AGENDA - LPP

Meeting:	Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)
Date:	Thursday, 16 August 2018
Time:	4.00pm
Venue:	Dragon Room, Georges River Civic Centre, corner MacMahon and Dora Streets, Hurstville
Panel Members:	Adam Seton (Chairperson) Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member) John Brokchoff (Expert Panel Member) George Vardas (Community Representative)
Council Staff:	Meryl Bishop (Director Environment and Planning) Ryan Cole (Manager Development and Building) Cathy Mercer (Team Leader DA Adminstration) Monica Wernej (DA Admn Assistant)

  

1. On Site Inspections - 1.00pm –  3.30pm a)    954-956 Forest Road Lugarno b)    22 Wyong Street Oatley c)    85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale

 

 

 

Break - 3.30pm

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

Public Meeting Session Closed - 6.00pm (Break – Light Supper served to Panel Members)

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 16 August 2018

Page 2

 

 

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

 

LPP030-18        954 – 956 Forest Road Lugarno - DA2016/0104

(Report by Development Assessment Officer)

LPP031-18        22 Wyong Street Oatley - DA2017/0605

(Report by Team Leader Development Assessment)

LPP032-18        85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale - DA2017/0398

(Report by Independent Assessment)

 

 

 

 

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 16 August 2018

 

LPP Report No	LPP030-18	Development Application No	DA2016/0104
Site Address & Ward Locality	954 – 956 Forest Road Lugarno Peakhurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of an existing dwelling, construction of three single dwellings, construction of an attached dual occupancy, ancillary swimming pools, Torrens title subdivision
Owners	Mr B Ghrayche
Applicant	Mr B Ghrayche
Planner/Architect	GAT and Associates (Planner) Nexus Architecture (Architect)
Date Of Lodgement	6/05/2016
Submissions	Two (2) submissions received
Cost of Works	$1,750,000.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	Variation to Building Height Development Standard exceeding 10%
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, Hurstville Local Enviornmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Survey, Site Plan, Architectural Plans, Landscape Plan, Concept Drainage Plan
Report prepared by	Development Assessment Officer

 

 

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

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15 Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed, and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?	Yes  - Building Height
Special Infrastructure Contributions Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?	Not Applicable
Conditions Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?	No, application recommended for refusal

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

 

Site and Locality

1.      The subject site consists of Lots 37 and 38 in DP 21651 commonly known as 954-956 Forest Road, Lugarno, The site currently contains an existing dwelling house with ancillary structures such as sheds and a garage forward of the building line. 

 

 

2.      The site is located on the western side of Forest Road between Ulster Street to the north and Cypress Drive to the south. The site immediately adjoins Salt Pan Creek to the rear. 

 

3.      The site has a total area of 3996sqm and there is combination of two (2) existing allotments.

 

4.      The site provides Forest Road with frontage of 15.24m frontage whilst the northern side boundary is 301m in length and the southern side boundary is 216m.

 

Proposal

5.      The development application (DA) seeks development consent for demolition of an existing dwelling, construction of three single dwelling’s, construction of an attached dual occupancy, ancillary swimming pools, Torrens title subdivision

 

Zoning and Permissibility

6.           The Hurstville planning controls are applicable to the assessment of this application. The proposed development has been assessed against the applicable relevant planning controls. A clause 4.6 Variation has been provided seeking to allow an exceedance to the building height standard for the dual occupancy. This variation is not supported.

 

7.           The subject site zoned as R2 Low Density Residential and RE1 Public Recreation under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. This is shown graphically in the diagram below:

 

 

8.           All development works are located within the R2 Low Density Residential. Under the HLEP 2012 provisions both “subdivision”, “dwelling houses” and “dual occupancy” forms of development are permissible subject to development consent.

 

Submissions

9.           The application was notified/advertised to residents/owners in accordance with HDCP No 1 requirements; in response, two (2) submissions were received. The amended plans did not generate a greater environmental impact than the original proposal and did not necessitate re-notification.

 

Conclusion

10.         That the application cannot be supported for the reasons contained within this report.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

11.         The development application seeks consent for:

 

·    Demolition of existing single storey fibro dwelling and all ancillary outbuilding;

 

Dwelling 1 (DW1)

 

·    Two storey dwelling house (5 bedrooms), double garage with swimming pool

Ground floor: double garage, bathroom, entry, kitchen, family, dining, living, front veranda, rear veranda;

First floor: four bedrooms, two bathrooms, two front balconies and rear balcony;

Swimming pool;

 

Dwelling 2 (DW2)

 

·    Two storey dwelling house (5 bedrooms), double garage with swimming pool

Ground floor: double garage, entry, dining, living, kitchen, two bathrooms, two bedrooms, rear balcony; 

Lower ground floor:  two bedrooms, storage, study, two bathrooms, rumpus;

Swimming pool;

 

Dwelling 3 (DW3)

 

·    Part two – three storey dwelling house (5 bedrooms) with double garage

Garage floor plan: double garage, media/study, bathroom;

Lower ground floor plan: three bedrooms, two bathrooms, rumpus, balcony;

Ground floor plan: living room, dining, kitchen, entry, two bathrooms, laundry, rear balcony;

 

Dwelling 4-5 (attached dual occupancy) (DW4 and DW5)

 

·    Stepped attached dual occupancy (5 bedrooms each), double garage (for each occupancy)

Entry/roof level: double garage, entry, lift;

Level 1: family room, bathroom, bar, utility room, terrace;

Level 2: lounge room, dining, kitchen, two bedrooms, media/study, bathroom, two balconies;

Level 3: two bedrooms, two bathrooms, rear terrace;

 

Subdivision

·    4 lot Torrens Title Subdivision inclusive of 3 x allotments 550sqm (accommodating a dwelling each) and rear allotment (accommodating the attached dual occupancy);

 

·    Right of carriageway, driveway along northern side boundary with width of 3m;

 

·    Associated landscape and building works

 

Amended proposal

·    Additional swimming pool details provided for DW1 and DW2;

·    Realignment of driveway and passing bays along northern side boundary;

 

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

12.         The subject site has been inspected and proposal assessed under the relevant Section 4.15 "Matters for Evaluation" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) as follows:

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012 (As amended Rev 6 Aug 16)

13.         The extent to which the proposed development complies with the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 is detailed and discussed in the table below.

 

 

(1) Height of Buildings

14.         Under the provisions of the Hurstville LEP, Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings stipulates a height control of 9 metres measures from ground level existing for the subject site.

 

As detailed in the above table, Dwellings 1 – 3 are compliant with this control and no further consideration under Clause 4.6 is required. However the proposed Dual Occupancy development (being referred to as Dwellings 4 and 5) proposes a height range of 9m – 14.5m.  This is shown graphically in the submitted elevation plan below:

 

 

The applicant seeks a variation to the Building Height Development Standard under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. The statement has been prepared by the applicant’s Planning consultant, GAT and Associates (dated April 2016) and is attached to this report.

 

Clause 4.6 stipulates the following:

 

(1)     The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

(4)     Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)     the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

(5)     In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a)     whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)     the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)     any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

 

…”

 

In addressing the above LEP provision, consideration of the applicants request is outlined below:

 

“Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

(1)       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

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

 

Planning consultant comment: “As detailed in this written request for a variation to the maximum height of a building being a development standard under the Hurstville LEP 2012, the proposed development meets the requirements prescribed under Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville LEP 2012.”

 

…

 

The use of Clause 4.6 to enable an exception to this development control is appropriate in this instance and the consent authority may be satisfied that all requirements of Clause 4.6 have been satisfied in terms of merits of the proposed development and the content in this Clause 4.6 variation request report.”

 

DAO comment: Council acknowledges the applicants ability to seek a variation to the development standard to enable flexibility, however this is subject to meeting a number of stipulated preconditions including that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

DAO comment: The exception is sought under subclause (1) to the maximum building height controls of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Clause 4.3 is not excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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

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

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

 

Planning consultant comment: ‘As noted above, Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville LEP 2012 states that the subject land is subject to a maximum height of 9 metres.

