lower and longer building is considered a poor planning and urban design outcome given the context of the site and its prime corner location. Obviously, generous separation distances are important however too much physical separation can reduce connectivity and integration.

 

110.  Currently, the building is designed to accommodate large unbuilt upon areas and includes large side setbacks at the upper levels and generous areas of separation. This is an appropriate and clever urban design and planning outcome, which is able to capture some additional floor space without looking too dense and bulky. The breaks in the built form reduce the mass and visual bulk of the building and break up its length. The proposal creates a harmonious and coherent looking building. Without some additional floor space the development will fail to create an appropriate infill development given that immediately to the north are located 6-7 storey RFB’s that are consistent in their form and scale.

 

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

111.  Applicant’s comments: In dealing with the “unreasonable and unnecessary” Preston CJ identifies and validates the 5 options available to an applicant in Wehbe v Pittwater Council which can be adopted in dealing with the unreasonable and unnecessary test under Cl.4.6(3)(a). In Wehbe, Preston CJ of the Land and Environment Court provided relevant assistance by identifying five ways in which it could be shown that a variation to a development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary. However, in that case (and subsequently in Initial Action) he confirmed that these five ways are not exhaustive; they are merely the most commonly invoked ways. Further, an applicant does not need to establish all of the ways.

 

112.  The five methods outlined in Wehbe are:

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard (First Method).

2. The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary (Second Method).

3. The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable (Third Method).

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 (Fourth Method).

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

 

113.  The development will now be assessed against each of these five ways in turn. It should be noted that it is sufficient to demonstrate compliance is unnecessary or unreasonable on one ground only and it is not necessary to demonstrate that all grounds for consideration are satisfied. In this instance, the First Method is of particular assistance in establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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

114.  The objectives of the floor space ratio principal development standard are as follows:

(a) to ensure the intensity of development is compatible with the desired future character and zone objectives for the land,

(b) to limit the bulk and scale of development.

 

115.  Of relevance in considering satisfaction of the objectives of the standard is the satisfaction of the particular B4 Zone Objectives which are stated 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 encourage development that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities.

·    To encourage development that contributes to an active, vibrant and sustainable town centre.

·    To provide opportunities for residential development, where appropriate.

 

116.  The proposed development achieves the objectives of the standard notwithstanding noncompliance with the floorspace ratio control because:

·    the variation does not detract from the objectives of the control in that the development maintains a general built form and intensity of development consistent with the primary development standard and desired future character for this high-profile location and supports the objectives of the zone in that:

i)          the proposed use is a mixture of compatible land uses;

ii)         the serviced apartments and associated conference facilities are well placed to provide easy walking access to the Kogarah Town Centre and associated medical uses and public transport;

iii)        the proposed serviced apartments, conference facilities and commercial spaces will contribute to local economic growth and underpin and augment the strategic services provided by the Kogarah Town Centre the proposed building bulk and scale is indiscernible from a compliant scheme due to the highly responsive and articulated built form;

iv)        The proposed building complies with the statutory height limit and presents a built form generally consistent with that anticipated despite the minor variation to the floorspace standard.

 

117.  The accompanying Urban Design Report by GM Urban Design and Architecture also clearly demonstrates that the proposed additional floor area is necessary to ensure a built form massing in two distinct building forms with an elevated bridging element used to breakdown the visual scale and provide a functional integration of the building. The building separation also allows for creation of the publicly accessible plaza and ground floor through site link whilst also allowing sufficient building mass to define the street edge and mark this highly visible and prominent location.

 

118.  The non-compliance with the standard therefore does not impair the capacity of the development to meet all of the objectives of the standard despite that non compliance. More generally the variation also does not establish an unusual precedent in the locality that would undermine the applicability of the development standard to other development of comparable sites located within the local context due to the very minor nature and extent of the variation that this particular development proposes.

 

119.  In view of the above, the requirement to strictly adhere to the development standard for floorspace ratio is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as the proposed development achieves and is consistent with the objectives of the standard.

 

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

120.  The purpose of the standard is considered to be relevant to the development and on that basis this way is not applicable ground for justification of the variation.

 

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

121.  The underlying purpose of the standard is to ensure building form and scale are consistent with the desired future character and intensity of development of land. The underlying object of purpose of the standard would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and on that basis this way is not applicable ground for justification of the variation.

 

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.

122.  Council has not generally abandoned this development standard and on that basis this way is not applicable ground for justification of the variation.

 

5. Compliance with the 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.

123.  The current use and character of the land is generally for commercial purposes with the current strategic direction for the precinct, the current zoning of the land and applicable development controls anticipating an intensification of the use of the site for commercial activity and employment generating uses. This site is suitable for such intensification, the zoning and primary development controls are relevant and redevelopment can be readily facilitated and on that basis this way is not applicable ground for justification of the variation.

