(Report by General Manager, Mr V G D Lampe)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr K Kim)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

(Report by Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd - Consultant Town Planners)

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer, Mr I Karaman)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr R Guirguis)

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer, Ms P Bizimis)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr R Guirguis)

(Report by Development Assessment Officer, Mr M Raymundo)

Applicant	Paul and Bronwyn Batten
Proposal	New carport to front of dwelling
Zoning	Zone 2 - Residential
Planning instruments applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land, Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide - Section 4.1 Single Dwelling Houses, Section 4.6 Outbuildings
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 interpretation of use	Ancillary use to a 'Dwelling House'
Owner/s	Paul and Bronwyn Batten
Existing development	Single storey dwelling house with outbuildings
Cost of development	$10,060.00
Reason for referral to Council	One objection received and variation to DCP 1
Report author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Mr K Kim
File No	11/DA-181
Disclosure of political donations or gifts?	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The proposal seeks approval for the construction of a new carport to the front of the existing dwelling on the site.

Single Dwelling House Controls	Standard	Proposed	Complies
Site Area		402.6sqm	Yes
4.1.3.1 – Maximum Floor Area	Site area ≤ 630sqm – Max. FSR = 0.55:1	FSR = No changes to existing	Yes
4.1.3.2 – Landscaping and Open Space Areas Principal Private Open Space Deep Soil Landscaping	Landscaped Area – Site area Min. 40% of the total site area = 161.04sqm * Min. 30sqm * Min. 5m in any direction * Ground level/behind building line * Min. 20% of the total site area = 80.5sqm (min. soil depth of 0.9m and min. width of 2m)	Landscaped area = 221.6sqm or 55% Principal private open space = 126.8sqm (same as existing) Dimensions = 10m x 10.3m Yes (same as existing) Deep soil landscaping = 155.95sqm	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.1.3.4 – Setbacks & 4.1.3.8 – Car Parking and Vehicular Access Front Setback (Building Line)	Min. 5.5m to carport roof or onsite parking space, carports forward of the front building line may be considered only where no vehicular access behind the front building alignment is available	5.3m – No access available behind building line and the proposed carport is to replace the existing carport. The carport aligns with the building line.	Yes

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.6 OUTBUILDINGS

Outbuildings	Standard	Proposal	Complies
4.6.2.2 – Size of Outbuildings	Area of outbuildings greater than 80sqm to be approved by Council, if more than 55sqm justification for size needs to be submitted	Existing shed = 14.96sqm Proposed carport = 17.6sqm	Yes
4.6.2.3 – External Finishes	Low reflectivity	Yes - Standard condition to use low reflective roof materials and finishes	Yes
4.6.2.4 - Maximum Height (preferred)	3 metres from ceiling or top plate height to natural ground level Outbuilding in excess of 3m – justification required	3.3m – 3.6m Justification provided	No (1)
4.6.2.6 - Stormwater	To comply with relevant Council policy, BCA and Australian Standard	Yes	Yes
4.6.3.2 – Carports and Awnings	Carport - BCA	0.9m - non-combustible materials and has two sides open and more than 1/3 of its periphery is open	Yes

The Development Control Plan states that Council may consider variations to the maximum height for outbuildings, if there are valid reasons for the increased height.

The applicant seeks variation to the maximum height for the proposed carport in order to keep the ceiling of the carport at the same level as the eaves of the dwelling and to provide sufficient head room for the portion of the roof of the carport over the raised entry porch.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal has been assessed on its merits and is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

* The roof of the carport also replaces the existing roof over the front entry steps/porch. This roof design will provide continuity upon the facade of the dwelling.

* The proposed carport has four (4) supporting posts to the southern side of the carport and is to be attached to the existing fascia board (where the eaves are located) of the dwelling on the northern side of the carport without any supporting posts.

This construction method is considered appropriate for the proposal because unrestricted vehicular access/turning area is required for the angled driveway (northern side of the carport) and the front entry of the dwelling is located on the northern side of the carport (entry feature of the dwelling may be obstructed, if supporting posts are proposed on this side of the carport). As such the proposed construction method requires the carport to be located at the same level as the eaves of the dwelling.

Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the Home Building Act 1989 (relating to building work)

All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorized to be carried out by the consent commences.

(1) A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition is being carried out:

(a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work
(b) showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours
(c) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited

(2) Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, and must be removed when the work has been completed.

(3) This clause does not apply to building work, subdivision work or demolition work that is carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building.

(4) These signage requirements do not apply to in relation to Crown building work that is certified to comply with the technical provisions of the State's building laws.

Notification of Home Building Act 1989 Requirements

(a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the name and licence number of the principal contractor
(ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act

(b) in the case of work to be done by an owner builder:

(i) the name of the owner builder
(ii) if the owner builder is required to hold an owner builder permit under the Act, the number of the owner builder permit

To Obtain a Construction Certificate

(a) Evidence of an Owner Builder Permit (Class 1 & 10 buildings only).

(b) Evidence of a Home Building (Private) Insurance Certificate.

(c) Fees to be paid to Council:

Schedule of fees, bonds and contributions
Fee Type	Paid	Fee Type	Amount	Receipt Date	Receipt No
Development Application Fee	X	DA1	$200.00	1 Jun 11	351233
Notification Fee	X	AP12	$131.00	1 Jun 11	351233
Imaging Fee	X	AP165	$65.00	1 Jun 11	351233
Builders Damage Deposit		BON2	$550.00
Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit		DA6	$65.00
The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)
PCA Services Fee		DA6	$351.22
Construction Certificate Application Fee		CC1	$278.95
Imaging Fee		AP165	$66.95

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.

(a) Payment to Council of a Damage Deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $550.00

(b) Payment to Council of a non refundable Inspection Fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $65.00

(c) 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.

(d) Prior to 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, shall be submitted to Council.

Before Commencing the Development

(a) A Construction Certificate for the building work has been issued by:

(ii) An accredited certifier; and

(b) The person having the benefit of the development consent has:

(b1) The Principal Certifying Authority has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences:
(i) Notified the Council of his or her appointment, and

(b2) The person having the person having the benefit of the development consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has:

(c) The person having the person having the benefit of the development consent has given at least 2 days notice to the Council of the person's intention to commence the erection of the building.

(a) Obtain a Construction Certificate from Hurstville City Council - a fee applies for this service; or

(b) Lodge with Hurstville City Council any Construction Certificate obtained from an Accredited Certifier (together with associated plans and documents) - a fee applies for this service.

(a) Not less than two (2) days notice of the date on which it is proposed to commence work associated with this Development Consent.

(b) Details of the appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority (either Hurstville City Council or an Accredited Certifier).

(c) Details of the name, address and licence details of the Builder.

Note: This condition applies to buildings with a rise of storeys not more than three that contains two or more dwellings, where a storey has the same meaning as in the BCA and does not include a space within a building if the space includes accommodation only intended for vehicles.

During the Development

Additionally, construction work on all buildings (except that on single dwelling houses and associated structures on the site of a single dwelling house) is prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays on weekends adjacent to a public holiday.

Before Occupation

(a) That any preconditions required by the development consent to be met have been met; and

(b) Such building work has been inspected by that Principal Certifying Authority, or, in the case of all inspections other than the last critical stage inspection, by another certifying authority, on such occasions as are prescribed in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000, and on such other occasions as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority and the conditions required by this development consent.

After Occupation/Ongoing Conditions

Advices to Applicant

(a) Apply for a Review of a Determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A request for review and the decision by Council of that request must be made within six (6) months of the date of this Notice of Determination and be accompanied by the relevant fee. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, that request for a review and decision by Council must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination. You must ensure that an application for review of determination gives Council a reasonable period in which to review its decision having regard to the relevant issues and complexity of the application.
OR

(b) Appeal to the Land and Environment Court within six (6) months after the date on which you receive this Notice of Determination, under Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, an appeal to the Land and Environment Court must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination.

(a) street/house number and street name
(b) side of the street
(c) name of nearest cross street
(d) distance from nearest cross street

(a) Pump concrete from within a public road reserve or laneway.
(b) Stand a mobile crane within the public road reserve or laneway.
(c) Use part of Council's road/footpath area.
(d) Pump stormwater from the site to Council's stormwater drains.
(e) Store waste containers, skip bins, and/or building materials on part of Council's footpath or roadway.

an appropriate application for a Work (construction) Zone, a pumping permit, a hoarding, an approval to stand a mobile crane or an application to pump water into a public road, together with the necessary fee in accordance with Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges shall be submitted to Council and approval obtained before commencement of any of the those activities.

45. If you need more information, please contact Development Assessment Officer Kevin Kim on 9330-6263 during normal office hours."

* * * * *


DECISION - DAC

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

Applicant	mCubed Design
Proposal	Torrens title boundary adjustment
Zoning	Zone 2 - Residential
Planning instruments applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 3.2 Subdivision
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 interpretation of use	Subdivision
Owner/s	Bassem Jawad
Existing development	Single dwelling house
Cost of development	Nil
Reason for referral to Council	Three submissions received and SEPP 1 Objection received
Report author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson
File No	11/DA-133
Disclosure of political donations or gifts?	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application proposes a Torrens title boundary adjustment between 9 Low Street and the adjoining 1 MacPherson Street, Hurstville.

2. The proposal results in a variation to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan. A SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged in support of the proposal.

3. Three (3) submissions were received in relation to the proposal.


AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

THAT the SEPP 1 Objection be supported by Council as the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and the underlying intention of the control despite the numerical variation proposed.
FURTHER THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.


REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for boundary adjustment to the shared boundary between 9 Low Street and 1 MacPherson Street. The proposal seeks to adjust the direction of the boundary so that it runs parallel to the adjacent northern boundary of 1 MacPherson Street and the adjacent southern boundary of 9 Low Street. This will result in a new frontage of 15m width for 1 MacPherson Street and a new secondary frontage of 22.10m width for 9 Low Street. This will result in 9 Low Street increasing in area from 588sqm to 632sqm and 1 MacPherson Street decreasing in size from 580sqm to 536.64sqm. 1 MacPherson Street will have a frontage of 15m, narrowing along the length of the site to the existing rear boundary width of 12.19m.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site at 9 Low Street is an irregular shaped corner site with a frontage of 14.89m to Low Street, a corner curved splay to Low Street and MacPherson Street frontage of 8.54m and an area of 588sqm. A single storey single dwelling house is located on this site.

The adjoining 1 MacPherson Street is an irregular shaped site with a frontage of 18.635m to MacPherson Street and an area of 580sqm. A single storey single dwelling house is located on this site.

Adjoining the site on all sides are residential properties. The area is generally residential in character.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The relevant issues raised are discussed below.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

The land is zoned 2 – Residential and subdivision is a permissible use in the zone. The proposal meets the zone objectives.

Clause 11 - Minimum lot sizes for dwellings within Zone No 2

The proposal complies with the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of this section of the Local Environmental Plan. However, the proposal results in a further variation to the minimum 15m width of 1 MacPherson Street. 1 MacPherson Street is proposed to have a new frontage of 15m with the existing rear width of 12.19m to be retained. As such the allotment will only meet the minimum width requirement at the front boundary. As such a SEPP 1 Objection submission is required in order to consider this variation. The SEPP 1 Objection is considered under relevant heading below.

Clause 15 – Services

Appropriate provision of utility and stormwater drainage services are available to each property.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 1 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted as the application proposes a boundary adjustment that causes an additional variation to the required minimum 15m width under Clause 11 (1) of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan.

The applicant has provided a SEPP 1 Objection in support of the application worded as follows:

“Reason for Objection:

This objection has been prepared for the variation of part 11 section 1 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Minimum lot size for dwelling houses on land within zone no.2. The site in its current form does not comply with this standard. Its current dimensions are 18.635m at the front and 12.19m at the rear. The proposed boundary adjustment reduces the front boundary to 15.0m and the rear remains at 12.19m.

Reason for Objection

Part 11 of Hurstville council’s LEP 1994 States;

1) The minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house on land within Zone No 2 is 450sqm and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres.

How will your development depart from this standard:

The site in its current form is not compliant with the width requirements of part 11 (LEP 1994). The front boundary will be reduced from 18.635m to 15.0m. The rear boundary will remain.

Objectives of the development standard that relates to site:

a) retain the pattern of subdivision in residential areas as reflected in lot size, orientation and shape, and
b) ensure allotments have a minimum size so as to provide landscaped areas that are suitable for tree planting, and
c) require larger allotments within the foreshore scenic protection area (as referred to in clause 19B) where the topography or other natural features of a site limit its subdivision potential.
2) Notwithstanding subclause (1), the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house on a battleaxe allotment on land within Zone No 2 is 550sqm and the allotment must have a width of at least 15 metres.
3) Notwithstanding subclauses (1) and (2), the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house on land within Zone No 2 that is located within a foreshore scenic protection area (as referred to in clause 19B) is 550sqm for the allotment at the front and 650sqm for the battleaxe allotment.
4) The width or area of any access corridor, access way, right of carriageway or the like is not to be included in the calculation of the width or area of an allotment.
5) This clause does not prohibit the erection of a dwelling house in Zone No 2 on an allotment of land that existed as a separate allotment on the appointed day.

Highlighted above are the objectives that directly relate to this application.

Grounds of objection:

The site in its current form does not comply with the standard. The modification of the front boundary and its reduction to 15.0m front width meets the objectives of clause 11, section 1(a) parts A, B and part 5.

The pattern of subdivision is consistent with that of the immediate locality, the size of the block is still way over the minimum 450sqm with an area of 536.64sqm. Hurstville locality as a whole is mainly width sizes of 12.19m with average blocks of 500sqm. The adjoining blocks to the north-west are of average 15.0m wide blocks or less.

The existing dwelling will be retained on the site and will still have a minimum side setback to the affected boundary of 1.69m.

Landscaped areas will be unaffected, suitable plantation could be provided on site and no trees will be affected.

Streetscape will remain the same.

Conclusion

The site although adjusting the front boundary remains non compliant numerically with the standard, the purpose of the variation meets with the objectives of Clause 11 of the LEP 1994.”

“1. Is the planning control in question a development standard?”

“2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard?”

“3. Is compliance with the standard consistent with aims of policy, in particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act?”

“4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?”

“5. Is the objection well founded?”

“1. The applicant must satisfy the consent authority that "the objection is well founded", and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;”

“2. The consent authority must be of the opinion that granting consent to the development application would be consistent with the policy's aim of providing flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with those controls would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.”

“3. It is also important to consider:

a. whether non compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional planning; and”

“b. the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.”

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

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

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

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

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

3. The following must be submitted to either Council or an Accredited Certifier before a Construction Certificate is issued:

(a) Fees to be paid to Council:

Fee Type	Paid	Fee Type	Amount	Receipt Date	Receipt No
Development Application Fee		SUB2	$290.00	29 Apr 11	349335
Notification Fee			$131.00	29 Apr 11	349335
Imaging Fee		AP165	$65.00	29 Apr 11	349335
Subdivision Certificate Fee		SUB1	$200.00
88B Checking Fee		SUB1	$266.00
The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)
PCA Services Fee		DA6	TBA
Construction Certificate Application Fee		CC1	TBA
Imaging Fee		AP165	TBA

(a) the method of connection of the property to the Energy Australia supply, ie. either underground connection or by overhead supply; and

(b) the need for the provision of a kiosk type sub-station.

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to "Water Servicing Co-ordinator" under "Developing Your Land" or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

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

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority/Council before occupation of the development/release of the plan of subdivision.

12. The existing water meter that serves No.1 Macpherson St will encroach on the new corner lot after the boundary adjustment. This water meter and any other services shall be relocated prior to the release of the final subdivision plan with the consent and conditions of the relative utility service authority. Alternatively an appropriate easement for services shall be created pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveancing Act on the final Subdivision Plan to accommodate any encroaching service.

(a) The submission of a Surveyor’s Certificate stating that no services, drainage lines or access ways encroach over the proposed boundary other than as provided for by easements created by the final plan of subdivision.

(a) A minimum 1.0m wide easement for stormwater pipes, and
(b) Any service to have a minimum 300mm wide easement.

These easements are to be created pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act.

16. SU34 - An application for a Subdivision Certificate shall be lodged for the endorsement and release of the final Subdivision plans from Council after completion of all the abovementioned conditions.

To obtain a Subdivision Certificate, you must complete an application form for a Subdivision Certificate, pay the appropriate fee and submit the form together with any relevant plans and documentation for approval from Council.

Advices to Applicant

17. Consent Operation - This consent operates from the date of endorsement set out in this notice and will lapse five (5) years after that date, unless development has commenced within that time, pursuant to the provisions of the Sections 83, and 95 of the Act.

18. If you are not satisfied with this determination, you may:

(a) Apply for a Review of a Determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A request for review and the decision by Council of that request must be made within six (6) months of the date of this Notice of Determination and be accompanied by the relevant fee. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, that request for a review and decision by Council must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination. You must ensure that an application for review of determination gives Council a reasonable period in which to review its decision having regard to the relevant issues and complexity of the application.
OR

(b) Appeal to the Land and Environment Court within six (6) months after the date on which you receive this Notice of Determination, under Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, an appeal to the Land and Environment Court must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination.

(Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.)

19. PV17 - Removal of Redundant Crossings and Restoration of Kerb/Gutter/Footpath - Any existing vehicular crossings which are redundant must be removed, and the kerb (and any footpath) restored at your expense, by either prepayment to Council to:

(a) Construct a 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 fabric to serve the proposed rear lot.
(b) Replace all redundant laybacks with kerb and guttering, and redundant concrete with grass.

Council will provide a quote for this work upon request.

or alternatively:

A private contractor may carry out above work subject to:

The work must be complete before the issue of the subdivision Certificate.

Applicant	Access Professionals Pty Ltd
Proposal	Change of use from existing community centre to office premises
Zoning	Zone 3(c) - Business Centre
Planning instruments applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide – Section 3.1 Car Parking, Section 5.8 Advertising and Signage
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 interpretation of use	Office premises
Owner/s	Hurstville City Council
Existing development	Single storey building with ancillary public toilets
Cost of development	$2,000.00
Reason for referral to Council	Hurstville City Council is the land owner and proposal will result in financial benefit for Council
Report author/s	Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd - Consultant Town Planners
File No	11/DA-256
Disclosure of political donations or gifts?	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The applicant seeks approval to change the use of an existing community centre building to an office premises with associated signage.

2. The site is located on the corner of King Georges Road and Frederick Avenue. The site adjoins a public car park to the south and a dental surgery to the east. The subject site was previously used as a community centre, owned and operated by the Council. Development on the site consists of a detached single storey building, with ancillary public amenities, and small storage area adjacent to the public car park.

Three (3) mature street trees partially screen the existing building when viewed from King Georges Road.

The main pedestrian access to the building is gained via the existing entry fronting Frederick Avenue. The site has no allocated parking spaces however has good proximity to bus services, which operate on King Georges Road and public parking immediately adjoining the building.

3. The proposal complies with all relevant provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal seeks a variation to Development Control Plan No 1 relative to the required parking provision. This variation is discussed in detail in Section 3.1 where it is concluded that the variation is acceptable.