 

Houses 1, 2 and 3 have all been designed within the 9m height control.

 

Houses 4 and 5 will provide for a maximum building height of 14.5m as measured to the top of the lift overrun. 

 

With respect to Houses 4 and 5 the non-compliance is considered to be a consequence of the natural fall of the land. The subject site falls sharply from east to west as shown on the submitted Site Plan, from RL 43.15 at the centre of the front boundary and RL 9.02 at the rear of Houses 4 and 5. This represents a drop of 34.13 metres across the site. We respectfully submit that the proposed variation is a result of the topography of the site rather than an overdevelopment of the site. This is evident through compliance with Council’s floor space ratio and landscaped are controls. 

 

The proposed variation from the development standard is assessed against the accepted “5 Part Test” for the assessment of a development standard variation established by the NSW Land and Environment Court in Wehbe vs Pittwater Council (2007) LEC 827.

 

In the matter of Four2Five, the Commissioner stated within the judgement the following, in reference to a variation:

 

“…the case law developed in relation to the application of SEPP 1 may be of assistance in applying Clause 4.6. While Wehbe concerned an objection under SEPP 1, in my view the analysis is equally applicable to a variation under Clause 4.6 where Clause 4.6 (3)(a) uses the same language as Clause 6 of SEPP 1.”

 

It is therefore our submission that the Wehbe test is of relevance in the consideration of a standard to determine whether or not it is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and it is evident in the Four2Five matter, the above test is relevant. As detailed within this section, a variation is considered to provide for a better planning outcome.

 

In the decision of Wehbe vs Pittwater Council (2007) LEC 827 , Chief Justice Preston expressed the view that there are five (5) different ways in which an objection may be well founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy. This attributes to determining whether compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as set out below:

 

First	The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non - compliance with the standard.   The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.
Second	A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.
Third	A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable
Fourth	A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable
Fifth	A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appro priate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary

 

The following discussion is provided in response to each of the above:

 

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

 

The objectives supporting the maximum height of buildings control identified in Clause 4.3 are discussed below. Consistency with the objectives and the absence of any environmental impacts, would demonstrate that strict compliance with the height standard would be both unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance. The discussion provided below demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3.

 

The development as proposed will be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard (being Clause 4.3), which are as follows:

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality, (b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes, (c)  to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage items, (d)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity, (e)  to establish maximum building heights that achieve appropriate urban form consistent with the major centre status of the Hurstville City Centre, (f)  to facilitate an appropriate transition between the existing character of areas or localities that are not undergoing, and are not likely to undergo, a substantial transformation, (g)  to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain.

 

The proposed semi-detached dwellings are considered to be complementary to the height, bulk and scale of the locality. Both of the proposed dwellings have been designed well within the maximum floor space ratio achievable for the site, and provide for substantial landscaping on the site particularly to the rear setback. In this regard, the proposed dwellings do not represent an overdevelopment of the site rather it is the significant slope of the land that has resulted in the numerical non-compliance with building height. 

 

As detailed above, the site falls from east to west with a notable 34m change in level. The change in topography is notably more pronounced in the location of Houses 4 and 5 as the site nears the foreshore. However specific regard has been made to ensure that the dwellings do not appear as dominant elements to the foreshore, with a rear setback of between 62 – 74 metres proposed. This area will be landscaped, complementing the RE1 zoning to the rear boundary of the site and softening the appearance of the built form.

 

Although the proposed semi-detached dwellings will exceed the rear building alignment of adjoining properties, the bulk of these dwellings are focused to the front section of the built form, with the rear portion of the dwellings more substantially stepped in its height and includes the terrace projections rather than solid building elements. 

 

As acknowledged above, an area of land to the rear of the site is zoned RE1 and will not be altered by this proposal. As such, the development will not adversely impact marine habitats or the like.

 

In terms of views, the development has been stepped in height and articulated at each level through the use of glazing and varied projections. As a result, the proposal will not obstruct views to the Georges River from adjoining properties.

 

With regards to privacy, where windows are proposed to a side boundary, they have been setback a minimum distance of 1500mm from the boundary and offset. The northern access handle provides for increased separation between the proposed dwellings and the neighbouring property. The dwellings include blade walls along the terraces to ensure privacy is maintained between the two dwellings, given their semidetached nature. The proposed balustrades are to be constructed using glass, and will be transparent, ensuring visual bulk is minimised. It is not considered that the variation will result in adverse impacts to the adjoining properties, and will not compromise the architecture of the dwellings. A degree of flexibility is considered reasonable in this instance.

 

The proposal will result in additional overshadowing to the southern neighbour. It is considered that the proposed overshadowing is not substantially different to the approved dual occupancy approved by Council in 2014. We respectfully submit that the overshadowing is a result of the orientation of the site. 

 

The site is not listed as an item of heritage, nor is the site located within the vicinity of a heritage item. 

 

As detailed above, the proposed height of the dwellings is considered to be consistent with the multi-level character of dwellings along the foreshore.

 

It is considered that this submission provides sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As demonstrated, the objectives of the standard have been achieved. 

 

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

 

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the development and is achieved as outlined in (i) above. Therefore this clause is not applicable.

 

iii. the underlying objector purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

 

Not applicable as the underlying objective or purpose would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required.

 

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

 

While the standard has not been abandoned or destroyed, Hurstville Council has varied LEP standards in the past.

 

v. the zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate s o t h a t 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.

 

Not applicable as the zoning of the site is appropriate.

 

Are there Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds?

The assessment above and shown throughout the Statement of Environmental Effects demonstrates that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory.

 

As stated, due to the topography of the site, the overall height of the building breach varies between 5.5m for Houses 4 and 5, as measured to the top of the lift overrun. Houses 1, 2 and 3 are compliant with the control. 

 

As stated, the development satisfies the objectives of the height control. While there is a breach to the height limits, the development has shown that it would not create any loss of privacy or views as a result. The number of storeys and envelope of the development is of a respectable nature that is consistent with multi-level dwellings on the foreshore. The breach in height is also exacerbated by the slope of the site.

 

The proposed dwellings have been stepped in their design to respond to the significant changes in topography to minimise their massing as viewed from the foreshore and to enable view lines to be retained from neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal retains a large area of landscaping on the site, including three large trees within the rear setback which will partially screen the development from view, reducing the perceived height of the building.

 

The proposed semi-detached dwellings (Houses 4 and 5) will exceed the rear building alignment of the adjoining properties, however the bulk of the dwellings has been focused to the front of the site with the rear portion of the dwellings more substantially stepped in its height and includes  open terrace projections rather than solid building elements.

 

As demonstrated the proposal is compliant with the floor space ratio and open space controls prescribed by Council.

 

The proposal will not result in any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy. A variation is therefore considered to be reasonable in this instance.

 

In this case, strict compliance with the development standard for the height of buildings in the Hurstville LEP 2012 is unnecessary and unreasonable.”

 

DAO Comment: The detailed submission by the applicant is acknowledged, however not concurred with. It is considered that the provided variation request does not adequately justify the proposed extent of variation of up to 61%.  The proposal is able to the redesigned to better reflect the sites topography whilst reducing the buildings bulk and scale.

 

As such, it is considered that the proposed application of the development standard is both reasonable and necessary to apply in the circumstances of the case.

 

Furthermore, there have not been sufficient environmental planning grounds provided to justify contravening the development standard.”

 

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

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

Planning consultant comment: “Clause 4.6 states that the development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is to be carried out.

 

It is considered that this submission provides sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard under Part 4.

 

The development as proposed will be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard (being Clause 4.3), as detailed under Point 3(i) of this submission. 

 

Furthermore, it is important to also consider the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in relation to the development, which are as follows:

 

1 Objectives of zone

 

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

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

·    To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

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

·    To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing  landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

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

 

In response to the above the following is provided:

 

The proposal provides for increased residential accommodation on the site, including detached and semi-detached dwellings which are characteristic of the low density environment. Several townhouse developments exist further to the south of the subject site.

 

The proposal does not include any other land uses.