 

124.  As noted in Wehbe, the rationale behind this way of showing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary: ‘is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).’

 

125.  As previously noted it is only necessary to demonstrate one way in which compliance is unnecessary or unreasonable. In view of the above, the requirement to strictly adhere to the development standard for floor space ratio is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as the proposed development achieves and is consistent with the objectives of the standard.

 

126.  Council’s comments: In order to assess the reasonableness of the proposal, the Applicant has considered whether the development satisfies the objectives of the development standard and objectives of the zone. The objectives of the standard seek to reduce the intensity of development to ensure it is compatible with the desired future character and zone objectives and to limit the bulk and scale of development. As previously stated, this is a key landmark site and design excellence is of critical importance as this site marks one of the gateway locations to Kogarah. The current design has considered the sites importance, size and prominence. It has created a very attractive built form that includes curved elements which wrap around the corner and continues along Rocky Point Road to the south-east and Princes Highway to the west. The built form is broken up by a formal central courtyard space which provides a direct pedestrian link to the rear laneway but also enhances the main entry to both buildings. The elevations are broken up by the differing colour palette and materials and finishes but is integrated by the bridge element which unites the two buildings. The mass and form is well balanced and coherent and will create an attractive response to this key site. The objectives of the FSR standard despite a small non-compliance have been sensitively achieved through the design.

 

127.  The scale and intensity of the proposal is consistent with adjoining developments ie to the north are medium density contemporary RFB developments achieving a seven (7) storey scale.

 

128.  The building is located in the B4 zone and will comprise of commercial/retail tenancies on the ground floor, conference facilities and serviced apartments which are all permissible uses which will not compete but compliment the Kogarah Town Centre. They will provide additional services and facilities that will benefit and grow this health precinct due to the site’s close proximity to the Hospital. Whilst the site is located on the periphery of the Town Centre it will create connectivity and enhance the vibrance of the area.

 

129.  In respect to Prestons CJ judgement the NSW Land and Environment Court and in accordance with a recent decision (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 118), the NSW Land and Environment Court has established a “five-part test” for consent authorities to consider when assessing a DA proposing a clause 4.6 request for variation. The Applicant has justified above that the development satisfies the purpose and intention of the five-part test. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the five-part test for the following reasons;

 

·    the proposed scale and massing of the building is consistent with the desired future character of the locality;

·    the non-compliance relates to a relatively small amount of additional floor space in the order of 225sqm which dispersed across this large site is considered a minor numeric non-compliance.

·    Compliance with the FSR in this case will create an adhoc built form that is not anticipated by the development standards and zone objectives.

·    the area of non-compliance will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining land uses with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy, inappropriate scale, view loss.

·    The proposed development will have a positive contribution to the streetscape and immediate surrounds.

 

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

130.  Applicant’s comments:It is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the requirement of Cl 4.4 regarding the maximum floorspace ratio standard in this particular instance on the basis that: -

·    Despite the variation the overall bulk and scale of the building is considered to be acceptable in terms of its urban form and is appropriate for the location, accentuating the high-profile corner location of the site, providing visual interest and a varied building profile, and

·    Despite the increased floorspace ratio the proposed development will not have an unreasonable impact on adjoining sites in terms of additional overshadowing, loss of solar access or impact on views.

·    The site is located within close proximity to local shopping and services and the proposed development is of a form and scale that is appropriate for the locality and is sustainable given its proximity to public transport and the facilities and services available in the Kogarah Town Centre.

·    Strict compliance with the development standard would result in a failure to achieve an appropriate built form for the site, as demonstrated in the analysis provided by GM Urban Design and Architecture. It would also undermine the functionality and efficiency of the building and detract from the commercial viability of a land use that is consistent with the underlying objectives of the zoning of the land and the nomination of the site within the applicable DCP as a gateway location, which is considered contrary to the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

131.  Council’s comments: Based on the discussion above, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Key environmental planning grounds to support the variation include:

·     Despite the development exceeding the floor space ratio development standard, the building complies with the 21m height limit and is consistent in scale with adjoining developments. As such, the overall bulk and scale of the building is considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale and built form and the relationship of the building to the street and adjoining development.

·     The development is removing a current land use which is non-conforming, outdated and unattractive and replacing it with a series of permissible land uses. It will improve the site with the introduction of landscaping and softening the appearance of the development when viewed from all immediate streetscapes. The proposal is environmentally sustainable and will produce a visually attractive development.

·     There are no adverse amenity impacts created by the development ie no view loss, detrimental overshadowing or overlooking to any immediate residential property.

 

132.  These are all positive environmental and planning outcomes.

 

Will the development be in the public interest despite the non-compliance?