4. The application was not the subject of neighbour notification pursuant to Development Control Plan No 1.


AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

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


REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for the change of use from an existing community centre to an office premises with associated signage. The proposal involves two (2) x top hamper signs, one (1) x wall sign, and three (3) x banners to be erected on the western elevation. Signage on the northern elevation is limited to one (1) x wall sign.

The office premises have a floor area of 101.5sqm. It is proposed to occupy the premises with a finance related business consisting of three (3) employees. Physical works are limited to minor non-structural internal alterations.

The proposed hours of use are between 9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday, and 9.00am to 12.00pm on Saturdays. The premises will not be occupied on Sundays or public holidays.

The subject site does not have on-site or allocated parking spaces.


BACKGROUND

The subject site is owned by Council and was previously used as a community centre. The building is currently surplus to Council’s requirements and is being leased as a commercial venture.

The application was not the subject of neighbour notification or referrals to internal referral Officers.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is located on the south eastern corner of King Georges Road and Frederick Avenue within the commercial centre of Beverly Hills. The site is known as 506 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills and is legally known as Lots 50, 51, 52 in DP 12807.

The subject site is occupied by a detached building sited adjacent to corner of King Georges Road and Frederick Avenue. Adjoining the site to the north, on the opposite side of Frederick Avenue, is the southern end of a two (2) storey commercial building fronting King Georges Road. The building is occupied on the ground floor by a newsagent and the first floor comprises office space.

The site adjoins a public car park to the south containing eleven (11) parking spaces and a dental surgery to the east. Residential properties are located within Frederick Avenue in close proximity to the subject site, further east.

The detached single storey building adjoins ancillary public amenities and a small storage space adjacent to the public car park to the south. The building has a total floor area of 110.3sqm, however, the lettable office space which is the subject of this application has a floor area of 101.5sqm.

Pedestrian access to the building is gained via the existing entry fronting Frederick Avenue. The site has no allocated parking spaces however, is located adjacent to a public car park with parking limited to 4 hours. Public transport is readily available with bus services operating along King Georges Road, and the Beverly Hills Railway Station being 150m away from the subject site.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development site has been inspected and the proposal assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994

The proposed use is identified as an office premises and is defined as follows:

“office premises means a building or place used for the purpose of administrative, clerical, technical, professional or similar activities (except dealing with members of the public otherwise than by appointment), but does not include a building or place elsewhere defined in this clause.”

Schedule 1 Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
1. Character of the Area	Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?	Yes, the proposal represents appropriate signage in the locality subject to Condition 8 and given the significant amount of signage associated with the commercial uses along King Georges Road.	Yes
	Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?	Advertising in the area is varied resulting in no particular theme. The proposal is however the type of signage reasonably expected in the area.	Yes
2. Special Areas	Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?	The signage is not located in an environmentally sensitive area	Yes
3. Views and Vistas	Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?	No important views are compromised	Yes
	Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?	No, given the scale of the signage and the fact that it does not protrude above the building	Yes
	Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?	No obscuring of views of adjoining advertisers	Yes
4. Streetscape setting or landscape	Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?	The scale of the wall hung advertisement on the northern elevation is appropriate in light of the existing building and its locality. Additionally the top hamper signs on the western elevation are appropriate within the streetscape, being similar to or smaller than surrounding uses, however, Condition 8 is imposed to ensure the proposed wall sign is appropriately redesigned and the banners are not included in this consent.	Yes
	Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?	The signs add to variety and interest in the distinctly commercial area.	Yes
	Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?	There is no existing advertising.	Yes
	Does the proposal screen unsightliness?	N/A	N/A
	Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?	No	Yes
	Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?	No	Yes
5. Site and Building	Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?	Yes, the signage is compatible with the existing building and the commercial characteristics of the site, subject to the recommended conditions of consent.	Yes
	Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?	The signage is of an appropriate scale and appearance and generally respects the existing building, however, the sign on the western elevation which obscures the southern window is not acceptable nor are the banners fixed to the hand railings. Condition No. 8 has been included which requires the sign to be appropriately redesigned and precludes the banners from being sited as proposed.	Yes
	Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?	The signage is modern and appropriate	Yes
6. Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures	Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?	N/A	N/A
7. Illumination	Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?	No illumination proposed.	Yes
	Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?	No illumination proposed	Yes
	Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?	No illumination proposed	Yes
	Is the illumination subject to a curfew?	No illumination proposed	Yes
8. Safety	Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?	No illumination proposed	Yes
	Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?	No, the signage is located within the property boundary	Yes
	Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?	No, the signage is located within the property boundary	Yes
	Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?	No, the signage is located within the property boundary	Yes

The subject site does not have allocated parking spaces, however, adjoins a public car park to the south. The public car park contains eleven (11) parking spaces, all of which are time limited to 4 hours.

There are many other commercial uses in the area which do not provide on-site parking and public parking is widely relied upon in the commercial centre. The site was previously occupied by a community centre. The Development Control Plan does not specify parking controls for community centres, however, this type of use is more likely to attract higher volumes of people at specific times, as a result of group meetings, community seminars, or the like. The most comparable use prescribed in the Development Control Plan parking controls would be an entertainment facility, where the Development Control Plan definition includes public halls. The number of parking spaces required in this instance would have been one (1) space per 10sqm, thus resulting in a requirement of eleven (11) parking spaces.

The proposed use is classified as an office premises where parking is required at a rate of one (1) space per 40sqm of gross floor area, thus requiring three (3) parking spaces on site. The office premises is likely to have regular but less intense patronage in comparison with the previous use. In this respect, the adjoining 4 hour public parking area would sufficiently accommodate the demand generated by the proposal. Therefore the proposal involves a shortfall of three (3) on-site parking spaces which can be sufficiently met by the existing public parking and street parking in the commercial centre.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 5.8 ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE

Control	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
5.8.1.3 Wall Signs - as proposed on the northern elevation and including the wall sign covering the existing window on the western elevation.	Requires Council approval. Must comply with all of the following controls: 1. Only one sign per building elevation 2. Not to project above or beyond the wall to which it is attached 3. Not to extend over a window or other opening, or architectural feature 4. Not to be located on a building wall if there is an existing building or business identification sign on the building elevation. 5. Size, shape and location determined by facade grid analysis. 6. Painted wall signs to be painted at least once every three years, or at the Council’s discretion. 7. Sign must not have an area greater than: * 20% for elevations of < 100sqm.	One sign on northern and western elevation. Wall signs do not project above or beyond the wall. The wall sign on the northern elevation is clear of any window openings. A condition is imposed requiring the wall sign on the western elevation to be redesigned. No existing signage. The sign location of the northern elevation complies with façade grid analysis and subject to Condition 8, the wall sign on the western elevation is to be redesigned to comply. No painted wall signs proposed. The wall sign relative to the northern elevation is 1.7m and occupies a 43sqm façade. This is considerably less than the maximum 20%.	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5.8.1.3 Advertising Signage - Top Hamper Signs - including the two signs proposed on the western elevation located above the windows.	Council approval is required, and a merit based assessment will be conducted in accordance with this DCP.	The top hamper signs are considered satisfactory on merit grounds as they comply with the design and siting requirements of Clause 5.8.2 of the DCP as considered within this table.	Yes
5.8.2.1- Additional Controls	Must be permissible in the zone	Advertisements are permissible in the 3(c) Business Centre Zone	Yes
5.8.2.1 (2) Context and Siting of Sign	(a) The proposed advertising sign does not have any negative impacts on any views, vistas or skylines. (b) The proposed advertising sign is appropriate to the streetscape, setting or landscape, and not dominating in terms of its scale, proportion and form. (c) The size, height, shapes and colour of the proposed advertising sign is compatible with the site and its locality, and any buildings on which the advertising is situated. Advertising signs should not be the dominant visual element on a building. (d) The cumulative impacts of multiple advertising signs in the vicinity, and the number of existing signs on the premises will be considered. Council may place limits on the maximum number of advertising signs allowed on any building or site.	The proposal does not impact on views, vistas, or skylines. The proposed signage is appropriate to the streetscape and is of a form reasonably expected in a commercial centre. The existing building is modest in appearance, however, the proposed signage is not considered to be the dominant visual element of the building subject to compliance with Condition 8. Signage on the subject building is similar to that found throughout the commercial centre of Beverly Hills. The proposal is acceptable and will not result in any cumulative impacts.	Yes Yes Yes Yes
5.8.2.1(3)General Appearance, context and Maintenance	(a) Council discourages signs prone to deterioration and may request removal of redundant, unsafe, unsightly or objectionable signage. (b) Council may require provision for maintenance of signage and discourages signage on common boundaries where maintenance difficulties could occur.	The proposed signage will be of an acceptable quality. Condition 38 ensure appropriate maintenance. The signs are located in an area where they could be easily maintained. Condition 38 will ensure appropriate maintenance.	Yes Yes
5.8.2.1(4) Traffic and Pedestrian Safety	(a)The proposed advertising, whether illuminated or not, must not impact adversely on the safety for pedestrians, cyclists and on any public road. (b) Advertising signs must be securely fastened to the structure or building to which it is attached, and must comply with all relevant Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia requirements. (d) Advertising signs must not be liable to interpretation as an official traffic sign or to be confused with instructions given by traffic signals or other devices, or block the view of traffic signals or signs. (e) Signs facing roads with high traffic volumes, traffic lights or major intersections may be referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for comment.	The signs will be fixed to the wall of the building and will not have adverse safety implications. A condition of consent will ensure compliance with the BCA. The proposed signage is appropriate in this respect. Given the design and nature of the signs, this is not necessary.	Yes Yes Yes N/A

THAT the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

Plan Number	Plan Date	Description	Prepared By
011/11	1 Aug 11	Proposed Floor Plan	Unknown
001/11	11 Aug 11	Signage - West Elevation	Unknown
MMP-16936-1	18 Jul 11	Hurstville Externals - B	Major Media

To Obtain a Construction Certificate

(a) Fees to be paid to Council:


Fee Type	Paid	Fee Type	Amount	Receipt Date	Receipt No
Development Application Fee	X	DA1	$674.00	1 Aug 11	353715
Notification Fee		AP12	$213.21
Imaging Fee	X	AP165	$66.95	1 Aug 11	353715
Company Search Fee	X		$20.00	1 Aug 11	353715
The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)
PCA Service Fee		DA6	$158.96
Construction Certificate Application Fee		CC1	$126.55
Construction Certificate Imaging Fee		AP165	$66.95

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.