 

The proposed dwellings include a mix of two, three and five level dwellings including detached and semi-detached dwellings. The proposed dwellings have been designed to comply with Council’s floor space ratio control and provide for good landscaping and open space recreation areas.

 

The proposed landscaped areas include a mix of shrub and tree plantings, with specific regard made to ensure sight lines will not be obscured along the driveway. It is acknowledged that an area of land to the rear of the site is zoned RE1 and will not be altered by this proposal. As such, the development will not adversely impact marine habitats or the like.

 

6. Public Benefit of Maintaining the Standard

It is considered that the public benefit will not be undermined by varying the standard. The development retains the two storey residential dwelling on site with majority of the additions located on the ground floor and towards the outdoor private open spaces. 

 

The built form is considered to be consistent with the character of the R2 zoning applying to the site, respecting the low density character of the area and foreshore.

 

It is not considered that the variation sought raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

The departure from the maximum height of buildings control within the Hurstville LEP 2012 allows for the orderly and economic use of the site in a manner which achieves the outcomes and objectives of the relevant planning controls. 

 

7. Is the Variation Well Founded?

It is considered that this has been adequately addressed in Parts 4 and 5 of this submission. In summary, this Clause 4.6 Variation is well founded as required by Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville LEP 2012 in that:

 

·    Compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the development;

·    There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the departure from the standard;

·    The development meets the objectives of the standard to be varied (the height of buildings), as well as the objectives of the E4 Environmental Living zoning of the land;

·    The proposed development is in the public interest and there is no public benefit in maintaining the standard;

·    The breach does not raise any matter of State of Regional Significance; and 

·    The development submitted generally aligns with Council’s Development Control Plan.

 

Based on the above, the variation is considered to be well founded.”

 

DAO comment: The applicant has submitted a written request, as such the proposed variation can be considered.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposed exceedances are not considered to be in the public interest.

 

In addition, the proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the zone as the developments height, level of cut & fill and failure to provide compliant private open space areas will not ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained. Nor will it encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

 

(5)       “In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

(a)       whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)       the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)       any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.”

 

DAO comment: The proposed variation does not raise any matter of significance for state or regional environmental planning. The proposed variation is site specific and there is no specific benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. There are no matters to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.

 

(6)     “Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

(a)       the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b)       the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

 

Note. When this Plan was made it did not include Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living.”

 

DAO comment: The application does not include subdivision in any of the prescribed zones.

 

(7)       “After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).”

 

DAO comment: A record is kept of the assessment of the application and details relating to the variation sought.

 

(8)       “This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

(a)       a development standard for complying development,

(b)       a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(c)       clause 5.4.”

 

DAO comment: The application satisfies this requirement as:

·    The development proposed is not complying development.

·    A BASIX certificate has been issued for the proposal.

·    Clause 5.4 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan does not apply to the proposal.’

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

15.         Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is detailed and discussed in the table below.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment – proposal seeks to drain to rear and if consent were to be granted appropriate conditions of consent could be imposed.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land Rear: allotment previously vacant, Front of site: contains an existing dwelling	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in non-rural areas) 2017	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004 – valid Basix certificate provided DW1: 718190S dated 29 April 2016 DW2: 719284S dated 29 April 2016 DW3: 719288S dated 29 April 2016 DW4: 719404S dated 29 April 2016 DW5: 719584S dated 29 April 2016 BASIX commitments appropriately notated on plans	Yes               Yes

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

16.         There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the development application.

 

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

17.         The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

 

Bushfire Assessment

The site is identified as being bushfire prone and was referred to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for comment. In response, comments were received which supported the proposal. If consent were to be granted appropriate conditions of consent could be imposed.

 

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.  If consent were to be granted appropriate conditions of consent could be imposed.

 

Development Control Plans

18.         The proposal has been assessed under the relevant Sections of HDCP Plan No 1 as follows.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.1 VEHICLE ACCESS, PARKING & MANOUVERING

19.         The extent to which the proposed development complies with Section 3.1 Vehicle Access, Parking & Manouvering is detailed and discussed in the table below.

 

It is noted that a traffic certification report prepared by Auswide Traffic Engineers Rev 1.0 dated March 2016 accompanied the application. The traffic report demonstrated adequate turning areas and swept paths B85 and sight lines in accordance with AS2890.1-2004. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has not raised any concerns with the application.

 

Section 3.1	Standard	Proposal	Complies
3.1.4.1 - Resident parking	3 x dwelling house (3+ bedrooms) = 6  spaces   1 x dual occupancy = 4 spaces     Total = 10	6 garage spaces (2 spaces per dwelling house)   4 garage spaces (carport considered to be an enclosed garage)   10 garage spaces provided	Yes       Yes     Yes
3.1.4.2 –Dimension of car spaces, car parking layout, circulation, egress and egress	Compliance with AS2890.1 2004 and AS2890.2	To comply with Australian Standards. Driveway supported by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer	Yes
3.1.4.3 – Stencilling of driveways	Finished with plain concrete	To be provided as plain concrete	Yes
3.1.4.4 – Ramps transitions, driveways	Ramp grades to comply with AS2890.2 2004, Part 2   Longitudinal section 1:20 to be provided with development application	Compliant with gradients in AS       Provided and supported by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer	Yes       Yes

 

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

20.         The proposal has been assessed under the relevant applicable controls as per below.

 

Section 3.1	Standard	Proposal	Complies
Minimum allotment size	550sqm         3m access handle	Proposed Lot 1: 550sqm Proposed Lot 2: 550sqm Proposed Lot 3: 550sqm Proposed Lot 4: 2350sqm   3.66m	Yes
	Dual occupancy – R2 Low Density Residential 1000sqm (Scenic Foreshore Protection Area)	Proposed Lot 4: 2350sqm	Yes
	Minimum allotment width for dwellings and dual occupancies is 15m	15.24m	Yes
	Battle axe allotment maximum number of lots R2 - 6	3 lots	Yes
	Newly created allotments must demonstrate how solar access, vehicular access, setbacks, landscaped areas and tree preservation can be achieved	Adequate solar access, vehicular access, setbacks, landscape and tree preservation areas achieved	Yes
Roads, Vehicular Access and Car Parking	Requirements to be satisfied in accordance with Council requirements and Australian Standards	Compliant with Australian Standards	Yes
Utilities and Services	Utilities and Services to be provided in accordance with Council requirements	Adequate utilities are available and if consent were to be granted appropriate conditions of consent applied requiring connection.	Yes
Drainage   Overland Flow Paths   Flow of Run-off across property boundaries   Control of seepage   Width of Easements	Adequate drainage to be provided	Appropriate stormwater drainage has been proposed.   If the proposal is considered to be worthy of approval conditions of consent can be applied.	Yes
Issues of Consideration	S94 Contributions to apply for each additional allotment created by land subdivision	Section 94 Contributions apply to this development	Yes

 

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

21.         This section of the Development Control Plan is not applicable to the assessment of this application.

 

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

22.        