133.  Applicant’s comments: Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of KLEP 2012 states that: ‘Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) …….

(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.’

 

134.  As stated elsewhere in this submission the development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the development standard that are proposed to be varied. Despite the minor variation to the floorspace ratio standard the proposal is considered to be of a type and nature that satisfies the objectives of the zone as:

- The proposal provides a mixture of compatible commercial uses on the site with the independent ground floor commercial premises providing an opportunity for support uses to the serviced apartments. The proposal provides a suitable land use for this peripheral commercial site, providing support accommodation for transient users of other centre businesses including, principally, the hospital precinct.

- The proposal provides a facility that will assist and support the primary health and educative role of the Kogarah Centre.

- The proposal will contribute to the ongoing sustainable growth of these primary businesses in the Kogarah Centre.

- Although the primary use of the site is residential in nature it is not a classified residential use. The transient nature of the residential use is considered appropriate for this site.

 

135.  Accordingly, granting consent to the proposed development is considered to be in the public interest.

 

136.  Council’s comment: The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the floor space standard and the objectives for development within the zone. The development will not compromise the importance of the Kogarah Town Centre but will cater for some additional commercial/retail floor space for the locality and will provide serviced apartments which are not a common or prevalent use in the area (but a desirable one) and they will assist with providing support to this health precinct.

 

Concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained

137.  In accordance with clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards for applications made under clause 4.6 of the LEP. This was further confirmed by directions provided within Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018.

 

Non-compliance does not hinder the attainment of the Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

138.  The Wehbe decision identifies that in assessing a variation to a development standard, consideration must be given to Objects (a)(i) and (a)(ii) in Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These are:

 

(i)    the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii)   the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

 

139.  It is not considered that the proposed variation to the floor space ratio standard will contravene either of these Objects. The proper management of the existing urban environment in order to achieve better social, environmental and community outcomes, as well as the orderly and economic use and development of land, will be realised through the provision of a high-quality development in a location with good access to public transport options and in proximity to shops, services and recreational facilities and educational establishments.

 

Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning (Clause 4.6(5)(a))

140.  Contravention of the maximum floor space ratio development standard proposed by this application does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence

141.  Despite exceeding the statutory maximum floor space ratio, the proposed redevelopment of the site will facilitate the orderly and economic redevelopment of the site for the purposes of a mixed-use development that will positively contribute to the achievement of the objectives of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Conclusion – Assessment of Clause 4.6 Request for Variation

142.  Despite the non-compliance in terms of the floor space (and gross floor area), the proposal is considered acceptable and satisfies the provisions of Clause 4.6. The additional 4.4% of floor space (some 225sqm of GFA) is considered minor and will not create any adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the floor space control and the zone objectives and is therefore considered to be in the public interest.

 

143.  It is considered that the Clause 4.6 Statement lodged with the application addresses all the information required pursuant to Clause 4.6 and the statement is considered to be well founded as there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard in this particular case.

 

Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

144.  Consideration is given to the provisions of Draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 in the assessment this application as this is a consolidated LEP harmonising both the former Kogarah and Hurstville LEP’s. The Draft LEP is currently at the Department of Industry, Planning and Environment (DPIE) awaiting gazettal which is imminent.

 

145.  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.”

 

146.  The Draft LEP does not recommend any changes to the current development standards, zoning and permissible uses across this Site.

 

 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

 Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP)

147.  The proposal needs to address and satisfy the provisions of Part B – General Controls and Part E – Kogarah Town Centre controls as part of the KDCP.

 

148.  The subject site is located within the Kogarah Town Centre. The Town Centre has been divided into ten (10) individual precincts as shown in the map below (refer to Figure 13). The subject site forms part of the Southern Retail Precinct (section 2.10) as shown in the map below.

 

149.  The intention of the controls within the KDCP seek to encourage the redevelopment of the site to accommodate an integrated retail/commercial development, with ancillary uses that support and complement the Kogarah Town Centre. These controls should be read in conjunction with other requirements of Part E1 of the DCP. Where these provisions are inconsistent with those provisions contained in the main body of the DCP, these provisions apply. Table 4 below considers all the controls applicable to this site.

 

150.  Many of the provisions and controls within the DCP have been superceded by the updated KLEP controls. There is an incongruence between the KLEP 2012 and the KDCP 2013 provisions, and the KLEP 2012 development standards prevail. The provisions of the DCP have not been updated to align with the height and FSR changes that have occurred as part of the LEP uplift for this site.

Figure 13: Map of the ten precincts within the Kogarah Town Centre (courtesy: Kogarah DCP)

 

151.  These provisions are addressed in more detail below.

 

Table 4: Compliance with KDCP provisions