(a) The sign covering the southern most window on the western elevation is to be redesigned to ensure that no part of the sign obscures the subject window. The sign is to be redesigned in a similar fashion to the other two (2) signs hereby approved occupying the transom, between the top of the window and the eave.

(b) The proposed banners to be fixed to the handrail of the access ramp are not to be erected as part of this approval.

Before Commencing the Development

(a) A Construction Certificate for the building work has been issued by:

(i) the consent authority; or
(ii) an accredited certifier; and

(b) The person having the benefit of the development consent has appointed a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work; and

(c) The Principal Certifying Authority has, no later than 2 days before building work commences:

(i) notified Council of his or her appointment;
(ii) notified the person having the benefit of the development consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work; and

(d) the person having the benefit of the development consent has:

(i) appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of a contractor licence for the residential building work involved;
(ii) notified the principal certifying authority of any such appointment, and
(iii) unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work; and

the person having the benefit of the development consent has given at least 2 days notice to the Council of the person's intention to commence the erection of the building.

Note: If the Principal Certifying Authority is the Council, the nomination will be subject to the payment of a fee for the service to cover the cost of undertaking all necessary inspections and the issue of the appropriate certificates.

(a) Obtain a Construction Certificate from either Hurstville City Council or an Accredited Certifier - a fee applies for this service; and

(b) Lodge with Hurstville City Council any Construction Certificate obtained from an Accredited Certifier (together with associated plans and documents) - a fee applies for this service.

(a) Not less than two (2) days notice of the date on which it is proposed to commence work associated with this Development Consent.

(b) Details of the appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority (either Hurstville City Council or an Accredited Certifier).

(c) Details of the name, address and licence details of the Builder.

During the Development

(a) All structural inspections,
(b) All inspections necessary to determine that the appropriate conditions attached to this consent have been complied with, and
(c) All inspections necessary to determine that the requirements of the Building Code of Australia are being met.

Where Council has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, a PCA Services Fee will be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges. Forty-eight (48) hours notice in writing, or alternatively twenty-four (24) hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given to Council when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

A Penalty Infringement Notice may be issued for failure to comply with this condition.

Before Occupation

Prior to the issue of the occupation certificate the principal certifying authority for the building work to be carried out on the site must be satisfied that:
(a) any preconditions required by the development consent to be met have been met; and

(b) such building work has been inspected by that principal certifying authority, or, in the case of all inspections other than the last critical stage inspection, by another certifying authority, on such occasions as are prescribed in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000, and on such other occasions as may be required by the principal certifying authority and the conditions required by this development consent.

(a) has been assessed by a properly qualified person, and
(b) was found, when it was assessed, to be capable of performing to at least a standard required by the current fire safety schedule for the building for which the certificate is issued.

Note: The owner of the building:

(a) must cause a copy of the fire safety certificate (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be given to the Fire Commissioner, and

(b) must cause a further copy of the fire safety certificate (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be prominently displayed in the building.

After Occupation/Ongoing Conditions

The annual fire safety statement must be to the effect that:

(a) in respect of each essential fire safety measure, such measure has been assessed by a properly qualified person and was found, when it was assessed, to be capable of performing:


(i) in the case of an essential fire safety measure applicable by virtue of a fire safety schedule, to a standard no less than that specified in the schedule, or
(ii) in the case of an essential fire safety measure applicable otherwise than by virtue of a fire safety schedule, to a standard no less than that to which the measure was originally designed and implemented, and

(b) the building has been inspected by a properly qualified person and was found when it was inspected to be in a condition that did not disclose any grounds for a prosecution under Part 2, Division 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000.

The owner of the building must also cause a copy of the statement (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be given to the Fire Commissioner and as well cause a further copy of the statement (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to be prominently displayed in the building.

Advices to Applicant

(a) Apply for a Review of a Determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A request for review and the decision by Council of that request must be made within six (6) months of the date of this Notice of Determination and be accompanied by the relevant fee. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, that request for a review and decision by Council must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination. You must ensure that an application for review of determination gives Council a reasonable period in which to review its decision having regard to the relevant issues and complexity of the application.
OR

(b) Appeal to the Land and Environment Court within six (6) months after the date on which you receive this Notice of Determination, under Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. If your development application was lodged with a consent authority prior to 28 February 2011, an appeal to the Land and Environment Court must be made within twelve (12) months of this Notice of Determination.

(Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.)

Applicant	Chanine Design Pty Ltd
Proposal	Demolition of existing structures and proposed affordable rental housing consisting of basement car parking, residential flat building for ten units and strata subdivision
Zoning	Zone 2 - Residential
Planning instruments applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No 6 – Number of Storeys, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 2.2 Neighbour Notification, Section 3.1 Car Parking, Section 3.2 Subdivision, Section 3.3 Access and Mobility, Section 3.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Section 3.5 Energy Efficiency, Section 4.3 Multiple Dwellings and Residential Flat Buildings
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 interpretation of use	Residential flat building
Owner/s	Ms Zhuo Liu
Existing development	Single storey dwelling
Cost of development	$1,500,000.00
Reason for referral to Council	Infill affordable housing rental housing, non compliance with appropriate SEPPs, LEP and DCPs and fourteen submissions received
Report author/s	Senior Development Assessment Officer, Mr I Karaman
File No	11/DA-90:2
Disclosure of political donations or gifts?	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks approval for demolition of existing structures and proposed affordable rental housing consisting of basement car parking, residential flat building for ten (10) units and strata subdivision.

2. The application was originally lodged as a multiple dwellings development, prior to Council’s advice to the applicant that the second level of the proposal was considered to be a storey under State Environmental Planning Policy No 6 – Number of Storeys and hence the building form is defined as a residential flat building. Additional information as required to address the design requirements for a residential flat building under State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings was subsequently submitted by the applicant for the application.

3. The assessment details the proposal has failed to adequately satisfy the requirement to demonstrate the proposed design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area as required under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Further the application has failed to adequately address local context in terms of building height, building separation, side setbacks, floor space ratio, communal open space and deep soil zone under State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings and is inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives for zone 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and fails to provide sufficient information related to the provision of services on site and a geotechnical report for excavation of the site as addressed in the report and hence cannot be supported.

4. The assessment further details the proposed design is poorly designed in terms of Section 3.3 Access and Mobility, Section 3.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and is incompatible with the local character as prescribed in Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 for Area B regarding its built form as a residential flat building, where the maximum density and residential development type permitted is in the form of multiple dwellings on sites only that can satisfy the requirements in terms of size. Accordingly the proposed setbacks, building envelope, number of storeys, landscaping and height do not comply with the requirements in building form as prescribed for Area B in Development Control Plan No.1.

5. The proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with statutory requirements and received fourteen (14) submissions against the proposal, which are discussed in the report.

6. A “deemed refusal” appeal has been lodged in the Land and Environment Court with call-over set for 9 September 2011.


AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

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


REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval of the demolition of existing structures for proposed affordable rental housing comprised of a residential flat building with ten (10) units with basement car park and strata subdivision.

The proposed built form is of three (3) storeys in height with a mansard type roof form, with the exception of the indented centre, which is flat roofed. The building is elongated in form, which extends towards the rear of the site. The proposed number of ground floor units total four (4) with the remaining six (6) units being two (2) storeys and occupy the upper levels 1 and 2.

The development will comprise specifically of the following:

Basement 1 Car park for ten (10) vehicles spaces with single entry and exit ramp, internal stairwell and separate waste storage area.

Ground Floor Side entrance to common lobby entry to three (3) x two (2) bedroom units and one (1) x one (1) bedroom unit, all adaptable units with ground floor courtyards and a separate stairwell for upper units and a separate stairwell for access to basement below. Communal open space area to rear only with landscaping in the form of planter boxes to a height of 1.6m proposed in front of the building at the street frontage.

Level 1 Six (6) units and their living and dining rooms components, primary balcony and internal stairs from individual units to upper level above, common lobby area plus single stairwell.

Level 2 Stairwell access to bedroom components of units below comprised of two (2) bedrooms, one (1) en-suite with no balconies.


BACKGROUND

A time line summary of the current development application 11/DA-90 is provided below.

25 Mar 11 Development application lodged for demolition of existing and construction of ten (10) multiple dwellings with basement parking and strata subdivision as Affordable Housing.

29 Mar 11 Applicant advised the proposal is defined as a residential flat building being three (3) storeys in form and comprises of more than four (4) self contained dwellings requiring compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

25 May 11 Applicant submitted documentation for compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings and application is ready to be notified.

27 May 11 Commencement notification period until 10 June 2011.

31 May 11 Additional information provided by applicant regarding (registered social housing provider) agreement with Ecclesia Housing (previously known as Churches Community Housing Pty Ltd).