Section 3.4	Standard	Proposal	Complies
Blind Corners	To be avoided	No blind corners evident given nature of proposal, appropriate sight lines provided	Yes
Entrances	Clearly visible and not confusing	Entrance to each dwelling is visible from the street DW1, other dwelling entrances visible from access handle	Yes
Site and building Layout	-Provide surveillance opportunities -Building addresses street -Habitable rooms are directed towards the front of the building -Garages are not dominant -Offset windows	Natural surveillance of the site is available from the dwellings. Surveillance of street is available from the dwellings where possible.	Yes
Landscaping	-Avoid dense medium height shrubs -Allow spacing for low growing dense vegetation -Low ground cover or high canopy trees around car-parks and pathways -Vegetation used as a barrier for unauthorised access	Landscaping proposed is appropriate with adequate landscape planting proposed	Yes
Lighting	-Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally -Access/egress points illuminated -No light-spill towards neighbours -Hiding places illuminated -Lighting is energy efficient	These requirements can be conditions of consent	Yes
Building Identification	-Clearly numbered buildings -Entrances numbered -Unit numbers provided at entry	House number requirement can be a condition of consent	Yes
Security	Provide an appropriate level of security for each dwelling and communal areas	Appropriate level of security provided for the dwellings	Yes
Ownership	Use of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownership	Ownership implied given nature and design of proposal	Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.5 LANDSCAPING

23.         This section of the Development Control Plan is not applicable to the assessment of this application in relation to the proposed dwelling house development. Consideration of the provisions in relation to the dual occupancy component of the development is detailed as follows:

 

Section	Standard	Proposed	Complies
Street and neighbourhood landscape character	Development contributes to the creation of a distinct, attractive landscape character for streets and neighbourhoods	The proposed landscaping will not reduce the visual impact of the building given its bulk and height.	No
Landscaping area and dimensions	The size and dimensions of landscaping areas are adequate to minimise the visual impact of buildings and structures and provides areas of a high level of utility and amenity	The proposed landscaping will not reduce the visual impact of the building given its bulk and height.	No
Significant trees and vegetation	Development protects existing significant trees and vegetation:	An arborist report accompanied the development application. Council’s Tree Management Officer supports the proposal subject to the removal of one (1) English Oak and one (1) Blackbutt due to low retention value and life expectancy. One (1) Eucalyptus Tree is at the front of the property is to be retained. However the application is not supported for other reasons.	Yes
Front, side and rear boundaries	Landscaping in front setbacks: a. integrates the public and private domain b. is coordinated with the street planting pattern and species c. reduces the visual impact of building structures and hardstand   And   Landscaping alongside boundaries reduces the visual impact of buildings on adjoining premises	The proposed development is situated on a battle-axe allotment and therefore will not impact the streetscape.   Notwithstanding, the proposed landscaping will not reduce the visual impact of the building given its bulk and height.	No
Communal & Private Open Space	Landscaping in communal open space and private open space contributes	No communal open space areas are proposed.   The proposed landscaping will not impact the useability or amenity	Yes
Car Parks	Landscaping reduces the environmental impacts of car parks	No car park is proposed as part of this application.	Not applicable
Landscape Plans	Development applications are supported by sufficient detail to demonstrate achievement of the objectives of this chapter	Landscape Plans have been submitted	Yes
Landscaping near areas of ecological significance	Landscaping that is located adjacent to areas of ecological significance protects and strengths the ecological values of the area	There are no identified of areas of ecological significance.	Not applicable
Landscaping near bushfire prone areas	Landscaping within or adjacent to areas that are bushfire prone minimise risk or bushfire hazard to people and property	The NSW RFS have reviewed the proposed development and not raised any objection in this regard.	Yes
Stormwater management	Landscaping facilitates on site stormwater infiltration and does not result in significant adverse water quality impacts	The landscaping proposed is not envisaged to impact on the onsite stormwater management	Yes
Maintenance	Landscaping areas are able to be easily maintained	Appropriate conditions can be imposed if the application is approved requiring maintenance of landscaping.	Yes
Safety	Landscaping provides for personal and property safety	The landscaping proposed is not envisaged to impact on personal and property safety	Yes
Utilities	Landscaping does not interfere with the effective functioning of utilities	The landscaping proposed is not envisaged to interfere with the effective functioning of utilities	Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.6 PUBLIC DOMAIN

24.         This section of the Development Control Plan is not applicable to the assessment of this application.

 

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

25.         Appropriate stormwater drainage has been proposed.  If the proposal is considered to be worthy of approval conditions of consent can be applied.

 

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

26.         Dwellings 1-3 located at the front of the site have been assessed as follows.

 

Section 4.1	Standard	Proposed	Complies
Streetscape	Must not diminish the quality of the streetscape	The proposed dwellings are considered to be compatible with the existing and future desired streetscape	Yes
Maximum Floor Area	For site area for lots 1 – 3 totals 550sqm x 0.55:1 = 302.sqm max	DW1 – DW3: 0.55:1 for all dwelling houses	Yes
Landscaped Areas and Private Open Spaces	25% to be landscaped area (min. width of 2m)   15sqm of landscaped area to be provided in the front yard   Principal Private Open Space Min. dimension of 4m x 5m	DW1- DW3: >25% landscaping for each allotment   DW1: More than 15sqm within front setback. This dwelling fronts Forest Road   DW1- DW3: > 4m x 5m on site, appropriate gradient and accessible to living areas	Yes       Yes       Yes
Building Height	Max. height  = 9m       Max. ceiling height = 7.2m	DW1: 7.8m DW2: 7.8m DW3: 8.41m   DW1: 6.9 DW2: 8 DW3: 8	Yes Yes Yes   Yes No No
Setback Controls	Front Setback (Building Line):   4.5m to front wall of the dwelling     5.5m to garage	DW1: 5.5m  (measured to solid fin wall of front veranda)   DW1: 5.5m (measured to garage door)	Yes     Yes
	Side Boundary Setbacks:   900mm to ground floor level   1.5m to first floor level (SFPA)	1.5m ground floor (min)     1.5m first floor (min)	Yes     Yes
	Rear Setback:   Ground floor level 3m   First floor level 6m	DW1-DW3: More than 3m   More than 6m	Yes   Yes
Balconies & Terraces	Direct access from a habitable room     Overlooking impacts can be minimized with the use of privacy screens between1.8m high	All balconies accessed from habitable rooms, no roof top terraces proposed   Privacy screens provided  1.8m in height where appropriate	Yes       Yes
Façade Articulation	Garage must be setback 5.5m   Garage doors facing the street must occupy less than 40% for sites greater than 12m wide   Habitable room to street   Dwellings must have a front door or window to a habitable room fronting the street   Dwellings must incorporate multiple building elements	DW1: 5.5m     DW1: Less than 40% DW2-3: Do not have a street frontage - Not applicable     DW1: Habitable rooms face street   DW1: Windows on ground and first floor front the street       Dwellings incorporate design elements providing modulation and articulation resulting in contributory visual interest	Yes     Yes         Yes     Yes       Yes
Car Parking	3 bedrooms or more, 2 spaces to be provided (1 space is to be located behind building line)   Garages must not extend further towards the front boundary than the front wall   Max. driveway crossing width: 2.7m and 4.5m   AS2890.1 – Max. driveway gradient = 1 in 5 (20%)	DW1 – DW3: 2 spaces for each dwelling house       DW1: Garage recessed from the front wall articulation which is the only dwelling with direct street presentation   DW1: 3m Shared access driveway: 3m   Compliant with gradient CC	Yes         Yes         Yes     Yes
Visual Privacy	Windows to be offset by 1m. Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed living areas.	Window offsets, high light windows and obscured glazing are used to mitigate privacy impact	Yes
Solar Design	Principal private open space of both the subject lot and adjoining lot must receive a minimum of 3hrs direct solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (June)	3hrs direct solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (June) achievable on most of the principal private open spaces	Yes
Stormwater	Stormwater assessment	Proposal seeks to drain to the rear – appropriate conditions can be applied if consent were to be granted.	Yes

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 4.3 DUAL OCCUPANCY HOUSING

27.         Dwellings 4-5 have been considered as follows.

 

 

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Gravity to rear of site
Proposed Stormwater System	Gravity to rear of site with overflow to Salt Pan Creek
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	Yes, consistent with objectives
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	Yes – 34.13m fall from front to rear
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	No
Discharge into same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 5.6 SWIMMING POOLS

28.         The proposal seeks development consent for two (2) swimming pools for DW1 and DW2 which are located above ground. The relevant controls have been considered as follows.

 

 

4.      Impacts

 

Natural & Built Environment

29.         The proposed dual occupancy height non-compliance, is considered to adverse impacts on the locality resulting in an unacceptable bulk and scale of development.

 

Social Impact

30.         The proposed development has no apparent social impacts given the residential nature of the use.

 

Economic Impact

31.         The proposed development has no apparent adverse economic impacts given the residential nature of the development. Development Contributions apply to new additional housing. A credit is granted for the existing dwelling house which is to be demolished.