2 Jun 11 Application presented to Southern Sydney Group Councils’ Urban Design Review Panel.

7 Jun 11 Applicant advised additional information required in regard to new local character test in accordance with new requirement State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

30 Jun 11 Applicant advised of Southern Sydney Group Councils’ Urban Design Review Panel (DRP) comments received.

22 Jul 11 Amended plans received proposing changes in response to Urban Design Review Panel comments.

28 Jul 11 Applicant’s lodgement Appeal to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (10586 of 2011) as ‘deemed refusal’.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Lot 5 in DP 251418 and is known as 6 Lillian Road Riverwood. Located on the northern side, the site is orientated north to south and is near rectangular with a splayed frontage of 15.565m to Lillian Road. It extends to the rear on the western side boundary of 56.685m in length and to its eastern side boundary of 53.365m; the rear boundary is 15.24m wide. The site occupies a total area of 839.1sqm. The fall of the land is marginal from front to rear.

A single storey older style dwelling with a detached outbuilding is located on the site. Several trees are located within the site with one (1) large mature tree near the centre. A sewer pipeline traverses the site below ground approximately 14.5m to 12m from the rear boundary as indicated on Council’s records.

The site is adjoined to the west at 8 Lillian Road by the driveway of the neighbouring property with a single storey dwelling and swimming pool and an outbuilding to its rear. Adjoining the boundary to the east is 4 Lillian Road, a two (2) storey dwelling with outbuildings to its rear. At the rear of the subject property on the northern boundary is a single storey building used as a child-care facility. On the opposite and southern side of the Lillian Road is the rail corridor.

The subject site is located within Development Area B as identified in Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 as being a low density area with single dwellings, dual occupancies and attached dwellings permitted as multiple dwellings, with two (2) storeys only at the frontage and single storey to the rear.

The local area surrounding the site is characterised by mainly single dwellings being one (1) storey in height with some presence of two (2) storey single dwellings. The topography of the residential area is generally flat and this particular pocket of residential housing is dissected by the rail corridor to the south and further to the north and west by the coastal wetlands of Riverwood Park and Georges River. The town centre of Riverwood is located approximately 600m in walking distance from the site. Dual occupancies and multiple dwellings are observed to be very limited in number within the immediate residential area surrounding the site with the subdivision pattern reflecting long narrow allotments orientated north to south. There are no residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity as their development type are restricted to Area D in the Zone 2 - Residential , located directly behind larger allotments adjoining the Zone 3(c) - General Business Centre within the Riverwood town centre.


COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1994

The land is zoned 2 – Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and the proposed use as a “Residential Flat Building” is permissible in the zone, provided the relevant objectives (a) and (e) are satisfied as stated below.

“(a) To preserve and enhance the character and amenity of established residential areas,
(e) To enable redevelopment for medium density housing forms, including townhouses, villas, cluster housing, semi-detached housing, residential flat buildings and the like where such development does not interfere with the amenity of surrounding residential areas.”

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing (2009) Division 1 In Fill Affordable Housing	Control	Proposed	Complies
Clause 10 1 Zoning	Within residential zone	Zone 2 - Residential	Yes
2 Location	(a) Within 800m walking distance of a railway station or, (b) 400m walking distance of a light rail station or (c) bus stop with a regular service	Site is approx. 600m walking distance of a railway station	Yes
4 Walking Distance	The shortest distance between 2 points measured along a route that may be safely walked by a pedestrian using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian crossings	Pedestrian route is appropriate	Yes
Clause 11 Development to which Division applies	(a) 50% of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings to be used as affordable housing if; (i) The building is not more than 8.5m high; and (ii) RFBs not permissible on such land other than for this policy.	50% i.e. 5 x dwellings proposed to be used as affordable housing – five (5) of ten (10) units 8.5m at rear west elevation RFBs are permissible under LEP and by this policy	Yes Yes Yes
Clause 12	Development may only be carried out with development consent	Application lodged for consent	Yes
Clause 14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse development (1) Low Rise Development	(a) Density and scale if lodged before 30 June 2011 if FSR is not higher than: (i) the existing maximum FSR permitted on the land or, (ii) 0.75:1 (629.325sqm)	Note: (i) existing maximum permissible FSR for a dwelling = 0.48.7:1 or 409.23qm or dual occupancy being 0.6:1. (ii) 0.84.1:1 (705.68sqm)	No (1)
	(b) Site area if the site is at least 450sqm	739.1.1sqm	Yes
	(c) landscaped area if; (i) 35sqm is provided per dwelling for development applications made by a social housing provider, (ii) 30% of the site area is landscaped in any other case.	(i) N/A (ii) 44.6 % or 375sqm	N/A Yes
	(d) Deep soil zones (i) 15% of the site can support trees or shrubs, (ii) The deep soil area has minimum dimensions of 3m, (iii) if practicable, two-thirds of the deep soil zone is at the rear of the site.	(i) 15.3% provided at primarily rear and front of site and not over basement area. (ii) Minimum dimensions provided 3m within front setback. iii) two thirds of deep soil zone is at the rear of site.	Yes Yes Yes
	(e) Solar access if 70% of living room of dwellings receive 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter	8 dwellings 80% receive 3 hours solar access	Yes
(2) General: A development authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds	(a) Parking if: (i) for a development application made by a social housing provider 1 space per 5 dwellings is provided (ii) 0.5 spaces per dwelling is provided in any other case (b) Dwelling size if each dwelling has at least: (ii) 50sqm for 1xbd (iii) 70sqm for 2xbd	N/A 1 space provided per dwelling, total 10 1bd units >50sqm 2bd units >70sqm	N/A Yes Yes Yes
	(3) A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).	Application referred to Council for consideration	Yes
Clause 15 Design Requirements	(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration the provisions of the ‘Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development’ published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004, to the extent that those provisions are consistent with this Policy. (2) This clause does not apply to development for the purposes of a residential flat building if State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development applies to the development.	N/A (2) SEPP No 65 does apply to this type of	N/A Yes
Clause 16 Continued Application of SEPP 65	Nothing in this Policy affects the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development to any development to which this Division applies.	SEPP No 65 does apply	Yes
Clause 17 Must be used as affordable housing for 10 years	(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that: (a) for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate: (i) the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and (ii) all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and (b) a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply to development on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or to a development application made by, or on behalf of, a public authority.	Relevant conditions will be implemented for any future consent - if supported Conditioned – if supported Conditioned – if supported A letter from Ecclesia Housing (previously known as Churches Community Housing Ltd) Conditioned – if supported Privately owned land so restriction as per (b) above will apply.	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Clause 18 Subdivision	Land on which development has been carried out under this Division may be subdivided with the consent of the consent authority.	Strata subdivision is proposed	Yes
Clause 16A Character of local area	Consent authority to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area	Proposal is incompatible with character of the local area	No (2)

Under Clause 14 (1)(a) standards that cannot be used to refuse Low Rise Development include floor space ratio not higher than 0.75:1. The proposal seeks a floor space ratio of 0.841:1. In this case, that additional floor area contributes significantly to the proposed height and density of the development being inconsistent with the local character of development Area B to which Development Control Plan No 1 would only prescribe a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy development with a maximum of 0.6:1 on the site.

(2) Character of the Local Area

Under Clause 16A of the Policy, which was retrospectively introduced 20 May 2011, the proposal is required to satisfy the consent authority that the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

As previously discussed, the proposed design of the residential flat building is not compatible with the character of the local area, in this case, being development Area B as identified in Council’s Development Control Plan No 1, which provides for low density residential housing. The objectives of Development Area B as per the Development Control Plan No 1 allows medium density development, where size of site permits and provided it is compatible with existing housing scale, character, landscaping and building proportions. The building form for Area B is that of development types from single dwellings, dual occupancies through to villas and townhouses being two (2) storeys at the frontage to appear as large single detached dwellings and single storey to the rear.

The local character of the area predominantly comprises of single detached houses up to two (2) storeys in height at the frontage with multiple dwelling developments few in number, given the allotments are generally long and narrow in the area and few sites are larger enough to accommodate for multiple dwellings.

The expected development of the site under Council’s provisions is a maximum of an attached two (2) storey dual occupancy. The adjoining properties are single dwellings with only one (1) being two (2) storeys in height with site coverage allowing for open space landscaping at the rear of the dwellings and some form of outbuildings. The proposed design is that of a residential flat building being three (3) storeys in height as viewed from all elevations and covers the majority of the site. It is out of proportion with the existing scale of dwellings in the area and leaves minimal coverage for landscaping on the site. The additional site coverage from the rear protrusion of the proposed building creates additional overshadowing to a greater area in the private open space of the adjoining properties, than what would be typical of development in this area. The result is uncharacteristic to this residential area. As such, the site coverage of the development extends considerably to be visually dominating and overbearing to its adjoining properties and their private open space areas.

Accordingly, the proposed design is not compatible with the existing character or desired character of the area and cannot be supported under the policy.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 65 – DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT DEVELOPMENT

Clause 16 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 states that State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development continues to apply for all residential flat buildings proposed under the SEPP.

The development application was originally lodged seeking consent for a multiple dwellings development. Prior to Council notification of the development application, the documentation required to accompany a development application for a residential flat building was submitted by the applicant.

The subject planning instrument is applicable as the proposed development satisfies the definition of a residential flat building as prescribed under the SEPP. Further to the design quality principles and referral to the Urban Design Review Panel, Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 also requires residential flat development to be designed in accordance with the Department of Planning’s publication entitled Residential Flat Design Code.

There are a number of guidelines and rules of thumb contained in the Residential Flat Design Code which accompanies SEPP 65 that are applicable to the proposed development. These provide a meaningful and quantifiable assessment of the merits and deficiencies of the proposal, when assessed against SEPP 65 and in turn inform whether the design quality principles contained in SEPP 65 are addressed.

The following table outlines comparisons with the Residential Flat Design Code, where applicable.