 

Suitability of the Site

32.         The proposal forms a permissible use within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone within the LEP however, the development as proposed needs to be amended to more appropriately respond to the site topography.

 

REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Resident

33.         The application was notified/advertised to residents/owners in accordance with Council’s requirements, in response on two (2) submissions were received raising the following concerns.

 

Proposed driveway access

Comment: Concerns were raised in relation to the proposed shared driveway access along the northern side boundary. Concerns were raised in relation to the extent of excavation sought.  The proposal was referred to Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer who raised no concerns in relation to the driveway design.

 

Safety issues

Comment: concerns were raised in relation to safety issues for the proposed driveway along the northern side boundary. No safety concerns were raised by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer. The driveway is to comply with the Australian Standards for driveway gradients.

 

Bulk and scale, general view loss impact

Comment: Concerns were raised in relation to bulk and scale in particular to the dual occupancy at the rear of the property. As previously addressed within the report, the proposal seeks variation in height due to the steeply sloping topography of the site. It is agreed that the height of the dual occupancy development is not acceptable.

 

Accuracy of plans

Comment: Concerns were raised in relation to the accuracy of the plans. The assessment of the application indicates that the plans are adequate for the purposes of development assessment. An assessment has been undertaken based on the information provided, site inspection and information systems.

 

Impact on adjoining properties due to excavation

Comment: Concerns were raised in relation to the extent of the excavation sought. It was suggested, that appropriate engineering conditions be imposed to ensure protection of adjoining property and construction of retaining wall. If the application were to be approved, appropriate conditions can be imposed to address impacts.

 

Council Referrals

34.        

Team Leader Subdivision and Development

Council’s Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions of consent being attached to any consent granted.

 

Senior Traffic Engineer

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer raised no concerns with the proposal in relation to the design and safety aspects.

 

Tree Management Officer

An arborist report accompanied the development application. Council’s Tree Management Officer supports the proposal subject to the removal of one (1) English Oak and one (1) Blackbutt due to low retention value and life expectancy. One (1) Eucalyptus Tree is at the front of the property is to be retained. However the application is not supported for other reasons.

 

External Referrals

35.        

New South Wales Rural Fire Service

The proposal is supported by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service subject to conditions of consent. It is noted that amended bushfire report was provided during the development assessment process.

 

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Water

The proposal was referred to the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Water. In response, no concerns were raised.

 

CONCLUSION

36.         The proposed development does not comply with the Building Height Development Standard prescribed in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The submitted 4.6 variation to the Building Height Development Standard does not adequately justify that the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, nor does it provide adequate environmental planning grounds to justify departure from the standard

 

The applicant was advised on numerous occasions that the height variation to the dual occupancy would not be supported. 

 

The proposal is subsequently:

·    Inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the developments height, level of cut & fill and failure to provide compliant private open space areas will not ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained; and

·    not considered to be of an appropriate bulk, scale and form for the site and character of the locality.

 

In view of the above, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

DETERMINATION

37.         THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 19749 (as amended) the Council refuses Development Application DA2016/0104 for the demolition of an existing dwelling, construction of three single dwellings, construction of an attached dual occupancy, ancillary swimming pools, Torrens title subdivision at Lots 37 and 38 DP 21651 and known as 954-956 Forest Road, Peakhurst, for the reasons outlined as follows:

 

1.         The proposed development does not comply with the Building Height Development Standard prescribed in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2.         The submitted 4.6 variation to the Building Height Development Standard does not adequately justify that the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, nor does it provide adequate environmental planning grounds to justify departure from the standard

 

3.         The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the developments height, level of cut and fill and failure to provide compliant private open space areas will not ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained

 

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site Plan and Driveway Section - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno
Attachment ⇩2	House 1 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno
Attachment ⇩3	House 2 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno
Attachment ⇩4	House 3 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP030-18              954 – 956 Forest Road Lugarno [Appendix 2]           House 1 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno

Page 34

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP030-18              954 – 956 Forest Road Lugarno [Appendix 3]           House 2 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno

Page 35

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP030-18              954 – 956 Forest Road Lugarno [Appendix 4]           House 3 - Sections and Elevations - 954 - 956 Forest Road Lugarno

Page 36

 

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 16 August 2018

Page 37

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 16 August 2018

 

LPP Report No	LPP031-18	Development Application No	DA2017/0605
Site Address & Ward Locality	22 Wyong Street Oatley Blakehurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and Torrens Title Subdivision into 2 lots and construction of a dwelling and secondary dwelling on each lot
Owners	Tracey Wu
Applicant	Tracey Wu
Planner/Architect	BTG Planning
Date Of Lodgement	4/12/2017
Submissions	Eleven (11) submissions
Cost of Works	$1,880,000.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	10 or more submissions
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004; State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 ·    Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment ·    Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012; Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Architectural Plans
Report prepared by	Team Leader Development Assessment and Independent Assessment

 

 

Recommendation That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons stated below.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15 Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed, and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?	Not Applicable
Special Infrastructure Contributions Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?	Not Applicable
Conditions Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?	No – draft conditions have not been prepared, as the recommendation of this report is refusal.

 

Site Plan Air Photo of subject site, 22 Wyong Street, Oatley

 

Executive Summary

1.      The development application (DA) proposes demolition works, and the subdivision of land into two allotments, and then upon each lot it is proposed to erect a part two (2)/part three (3) storey dwelling and detached cabana.

 

2.      The major concerns with the DA are unresolved issues regarding tree removal, and also stormwater drainage disposal. Advice from Council’s internal referral officers are that the proposal, in its current form, cannot be supported for these reasons.

 

3.      It is noted that Council officers have indicated to the applicant that the proposed tree removal cannot be supported, and have requested withdrawal of the DA. Instead, the applicant responded with amended plans and additional information to support the DA.

 

4.      The DA has been assessed in terms of the provisions of Kogarah LEP 2012 and DCP 2013, and a number of issues of concern have been identified, including height (to top of parapet) and the maximum 60% depth of the second storey.

 

5.      The proposal has been notified to neighbours in accordance with Kogarah DCP 2013, and eleven (11) submissions have been received. Strong issues of concern have been raised in relation to tree removal, compliance with the DCP. These issues of concern are considered to be valid.

 

6.      In the circumstances of the case, it is considered that approval of this application would not be in the public interest. Accordingly, it is recommended that this DA be refused.

 

Report in Full

 

Proposal

7.      The DA seeks approval for demolition works, and the subdivision of land into two (2) allotments, and then upon each lot it is proposed to erect a part two (2)/part three (3) storey dwelling, and a detached cabana. The following is a copy of the site plan and photomontage to illustrate the proposed works.

 

 

 

8.      The subdivision component of the DA proposes to create allotments with site areas of 583.3sqm (Lot 1) and 565.9sqm (Lot 2).

 

9.      The dwellings on each allotment are proposed to be part two (2)/part three (3) storey with the following features:

 

·    Ground Floor: Double garage, entry hall with internal lift, study and guest bedroom.

·    First floor: Lounge room, kitchen, family room and terrace.

·    Second Floor: Three bedrooms, each with ensuite.

 

10.    In addition to the two (2) dwelling houses described above, the development also proposes the erection of a rear cabana with store room and shower facilities within the rear of each allotment.

 

11.    The original version of the DA proposed the erection of a secondary dwelling (“granny flat”) within the rear yard of each allotment, however this was replaced with the single storey cabana structure as described above.

 

Site and Locality

12.    The subject site is Lot 1 DP 112064 and its street address is 22 Wyong Street, Oatley. The site is located on the western side of Wyong Street, between Oatley Parade and Neverfail Place, Oatley. The site currently contains a single storey fibro dwelling house and detached garage and outbuilding (proposed to be demolished as part of this DA).

 

13.    The site has an area of 1149sqm, with a frontage of 20.115m to Wyong Parade and depth of 55.475m (northern boundary) and 58.94m (southern boundary).

 

14.    The site has a steep fall (over 10m level difference) from the rear boundary (RL14.53) to the front (RL4.07) of the site. The site contains numerous rock outcrops within the rear yard. Also, the site contains a number of trees within the rear yard.