Standard	Objective	Provided	Complies
Part 1 – Local Context
Building Height	To ensure the proposed development responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area and to allow reasonable daylight access to all development and the public domain	The number of storeys of the proposal is not in keeping with the height controls as prescribed for Development Area B under DCP No 1 Section 4.3 requiring max. 2 storeys	No (1)
Building Depth	Max. 18m (glass line to glass line)	Max. 14m	Yes
Building Separation	Buildings to achieve daylight access, if less than RDF Code in setbacks must demonstrate day light access, urban form and privacy achieved satisfactory. If development is up to 4 storeys/12m in height. -12m habitable rooms/balconies to habitable rooms/balconies -9m, habitable rooms/balconies to non-habitable rooms -6m, non-habitable rooms to non-habitable rooms.	On level 1, to east and west adjoining dwelling min. 5.5m	No (2)
Side and rear setbacks	To minimise the impact of development on light, air, sun, privacy, views and outlook for neighbouring properties including future buildings and retain existing patterns dependent upon development type	The proposal 2m will impact on neighbouring sites in terms of additional overshadowing and reduced outlook. Rear setback complies.	No (3) Yes
Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	To ensure that the development is in keeping with the optimum capacity of the site and the local area. FSR is not specified in the Design Code	Exceeds overall site max. FSR 0.6:1 with proposed FSR 0.84:1	No (4)
Part 2 – Site Design
Deep Soil Zones	A minimum of 25% (209.77sqm) of the open space area of a site should be a deep soil zone, more is desirable. Exceptions may be made in urban areas where sites are built out.	Basement is excavated and 15.3% provided.	No (5)
Open Space	Communal open space should be generally between 25-30% of the site area (209.77sqm – 25%)	9% Communal area provided	No (6)
Pedestrian Access	Barrier free access to 20% of units	40% adaptable units remaining via stairs	Yes
Vehicle Access	Limit width of driveways to 6 metres and locate vehicle entries on the secondary frontage	3.2m driveway width to basement, requires traffic signal/control in basement	Yes
Part 3 – Building Design
Apartment Layout	Max. depth from window of single aspect apartment 8.0m. The back of a kitchen should be no more than 8 metres from a window. Unit sizes 1br : 50sqm 2br : 70sqm	Single aspect units limited to 8m depth from window. Max. 7m from direct window living area. 1br = min. 53sqm 2br = min.70sqm	Yes Yes Yes
Apartment Mix	To provide a diversity of apartment types, which cater for different household requirements now and in the future	The proposal incorporates 1 x 1br + 9 x 2br, which provide an apartment mix	Yes
Balconies	Primary balconies to be a minimum of 2 metres in depth.	All units have primary balcony with min. 2m in depth	Yes
Ceiling Heights	2.7 metres for residential levels. A ceiling height of 2.4m is permitted for 50% of two storey units.	Ground Floor residential min. 2.8m First Floor residential min. 2.8m Second Floor, min. 2.4m	Yes Yes Yes
Internal Circulation	Maximum of 8 units to be accessible from a double loaded corridor	Max. 6 units accessible from common corridor level	Yes
Storage	To provide adequate storage for every day household items within easy access of the apartment 1br : 6cub.m 2br : 8cub.m	Provided in 1 br units	Yes
Daylight Access	Min 70% of units receive min 3 hrs of solar access Max 10% units southerly aspect	Total – 8 units 80% receive direct solar access 1 unit only single southerly aspect	Yes Yes
Natural Ventilation	60% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. 25% of kitchens should have access to natural ventilation.	9 units (90%) are naturally cross ventilated. 9 unit’s (90%) kitchens have natural ventilation.	Yes Yes
Waste Management	Supply Waste Management Plan in conjunction with the DA. Locate storage areas for rubbish away from front of development.	A Waste Management Plan has been submitted. Garbage room at side of building	Yes

The following non compliances with the Residential Flat Design Code are discussed below.

(1) Building Height

The Residential Flat Building Design Code recommends that the development be in keeping with the local height controls. Under Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 in Section 4.3 for multiple dwellings as prescribed in the character of Area B, requires buildings to have no more than two (2) storeys at the frontage and no more than 9m in height, whilst the single storey at the rear be no more than 6m in height. The proposal is under the height requirement being 8.3m at the frontage, however, is three (3) storeys to the street frontage and its rear portion is 8.5m in height and three (3) storeys throughout the side elevations. The number of storeys is considered to be out of character with existing and desired built form for Development Area B.

(2) Building Separation

Building separation of a minimum of 12m is recommended between neighbouring buildings and their rooms under the Residential Flat Building Design Code. Unit 5 on the western side only provides 5.5m to the window of the adjoining dwelling at 4 Lillian Road, while on the eastern side Unit 7 provides only 5.5m from the balcony to the window of the neighbouring dwelling at 8 Lillian Road. Despite adequate solar access being provided and such design measures for windows to be offset and opaque with privacy screens and planter boxes proposed on balconies, the proposed building form of three (3) storeys does not provide adequate building separation from the neighbouring single dwellings along the common side boundaries of the site. This lack of building separation combined with the proposed site coverage and three (3) storey height of the building further accentuates the scale of the development as being un-proportional to the site as compared with neighbouring properties. As a consequence, it is considered the neighbouring single dwellings will be adversely affected visually by the proposal with a significant reduction in their outlook from the scale of the development.

(3) Side Setbacks

The Residential Flat Building Design Code recommends that the proposed setbacks ensure that the building height and distance of the building from its boundaries maintain the amenity of neighbouring sites and within the new development.

The proposal along the side boundaries only provides 2m in side setback at the eastern boundary to the adjoining two (2) storey single dwelling and only provides 1.5m in side setback at the western boundary to the adjoining single storey dwelling.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives regarding maintaining the amenity to neighbours as the proposed side setbacks are considered to be inadequate for the development type being a three (3) storey residential flat building and is unsuitable on a narrow site only having an allotment width of 15.24m across the site. The proposed three (3) storeys height residential flat building with its elongated built form and comparably large footprint extends over the site and results in a significant reduction in outlook from the adjoining dwellings. Further, it creates additional overshadowing to a greater area in the private open space area of the adjoining properties than would be typical in the case of a two (2) storey duel occupancy on the site. These adverse impacts as a result of the proposed built form of the development are considered to be significant and will directly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring sites.

(4) Floor Space Ratio

The Residential Flat Design Code recommends that the development should be in keeping with the optimum capacity of the site and the local area. As previously stated, the maximum allowed for a development to not be refused under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) of 0.75:1 is exceeded on the site being 0.84:1, The optimum capacity of the site, in accordance with Council’s controls is 0.6:1 in floor space ratio, which may be achieved for a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy development. The proposed floor space ratio is well above for this site and in this case, the additional floor area adds to the height and overall density of the proposed building. This results in overdevelopment of the site and is considered to be incompatible with the local context of existing and desired residential development in the area.

(5) Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zone of 15.3% is proposed on the site as minimally required for the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing), however, 25% is required under the Residential Flat Design Code. The proposal is considered unable to provide for a greater amount due to the proposed large foot print of the building and its basement car park, which extends from the frontage of the site for the driveway through to and beyond the rear courtyards of the development. As a result, the proposal lacks an adequate deep soil zone for a residential flat building on the site to encourage a stable and healthy soil for the growth of mature trees and to maintain a sufficient watertable. The provision of this deep soil zone would also create a visual and physical buffer between any development and the adjoining sites. What has been provided is considered insufficient given the character of the immediate area. Further, the development is an overdevelopment of the site and is not in keeping with the character of the Development Area B, which requires a minimal of 40% deep soil for multiple dwellings on the site as prescribed under Development Control Plan No 1.

(6) Open Space

Under the Residential Flat Design Code, 25% of the site area is to be allocated to communal open space, which would require 209.7sqm in site area. The proposal only provides 76sqm in communal open space being 9% for ten (10) units, located at the very rear of the property.

The communal open space area is not considered to be adequate in terms of its proposed size to be shared by a total of ten (10) units given the area would not be able to cater for all units at the same time and for alternative uses. Further, the proposed area is not conducive to be used by residents given its location is isolated at the very rear of the building.

One (1) barbecue and play equipment are proposed, however, no seating is provided and with no cover proposed for protection from any weather elements. Overall, the proposed communal open space is considered to be very restricted in size and is poorly positioned and inadequate in design with regards to the amenity of any future occupants.

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

In accordance with this Policy, all new residential dwellings and those seeking alterations and additions as identified under this policy require a BASIX certificate that measures the Building Sustainability Index to ensure dwellings are designed to use less potable water and are responsible for fewer greenhouse gas emissions by setting energy and water reduction targets for house and units.

The application is supported by a satisfactory BASIX certificate that satisfies the requirements for new dwellings under this policy.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 applies to the site, given the development site is immediately adjacent to rail corridors. Accordingly consideration under RailCorp was sought for the development.

RailCorp raised no objections to the proposal, provided that acoustic requirements be satisfied and an electrolysis risk analysis be provided for the design of the building, prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

The subject site is zoned residential and, given the types of uses permissible within the residential zones, it is considered unlikely that the land is contaminated. In this regard, the proposed works are considered to adequately satisfy this policy.

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 - GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is consistent with Council’s requirements subject to conditions of consent granted for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no relevant draft Environmental Planning Instruments which are applicable to the development.

3. Development Control Plans

The proposal has been assessed in respect to the relevant sections of Council’s Development Control Plan No. 1 – LGA Wide as set out below where the SEPP does not override.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

The proposed development adequately satisfies the requirements of Section 3.1 as follows.

Section 3.1	Standard	Proposal	Complies
Residential: 1 car space per 1 – 2 bedrooms, 2 car spaces per 3 bedrooms or more	10 car spaces provided	10 car spaces provided	Yes

As previously discussed within the report, adequate number of car parking spaces have been provided as required with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Visitor Parking

Three (3) visitor car space (one (1) per four (4) dwellings) and one washing bay are required under this subsection. The applicant has not provided a visitor car space/washing bay. Under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, the proposal meets the required amount of parking and has as surplus of five spaces dedicated to the remaining five (5) units. Parking cannot be used as a reason for refusal. Further, the surplus in car spaces could be used for visitors, however, in this case, it is considered more appropriate that they be allocated to the individual units so that each unit has one (1) car space.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.2 SUBDIVISION

The proposed works have sought strata subdivision as part of the development application. The proposed works adequately satisfy the requirements and was referred to Council’s Manager - Development Advice for comment. The proposed subdivision can be supported subject to conditions, if approved.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.3 ACCESS AND MOBILITY

These development guidelines require one (1) adaptable dwelling for the first eight (8) units and then one (1) for every ten (10) units after that, or part thereof. This equates to a total of two (2) adaptable dwellings to be provided in the development. The proposal provides a total of four (4) adaptable dwellings on the ground floor and satisfies the provision.

Residential

One (1) space per twenty (20) spaces or part thereof to be provided. The proposal requires only one (1) accessible space, which is provided in the proposal. The proposed car spaces are in the basement with access only via stairs. The provision of a lift or equivalent would provide better amenity to occupants of the adaptable units. The proposal without adequate access via the basement may result in the adaptable dwellings being not suitable to the disabled and this is considered to be inappropriate and unsupportable.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

The proposed development compliance with the requirements of Section 3.4 is illustrated as follows.

	Design requirements	Proposal	Complies
Fencing	Front max 1m, unless open type	1.2m fencing proposed and retaining walls with planter boxes at a max. height of 1.6m behind the fence. Can be conditioned to comply with max.1m height, if supported.	Yes (1)
Blind corners	Direct pathways with permeable barriers Mirrors around corners Glass/steel panels in stairwells	Blind corners generally avoided	Yes
Communal/ public areas	Habitable rooms adjacent to communal areas Good visibility to stairwells, entries, elevators	Ground floor views face on to street but restricted.	No (2)
Entrances	Max one entry point per 6-8 dwellings User can see into building before entering Entrance clearly recognisable	Entry point not visible from the street	No (3)
Site and building layout	Main entrance orientated towards street, and not from rear lanes Habitable rooms at front of dwelling	- Entrance from side - Habitable rooms at front.	No (4) Yes
Landscaping	Low hedges and shrubs or high canopied vegetation No continuous barrier of dense growth Ground cover or 2m clean trunks around children’s play areas, car parks and pedestrian pathways Prickly plants used as barriers Avoid vegetation that conceals building entrances Large trees next to second storey windows or balconies	Planter boxes at street frontage restrict views	No (5)
Lighting	Use of diffused and/or movement sensitive lights Access/egress routes illuminated No glare or dark shadows produced No lighting spillage onto neighbouring properties Users can identify a face 15 metres away Use of energy efficient lamps/fittings/switches	Can be conditioned, if supported	Yes
Building identification	Each individual dwelling numbered Unit numbers provided on each level Building entries state unit numbers accessed from that entry	Can be conditioned, if supported	Yes
Security	Intercom, code or cark locks for building and car park entries Door and window locks comply with AS 220 Security access to basement parking via main building External storage areas well secured and lit	Can be conditioned, if supported	Yes
Maintenance	Provision for the speedy removal of graffiti and repair/cleaning of damaged property Provision of information advising where to go for help and how to report maintenance or vandalism	Can be conditioned, if supported	Yes

(1) Fencing, (2) Communal/Public Area, (3) Entrances, (4) Site and building layout, and (5) Landscaping

The proposed design of the units at the street frontage is restricted in passive surveillance to primarily units 5 and 6 only on level 1. There are no views available from unit 1 on the ground floor at the street frontage, which is located below street level due to the fall of the site and level 2 comprises of bedrooms only with dormer type windows. A further restriction to passive surveillance is the front fence at 1.2m and behind this the high retaining walls proposed at a height of 1.6m in front of Unit 1, which further screen any outlook from its living areas to the street frontage.

The entrance to the building is located at the side of the building and is designed as recessed from the pedestrian path and cannot be seen from the pathway or the street. The distance of the entry from the street frontage is located nearly 20m away and accessed only via the narrow pathway. The design of the building at the street frontage can be improved greatly with an alternative design and layout, which allows for a more visible entry to the building from the street frontage rather than halfway down the site and via the side of the building. Further, the front fence be reduced to 1m maximum height and retaining walls at the street frontage should be reduced or removed and an alternative courtyard fence, which is designed to be partially transparent would improve and increase passive surveillance opportunities from the living areas of Unit 1 to the street frontage.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The proposal has achieved a BASIX Certificate as required, and north facing living areas have been provided where possible and accordingly the proposal generally complies with the objectives of Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.3 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS

The proposed development has been assessed against the applicable provisions under Section 4.3 Multiple Dwellings as per below.

Section 4.3	Required	Proposed	Complies
Residential Density (site area/unit)	315sqm per dwelling Max. capacity is 2.67 dwellings being only 2 dwellings	10 x dwellings proposed	No (1)
Landscaped Open Space Impervious surfaces Deep soil planting	50% Maximum 20% impervious surfaces 40% deep soil planting area	44 % 30.8% impervious surfaces 15.3% deep soil planting areas	No (2) No (3) No (4)
Front Site Height Maximum	9m	8.3m	Yes
Rear Site Height Maximum	6m	8.5m	No (5)
Front Site Storeys Maximum	2 storeys	3 storeys	No (6)
Rear Site Storeys Maximum	1 storey	3 storeys	No (7)
Attached Dwellings - Minimum Private Open Space * 3 bedroom and less than	Yes 50sqm	Each dwelling complies Private open space varies between 10sqm – 50sqm for the dwellings	Yes No (8)
Minimum Dimensions of Principal Private Open Space * Less than 3 bedroom	5m x 5m and minimum dimension of any side is 3m	Ground floor dwellings with courtyards provide min. 3m dimension, 2 units under min. area principal private open space dimensions being: Unit 1= 4m x 7.5m; Unit 2= 3m x 5m; Unit 3 = 3.3m x 6m; Units 4 = 3.3m x 7.5m	No (9)
Front Boundary Setbacks	Minimum 4.5m	8m ground floor 5.5m first floor	Yes
Rear Boundary Setbacks	Building envelope with plane projected at 45 degrees from a height of 1.5m above natural ground level at the rear boundary	Complies	Yes
Minimum Side Boundary Setbacks * Front Site – 2 storey * Rear Site – 1 storey	2m or 1.35m with 45 degrees building plane at 3.5m above boundary 1.35m or building envelope at 45 degrees building plane at 1.5m above boundary, whichever is greater	2m (east), 1.5m (west) Building envelope encroached for additional 1 storey Building envelope encroached for additional 2 storeys	No (10) No (10) No (10)
Roof pitch	22 – 35 degrees recommended	Pitch of roof varies	Yes (11)
Driveway width	Must not occupy more than 40% of the frontage where the total site frontage to the street is < 20m.	19.6%	Yes
Storage	6 cubic metres per dwelling.	min. 6 cubic metres provided in villas and townhouses	Yes
Acoustic Privacy	3m separation from windows in adjacent dwellings	>3m from adjacent dwellings	Yes
Solar Design/Energy Efficiency	Private open space of adjoining buildings to receive minimum 4hrs sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 22 June. Adjoining dwellings solar access for cooling and heating to be preserved.	Minimal overshadowing given north to south orientation, POS of adjoining buildings receive minimum 4hrs sunlight between 9am – 3pm on 22 June. N/A	Yes N/A
Visual Privacy	Windows 9m separation or Offset by 1m	Windows offset by 1m from adjacent dwellings	Yes
Building form and style	Buildings should have max. straight length of 6m to street frontage	Max. straight length of 6m provided	Yes

(1) Residential Density

As previously discussed, the proposal has been lodged under the provisions under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, which has been addressed earlier within the report regarding its inconsistent building form and density to the local character of Area B. In terms of the area and capacity of the site; the site may only accommodate a maximum of two (2) dwellings in the form of a dual occupancy in Area B under Council’s Development Control Plan No 1. Accordingly the proposed number of ten (10) dwellings on the site, significantly exceeds the number of dwellings typical of such a site in Development Area B and creates a development which is out of character with the immediate area.

(2), (3), and (4) Landscaping Open Space

The overall landscaping is deficient on the site with regard to Area B, which requires 50% of landscaping on the site and a maximum of 20% of the landscaping to be impervious and a further deep soil requirement of 40% in overall landscaping. The proposal only provides 44% of the site in landscaping and exceeds the maximum impervious amount with 30.8% and only provides 15.3% in deep soil planting areas. Thus, the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site with regards to the site coverage allocated to the building footprint and is not in keeping with the local character of Area B, where the majority of residential housing have their landscaping in the rear yard.

(5) Rear Site Height, (6) Front Site Storeys, (7) Rear Site Storeys, (10) Side Boundary Setbacks, and (11) Roof Pitch

The proposed design of the roof varies along the side elevations from a flat roof to exceeding the recommended range of 22 and 35 degrees, in an attempt to comply with overall height at the street frontage. However, the proposed design exceeds the storey requirements with an additional non complying habitable level (third level) at the frontage and an additional two (2) storeys at the rear with a non compliant height in excess of 2.5m. The side setbacks further reinforce the required number of storeys with a 45 degree building plane of 3.5m above side boundaries at the front and 1.5m at the rear. However, the three (3) storey facades along the side boundaries fail to comply with the building envelope requirements. This results in the proposal having adverse visual impacts regarding its dominance along the side boundaries from adjoining properties.

“Generally

The proposal is for demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of a residential flat building comprising 10 dwellings. The proposal is being designed under the legislation for affordable housing and Seniors Living.