 

15.    The surrounding area is residential. The photos below show the existing dwelling (viewed from the street).

 

 

Background

16.    The subject DA was lodged on 4 December 2017.

 

17.    On 7 December 2017, the applicant was sent an email advising that the proposed method of on-site detention is unsatisfactory, and additional information was requested in relation to stormwater disposal. This information was provided by the applicant on 11 December 2017.

 

18.    The DA was then notified to neighbours for a period from 13 December 2017 to 10 January 2018.

 

19.    On 19 December 2017, preliminary comments were provided from Council’s Consultant Arborist, raising concerns about removal of significant trees (Blackbutt and Sydney Red Gum).

 

20.    Although amended drainage plans were submitted (11 December 2017), these were assessed by Council’s Development Drainage Engineer and found to be unsatisfactory. Further, a driveway profile was required to be prepared in compliance with Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004.

 

21.    On 14 February 2018, the applicant was provided with copies of the submissions received from the neighbour notification process. The applicant provided a response to these submissions on 5 March 2018.

 

22.    On 9 April 2018, an email was sent to the applicant raising significant concern regarding the proposed removal of the Blackbutt and Sydney Red Gum trees within the site. The applicant was advised that the proposal must be re-designed to accommodate the trees. The applicant was advised that the proposal will not be supported and requested the DA to be withdrawn.

 

23.    Rather than withdraw the DA, the applicant submitted amended plans and additional information to support the DA. In particular, the key changes included replacement of the secondary dwelling with cabana structures, as well as revised Arborist assessment. This additional information was re-notified to neighbours and referred to Council officers.

 

24.    The amended plans were re-notified to neighbours for a period from 25 May to 8 June 2018.

 

25.    On 2 July 2018, comments were received from Council’s Drainage Engineer, advising that the previous issues of concern have not been resolved and that the submitted drainage information is still unsatisfactory.

 

26.    On 5 July 2018, comments have been received from Council’s Consultant Arborist, advising that he still has concerns about the proposed removal of the Blackbutt and Sydney Red Gum trees. In particular, the applicant’s own Arborist Report states that the tree has been identified as having high retention value.

 

27.    These issues of concern have been conveyed to the applicant throughout the DA process, and the applicant has been requested to withdraw the DA. The applicant has responded by providing amended plans and additional information, which has not adequately resolved or addressed the issues. Rather than seeking further information and/or amended plans to address these issues further, it is prudent to refer this DA to for the determination of the Local Planning Panel. The applicant will have the opportunity to present to the Panel during their deliberations.

 

Zoning and Permissibility

28.    The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Applicable Planning Controls

29.    The following environmental planning instruments and development control plans are relevant to the site and proposal:

 

·   Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 (Georges River Catchment)

·   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

·   State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007

·   Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

·   Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

 

30.    The proposed development has been assessed under the relevant Section 4.15(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan

31.    The subject site is subject to Kogarah LEP 2012. The provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 are of relevance to the proposal.  A comparison of the proposal against key provisions in the local environmental plan is tabled as follows.

 

Clause	Provision	Proposed	Complies
2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table	The site is within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Development for the purpose of ‘dwelling houses’ may be carried out only with development consent.   The relevant objective of the zone is to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.	The proposal falls within the definition of ‘dwelling house’.           The proposal is not inconsistent with these zone objectives.	Yes               Yes
2.6 Subdivision – consent requirements	Development consent is required for subdivision of the land.	The current DA includes subdivision of the land.	Yes
2.7 Demolition requires development consent	Development consent is required for demolition of the buildings.	The current DA includes the demolition of existing structures.	Yes
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size	550sqm (min)	Lot 1 – 583.3sqm Lot 2 – 565.9sqm	Yes
4.3 Height of buildings	9m (max)	Lot 1 – 8.15m Lot 2 – 8.15m	Yes
4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratio for residential accommodation in Zone R2	As the proposal involves a land subdivision – it is considered that the FSR should apply to the proposed allotment sizes. In this instance, the proposal involves subdivision to create allotments of 583.3sqm and 565.9sqm therefore a FSR of 0.55:1 applies.	Lot 1 – 0.45:1   Lot 2 –  0.46:1	Yes
6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils	Development consent is required for the carrying out of works below the natural ground surface on that part of the land that is identified as class 2 on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map.	The subject site is partly within land identified as Class 2 within the ASS map. The current DA would satisfy the requirement to obtain development consent	Yes
6.2 Earthworks	Development consent is required for earthworks, and also Council must consider various matters as part of assessment of development proposals	Submission of this DA would satisfy the requirement to obtain consent for earthworks.	Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

32.    The development is subject to a number of State Environmental Planning Policies. Compliance with these Policies is discussed as follows:

 

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

33.    BASIX Certificates been issued for the proposal and the commitments required by these Certificates have been satisfied.

 

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

34.    The development proposes removal of two significant trees (a Blackbutt and a Sydney Red Gum) near the rear and centre of the site. As noted previously, the removal of these trees is not supported because of their significance. In particular, the applicant’s own arborist report states that these trees have high retention value.

 

35.    Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be satisfactory in terms of the provisions of SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017.

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

36.    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 inconsistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment.

 

37.    The applicant’s submitted drainage design has been referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer, who has advised that the proposal as amended is unsatisfactory.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

38.    This SEPP requires Council to consider the potential for site contamination as part of development assessment.

 

39.    The subject land has been used for residential purposes for many years, and not used for any form of use that would raise suspicion of potential site contamination. The proposal would therefore be considered acceptable in terms of the provisions of SEPP 55.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policies

 

Draft Environment SEPP

40.    The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018.

 

41.    This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland, and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·      Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·      Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·      Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

 

42.    As discussed throughout this report, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of proposed tree removal and also stormwater drainage. The proposal is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Kogarah DCP 2013

43.    The proposal is subject to the provisions of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.  A comparison of the proposal against key controls in Kogarah DCP 2013 is provided in the following tables (separate compliance table for each dwelling house proposed in this DA).

 

Dwelling House on Lot 1

Control	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Building Height - Upper Ceiling - Parapet - top of ridge	7.2m (max) 7.8m (max) 9m (max)	8.15m to top of roof (not pitched). 7.8m maximum applies. Development does not comply	No
Number of Levels	2 (max). 3 if site slope exceeds 12.5%	3 levels, on a site which has a slope of >12.5%	Yes
Second Level Depth	60% (max)	36.799m/ 62.44%	No
Setbacks -Front -Rear Side (East) Side (West)	1.2m (min) 1.2m (min)	Setbacks -Front -Rear Side (East) Side (West)	1.2m (min) 1.2m (min)
Glazing to Front Facade	35% (max)	<35%	Yes
Deep Soil Landscaping	15% (min)	194.60sqm / 38.45%	Yes
Balconies/ Terraces per Dwelling	40m² (max)	12.7sqm	Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces (min)	2 spaces	Yes

 

Dwelling House on Lot 2

Control	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Building Height - Upper Ceiling - Parapet - top of ridge	7.2m (max) 7.8m (max) 9m (max)	8.15m to top of roof (not pitched). 7.8m maximum applies. Development does not comply	No
Number of Levels	2 (max)	3 (site exceeds 12.5%)	Yes
Second Level Depth	60% (max)	34.924m/62.95%	No
Setbacks -Front -Rear Side (East) Side (West)	1.2m (min) 1.2m (min)	1m to basement and 1.2m to ground and first floor	No
Glazing to Front Facade	35% (max)	<35%	Yes
Deep Soil Landscaping	15% (min)	194.60sqm/38.45%	Yes
Balconies/ Terraces per Dwelling	40sqm (max)	12.7sqm	Yes
Car Parking	2 spaces (min)	2 spaces	Yes

 

Note from table above

 

44.    The DCP compliance tables provided for each dwelling indicates non-compliance in terms of the maximum height (maximum 7.8m to the top of the parapet, proposal is 8.15m for each dwelling); and also the second level depth (max 60%, proposal is 62.44% for Dwelling 1 and 62.95% for Dwelling 2).