1. Context

The site has an area of approx. 840 sq. metres with a frontage of approx. 15.1 metres to Lillian Road. The railway line is on the southern side of the road. The surrounding development is predominantly 1 and 2 storey dwelling houses.

2. Scale

The scale is considered to be appropriate.

3. Built Form

The form is satisfactory in some regards however there are problems with the following:-

(i) The location of the units and courtyards in the centre of the block. The block as a whole extends beyond the permitted envelope form and these 3 central units, one on the ground floor level and two on the first floor level, have their living areas and courtyards overlooking windows and the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling on the western side. This will severely impact this neighbour in regard to aural and visual privacy. It is suggested that the central unit at ground level be eliminated and the two units above become a single two- storey unit. The building form could consequently be indented in its central part and overcome these problems. As well the entry at ground level could be dramatically improved and a common area could be provided and a common landscaped area created at the entry. Such a change might also allow a replanning of the other units so that they too are further from the side boundaries.

(ii) The floor levels should all be at one level without steps other than the major staircase between levels. Refer Amenity below. In regard to the height being 2.5 metres above the required height of 6 metres, the Panel does not have a problem given that the top level is within a gable roof form. As well all of the rooms at the top level are bedrooms and bathrooms.

4. Density

The density is considered to be appropriate.

5. Resource, energy and water efficiency

6. Landscape

No landscape plan was provided. It is recommended that the landscape be designed so that it can be used by disabled people: for instance having raised garden beds for growing vegetables. They could be located in the communal landscaped area.

It is considered that some play equipment should be provide in this common area and barbeque facility. Particular attention should be given to the separation between the private and common areas. Unit 1 at the Ground Level could have a direct entry through its front and street facing courtyard. This would also activate the street frontage.

7. Amenity

• The balconies on the western side of the first floor level are overlooking the adjoining property. They should be provided with privacy screens which could also provide shade to the western sun.
• At the ground and first floor levels the hallways and lobbies are not on the same level with 2/3 steps between different parts. This is not good for any multi-unit development let alone one for affordable housing units where the rate of disability is so much higher than the general population. It would be much better if a single level could be used.
• The applicant stated that all of the units at ground level are accessible however two of the units are can only be accessed via two steps in the Lobby. The courtyards to these two units is also 150mm lower than the floor level of the units, so they in fact are not accessible. The garbage areas as well as the storage areas in the basement are also not accessible. However if the door to the storage area were to open out, the end storage area would be accessible. Given that 20% of units are required to be accessible this is considered to be important.
• Even the two units that are labelled ‘adaptable’ the external courtyards are 90mm and 85 mm lower than the floor level and would have to have ramps to the courtyards for wheelchair people to use them.
• There is no indication that the basement car park is natural ventilated, however given the levels this would be possible and is recommended.
• There are 6 bathrooms without natural ventilation on the first floor level. However given that they are they are the lower levels of two storey units it should be able to design a natural ventilation system through to the roof of the upper level.

8. Safety and Security

Satisfactory.

9. Social Dimensions

If the building was on one level it would also avoid the need to have two entry doors as at present which would improve the social aspect of the building. As it is at present it is as though the disabled go in one door and the abled on another. Not good! There is a communal landscaped area provided at the northern /rear of the block which is to be commended. However it might be enlarged to an extent by reducing the size of the rear private courtyard space to some extent so that the communal space steps around the two corners to the east and west. As well the private courtyards could be reduced in length by say 500mm.

10. Aesthetics

Satisfactory.

Recommendation:

The proposal is recommended for approval following the above issues being addressed.”

Applicant	James Watt-Smith
Proposal	Habitable loft area to existing garage
Zoning	Zone 2 - Residential
Planning instruments applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide - Section 2.2 Neighbour Notification, Section 3.1 Car Parking, Section 3.4 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Section 3.7 Drainage and On-site Detention Requirements, Section 4.1 Single Dwelling Houses, Section 4.6 Outbuildings
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 interpretation of use	Dwelling house
Owner/s	James Watt-Smith
Existing development	Single dwelling house
Cost of development	$10,000.00
Reason for referral to Council	Two storey outbuilding
Report author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Mr P Nelson
File No	11/DA-61
Disclosure of political donations or gifts?	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application proposes a new first floor habitable loft addition to the existing approved garage.

2. The application proposes some variations to Development Control Plan No 1.

3. No submissions were received in relation to the proposal.


AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

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


REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The application proposes the provision of a loft area above the existing approved garage. This loft is to have a floor area of 33.21sqm and a small bathroom comprising a toilet, sink and shower with an additional area of 4.65sqm. The loft is to have a window facing the street frontage, a window facing to the rear (overlooking the subject site) and a western facing window. The outbuilding is proposed to be an overall height of 6.74m, with an external wall height (measured to the internal ceiling) of 5.165m.

The two (2) significant canopy trees in the front yard of the allotment adjacent to the garage are also proposed to be retained as part of the current application.


BACKGROUND

The existing approval for the garage was approved under 08/DA-90. The application was referred to the Development Assessment Committee meeting on 4 June 2008. The Committee recommended:

“THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.”

“The position of the combined garage/carport forward of the building line is considered to remain sympathetic to the streetscape due to the nature strip directly in front of the property being 9m – 12m in width.”

The proposal seeks no additional variations to the requirements of this section of Development Control Plan No 1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.7 DRAINAGE AND ON-SITE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS,

The proposal may be conditioned to drain by gravity via the existing stormwater disposal system to the street in accordance with the requirements of this section of Development Control Plan No 1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.1 SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES

Single Dwelling Houses	Standard	Proposed	Complies
4.1.2.2 Streetscape	Must not diminish the quality of the streetscape	Streetscape appropriate	Yes (1)
4.1.3.1 Maximum Floor Area	0.5:1	0.48:1	Yes
4.1.3.2 Landscape and Open Space Principal Private Open Space Deep Soil	45% 30sqm and minimum dimensions of 5m 20% of site with 15sqm in front yard on sites wider than 12m	62% 63.6sqm and minimum dimensions of 5.3m 50.11% >15sqm	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.1.3.8 Car Parking and Vehicular Access	3 or more bedrooms, 2 spaces. Sites >12m, 2 spaces behind front building alignment.	2 garage spaces in front of building alignment as approved	Yes Yes

As demonstrated above the proposal does not propose any additional variations to this section of Development Control Plan No 1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.6 OUTBUILDINGS

Outbuildings	Standard	Proposal	Complies
4.6.2.2 - Size of Outbuildings	Area of outbuildings greater than 80sqm to be approved by Council, if more than 55sqm justification for size needs to be submitted	Outbuilding = 57.29sqm justification provided	Yes (1)
4.6.2.4 - Maximum Height	3 metres from ceiling or top plate height to natural ground level	5.165m maximum as such justification required	No (1) justification provided
4.6.3.1 – Side and rear boundary, and Construction Requirements 4.6.3.2	500mm minimum Carport – Nil setback/ 30% of the carport perimeter to be open	130mm 5.6m setback	No (2) Yes
4.6.5 – External Finishes	Low reflectivity	OK	Yes
Privacy	Windows offset by 1m Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed living areas	Windows to habitable rooms offset. Neighbouring open space not overlooked	Yes
Solar access and energy efficiency	North facing rooms receive maximum solar access. Subject and adjoining lots receive 3hrs solar access between 9am and 3pm on midwinter equinox.	Solar access is appropriate	Yes

(1) Maximum Height and (2) Side Boundary Setback

A written justification has been provided for the proposed variation to the recommended outbuilding height and side setback. This justification states:

“The proposal has 2 flaws. The front setback and the side setback. Below I would like to demonstrate the difficulties of the property and how the objectives have still been met.

The justification for the proposed loft area is as follows;

1. Existing garage and carport approved and under construction now. 08/DA-90 10/CC-167 so that location is quite fixed.

2. The verge at the property is nearly 12m so the building would not be at the street face and is behind 2 substantial street trees.

3. The rear of the property has no physical land to be able to build a structure.

4. The large conifer tree adjacent to the garage and the large gum tree at the front prevent any suitable space for the proposed room at the front even though there is sufficient building area, but would required the removal of 2 substantial trees. Neither the owner’s wishes nor he believes the Council’s.

5. The owner has 2 teenage children and a partner living with him. She also has 2 slightly younger children living in the home. The home is smallish for 4 children and 2 adults.

6. The space will allow the children to have their own area they can use, or his eldest could use it as her bedroom as she is approaching her independence and is now in Year 11 so the next 2 years will be very important with the HSC looming.

7. There would be a difficulty in building the room adjacent to the current upper addition. The side that is roofed contains 2 bathrooms which would need to be redesigned allowing for access to a thin longish room, this would be an expensive alternative as the roof would need to be re-constructed as well as new bathroom.

8. While the proposed room will not comply with the side and front setback, the side however has a 3.3m wide access handle. There is no fence where the garage is proposed and it could be perceived as part of the property from a visual aspect. The front setback was fixed by the approved Garage carport and pool application. As stated previously another location makes it nearly impossible.

9. The landscaping in the location of the building area (currently removed) was in excess in height and bulk of the proposed addition to the garage and carport. The new structure will be less dominate that the existing bushes that were removed.

10. The windows to the street allow for good passive surveillance of the Seaforth Avenue and Riley Street adding to community protection.

11. The shadow study shows that the home to the west would be affected by the solar in the morning. However whilst vegetation is not taken into account, the large conifer and gum plus the entire boundary landscaping on both properties currently prevents any solar access in the morning. The windows are firstly a bathroom (frosted) and then 2 bedroom windows. See Figs 5,6,9 and 10

12. It is stated here quite firmly that the loft area in no way is or will be used for another occupancy; it is intended for the immediate family use only.”