 

45.    These matters could be justified or addressed through design amendments if the proposal was considered acceptable in other aspects. However in this instance, the proposal is unacceptable in terms of tree removal and stormwater disposal as discussed throughout this report.

 

Impacts

 

Natural Environment

46.    The proposed stormwater system is not supported, therefore the drainage of the site is not adequate which will have an adverse impact on the natural environment. Further, the proposed tree removal (of the Blackbutt and Sydney Red Gum trees) is also not supported and therefore it is considered that the proposal would have an unsatisfactory impact in terms of the Natural Environment.

 

Built Environment

47.    The proposal could generally be considered acceptable in terms of impacts on the built environment, with various aspects of the proposal being justifiable or able to be addressed via conditions of consent. However is recommended for refusal for other reasons as outlined in this report.

 

Social and Economic Impact

48.    The proposal would generally be considered acceptable in terms of social and economic impacts, however is recommended for refusal for other reasons as outlined in this report.

 

Suitability of the Site

49.    The site presents a number of constraints including existing vegetation and the need for appropriate stormwater disposal. The applicant’s DA submission has not adequately addressed these issues, and therefore it is considered that the site is not suitable for the development as currently proposed in this DA.

 

SUBMISSIONS

50.    The proposal has been notified to neighbours on two occasions during the processing of this DA, in particular, neighbours have been notified of the latest amended plans which are subject of this assessment report.

 

51.    The original DA was notified for a period from 13 December 2017 to 10 January 2018.  When amended plans were received, these were re-notified for a period from 25 May to 8 June 2018. In response to the public notification process Council received eleven (11) submissions.

 

52.    The issues of concern raised in the submissions are summarised and discussed as follows:

 

53.    Asbestos Removal

Concern is raised that the existing dwelling contains asbestos.

 

54.    Comment: This could be addressed by standard conditions requiring compliance with WorkCover requirements for demolition, if it is decided to approve the DA.

 

55.    Non-compliance with Kogarah LEP 2012 – FSR in clause 4.4A

Concern is raised that the FSR should be calculated on the existing lot size of 1152sqm, and not the lot sizes as a result of the proposed subdivision.

 

56.    Comment: Not agreed. It is considered that the correct approach would be to apply the FSR on the proposed allotment sizes. The proposal is for the subdivision of land and then the subsequent erection of dwellings on the newly created allotments. The FSR control in clause 4.4A only applies if the land was not to be subdivided, and a smaller overall FSR is prescribed if the land is to remain in one title. However in this instance the subdivision is an integral part of the development proposal.

 

57.    As the proposal involves a land subdivision – it is considered that the FSR should apply to the proposed allotment sizes. In this instance, the proposal involves subdivision to create allotments of 583.3sqm and 565.9sqm therefore a FSR of 0.55:1 applies. The development proposes FSR of 0.45:1 for Lot 1 and 0.46:1 for Lot 2 which complies with the LEP requirement.

 

58.    Building Envelope and Height

Concern is raised that the development does not comply with the building envelope controls, which will result in an unacceptable impact on neighbours in terms of overshadowing and amenity impacts.

 

59.    Comment: It is noted that the proposal does not comply with the maximum height controls (7.8m to the parapet).

 

60.    Parking

Concern is raised that no parking is proposed for the secondary dwellings, resulting in on-street parking that will adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

61.    Comment: The secondary dwellings have been deleted from the proposal. Also, it is noted that separate parking is not required for secondary dwellings under the applicable planning controls.

 

62.    Concern with amended plan submission

Concern is raised that the amended plans do not address previous concerns with the original DA submission.

 

63.    Comment: Noted. Assessment officer’s comments are provided in terms of the neighbour submissions on the amended plans.

 

64.    Rooftop Terrace

Concern is raised that the development proposes a rooftop terrace, contrary to the DCP controls, and further that such roof terrace is likely to cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

65.    Comment: The proposal does not contain a rooftop terrace. The proposal does include a small deck off the main bedroom at the top-most level, above the living areas below, however a review of the plans indicates that the deck is relatively small, and the remainder of the roof is identified as being “stone ballast on waterproof membrane”. This is not considered to constitute a roof terrace. A suitable condition of consent could be imposed to ensure that such area is non-trafficable (if it is decided to approve the DA).

 

66.    Overshadowing on 24 Wyong St

Concern is raised that the development will result in excessive overshadowing of the property to the south.

 

67.    Comment: The solar access controls in Kogarah DCP 2013 states that where neighbouring properties are affected by overshadowing, at least 50% or the neighbouring existing primary private open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

68.    The shadow diagrams submitted with the DA (Note: amended shadow diagrams do not appear to have been prepared for the amended plans which replaced the secondary dwellings with cabanas) indicates that the rear yard area of the property to the south (No 24 Wyong) would be affected by the shadows from the proposed development. However it should be noted that this area is already affected by the existing vegetation (on the subject site No 22 Wyong) which would cause significant overshadowing of (No 24 Wyong).

 

69.    Primary Building Façade not to exceed 40% of the overall width

Concern is raised that the development does not comply with this DCP requirement.

 

70.    Comment: This DCP control aims to provide an articulated façade. The proposal does not comply with the DCP requirement, because the primary façade (being the front elevation of the garage in this instance) occupies the entire frontage of the dwelling.

 

71.    Non-compliance with Land and Environment Court Planning Principle

Concern is raised that the development does not satisfy the LEC Planning Principles relating to impacts on neighbouring properties, particularly overshadowing and amenity impacts.

 

72.    Comment: These matters have been discussed elsewhere in consideration of other points of objection.

 

73.    Visual Privacy

Concern is raised that the development causes significant visual privacy impacts on neighbours.

 

74.    Comment: These matters could be resolved through design amendments or conditions of consent, if it is intended to support the proposal. However, as discussed throughout this report, the proposal is unacceptable for various reasons, and therefore such design amendments have not been sought.

 

REFERRALS

 

Council Referrals

 

Consultant Arborist

75.    The DA has been referred to Council’s Consultant Arborist, who has provided the following comments on the latest amendments:

 

76.    I still believe that retention of the Eucalyptus pilularis (the Blackbutt) shall remain. I believe there is room for a development and a redesign. It’s my opinion, that maybe the site is not suitable for a side by side dual occupancy. The site has constraints and its my understanding that the arborist reports where prepared after the design had been formulised. The client should have engaged an Arborist during design phase and to prepare a Preliminary Tree Assessment, so as to guide in the development. My opinion and recommendations would be to retain the Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), close to the northern boundary fence and an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) located towards the back of the property and for an AQF Level 3 or above climbing arborist formulate a maintenance regime in monitoring and formative/ target prune the Eucalyptus pilularis on a regular basis.

 

As both Arborist reports state for the Eucalyptus pilularis –

 

1 – Botanics Tree Wise People – Retention Value – 1 – HIGH

2 – Jacksons Nature Works – ULE – 2D – “Trees that could be made more suitable for retention  in the medium term by remedial tree care”

 

My rating for this tree, in accordance with – IACA – STARS – Significance of a tree Assessment Rating System, would be in the HIGH category, thus having three (3) or more criteria that classifies this tree within the HIGH category.

 

77.    Assessment Officer’s comment: It is clear from the above comments of Council’s Consultant Arborist that the removal of the Blackbutt and the Sydney Red Gum trees are unacceptable. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of tree removal.

 

Drainage Engineer

78.    The DA has been referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer, who has provided the following comments on the latest amendments:

 

79.    After an engineering review to the submitted drainage, it is found that there is insufficient information and the drainage plans were not adequate and did not comply with the requested issues from Council in a previous communication dated 5/01/2018.

 

80.    Assessment Officer’s comment: It is clear from the above comments of Council’s Drainage Engineer that the amended drainage details have not addressed Council’s previous request for information, and are therefore unacceptable. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of stormwater drainage disposal.

 

CONCLUSION

81.    The proposal has been assessed using the heads of consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, and is considered to be unsatisfactory for the reasons enunciated in this report.

 

82.    In particular, the proposal is unacceptable in terms of removal of two significant trees from the rear and centre of the site. It is considered that these could be retained with a more sensitive design. The applicant’s own Arborist report indicates that these are of high retention value.

 

83.    The proposal is also unacceptable in terms of stormwater drainage design. This issue (and the issue of tree removal) has been raised with the applicant and has not been resolved in a manner which would result in the development being considered satisfactory.

 

84.    The proposal also has some areas of non-compliance with the DCP. Although these could be resolved through design amendments or conditions of consent, such an approach should only be pursued if the development was satisfactory in all other aspects. However in this instance, the proposal is unacceptable for reasons of tree removal and stormwater drainage disposal.

 

85.    The proposal as currently submitted is considered to be unsatisfactory and is recommended for refusal.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

86.    THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses Development Application DA2017/0605 for demolition of existing structures and Torrens Title Subdivision into 2 lots and construction of a dwelling and secondary dwelling on each lot at Lot 1 DP 112064 and known as 22 Wyong Street, Oatley, for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposal is unacceptable in terms of tree removal. In particular, the existing Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt), and Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) trees are identified as having high retention value, and there would be potential to retain these trees with an amended design.

 

2.   The proposal is unacceptable in terms of stormwater disposal. Further, insufficient and unsatisfactory information has been submitted in relation to the disposal of stormwater.

 

3.   The proposal is unacceptable when assessed in terms of the controls contained in Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. In particular, the proposal does not comply with: the maximum height control and the maximum second storey depth control.

 

4.   In the circumstances of the case, approval of the development would not be in the public interest.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Revised site plan - 22 Wyong St Oatley
Attachment ⇩2	Revised Elevations - 22 Wyong St Oatley
Attachment ⇩3	Revised Landscape Concept Plan - 22 Wyong St Oatley
Attachment ⇩4	Shadow Diagram - 9am - 21 JUNE - 22 Wyong St Oatley
Attachment ⇩5	Shadow Diagram - 12  Noon - 21 JUNE- 22 Wyong St Oatley
Attachment ⇩6	Shadow Diagram - 3 30pm - 21 JUNE - 22 Wyong St Oatley

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 1]           Revised site plan - 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 51

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 2]           Revised Elevations - 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 52

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 3]           Revised Landscape Concept Plan - 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 53

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 4]           Shadow Diagram - 9am - 21 JUNE - 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 54

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 5]           Shadow Diagram - 12  Noon - 21 JUNE- 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 55

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP031-18              22 Wyong Street Oatley [Appendix 6]           Shadow Diagram - 3 30pm - 21 JUNE - 22 Wyong St Oatley

Page 56

 

Georges River Council – Local Planning Panel   Thursday, 16 August 2018

Page 57

 

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 16 August 2018

 

LPP Report No	LPP032-18	Development Application No	DA2017/0398
Site Address & Ward Locality	85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale Blakehurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures and construction of six storey mixed use development with basement parking
Owners	Tina Turner, Ian Hargraves, Vicki Hargraves
Applicant	CD Architects
Planner/Architect	Planner – Planning Ingenuity / CD Architects
Date Of Lodgement	8/09/2017
Submissions	One (1) submission in relation to notification of the originally lodged proposal.  One (1) submission in relation to the notification of the amended plans.
Cost of Works	$11,856,608.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	Local Planning Panels Direction - State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies to the proposed development.
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007,  State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development,  State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004,  State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Apartment Design Guide, Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarag Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Amended Plans submitted to Council for assessment on 12 June 2018
Report prepared by	Independent Assessment and Coordinator Development Assessment

 

 

Recommendation That the application be deferred pending concurrence from Sydney Trains as outlined in this report.

 

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15 Have all recommendations in relation to relevant s4.15 matters been summarised in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction Have relevant clauses in all applicable environmental planning instruments where the consent authority must be satisfied about a particular matter been listed, and relevant recommendations summarised, in the Executive Summary of the assessment report?	Yes
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards If a written request for a contravention to a development standard (clause 4.6 of the LEP) has been received, has it been attached to the assessment report?	A 4.6 variation provided – variation to Floor Space Ratio. Refer to discussion within the report
Special Infrastructure Contributions Does the DA require Special Infrastructure Contributions conditions (under s7.24)?	Not Applicable
Conditions Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?	No

 

Site Plan

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      The development application (DA) seeks consent for the demolition of all existing structures on the subject site, and the construction of a six (6) storey mixed-use development comprising ground level commercial floor space with shop-top housing above and two and a half levels of parking within a basement and at ground floor, at 85-87 Railway Parade, Mortdale.

 

2.      More specifically, the residential component of the development will include forty (40) apartments, comprising seven (7) x one bedroom apartments, thirty (30) x two bedroom apartments, and three (3) x three bedroom apartments.

 

3.      The proposal will include one (1) commercial premise on the ground floor which has frontage to both Railway Parade and Ellen Subway as it wraps around the corner of the site.

 

4.      Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is provided off Railway Parade. The two and a half parking levels of the building will accommodate seventy eight (78) cars, and nineteen (19) bicycles.

 

5.      The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Ellen Subway which is generally south of the Mortdale railway station and T4 Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Rail Line. Adjoining land to the north and west of the subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012).

 

6.      Opposite to the south of the site and also to the east is land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the KLEP2012.

 

7.      Existing development on the subject site and surrounds is predominantly low density residential, with some neighbourhood shops located opposite on the southern side of Railway Parade.

 

8.      DA2017/0570 is currently under assessment by Georges River Council (GRC) on the property adjoining to the north at 1 Ellen Subway. This DA seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of seven (7) storey mixed use development with basement car parking.

 

9.      The subject site is generally free of any significant environmental constraints that would prove a material limitation to redevelopment of the land for the proposed purposes. The possible exception is a large and significant White Cedar tree located adjacent to the subject site within the Ellen Subway verge. This is however to be retained and protected as part of the proposed development.

 

10.    Having regard to the zoning of the site and surrounds, it is clear the future character of land within the immediate vicinity of the subject site is transitioning to a higher density mixed-use environment.

 

11.    The proposal has been assessed against the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). Key areas of non-compliance with the relevant planning controls are outlined below:

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

At around 2.55:1, the proposal exceeds the 2.5:1 FSR development standard prescribed for the site under clause 4.4 of the KLEP2012. At the time of writing the assessment report, no clause 4.6 written request had been submitted to Council for assessment, and as such, development consent cannot be granted for the proposal pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the KLEP2012.

 

Regarding the FSR non-compliance, in the opinion of the assessment planner, there is merit in allowing a variation to the development standard. As such, the applicant has been invited to submit a clause 4.6 written request for consideration by the GRC local planning panel prior to determination of the DA.

 

Should the applicant not submit a written request, or should the written request not satisfy the provisions of clause 4.6 of the KLEP2012, then the GRC Local Planning Panel should consider either refusal or deferral of the development consent for the proposal.

 

Sydney Trains

Division 15 (Railways) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) is applicable to the site as pursuant to clause 86(1) the site is within 25m of a rail corridor (T4 Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra line).  Under clause 86(2), a referral was made to the Rail Authority (Sydney Trains) on 26 April 2018; a response was received on 10 May 2018 with the rail authority issuing a “Stop the Clock” letter until information was provided by the applicant.

 

As per clause 86(3) of the ISEPP, the consent authority must not grant consent to development to which this clause applies without the concurrence of the rail authority for the rail corridor to which the DA relates.

 

At the finalisation of this report Sydney Trains have not provided concurrence. As this matter does not fundamentally impact the design or impacts of the development, it is requested that the LPP consider the application and if supportable when the additional matters are received that delegation be granted to the Manager of Development and Building having regard to the conditions contained below and amendments arising from the concurrence from Sydney Trains.

 

BASIX

A revised BASIX certificate has been submitted - BASIX Certificate No. 852364M_02 dated 8 August 2018.

 

12.    As part of the assessment of the subject DA, notification of the proposal was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013) on 14 September 2017. In response to the notification of the DA, one (1) submission dated 19 September 2017 was received objecting to the proposal.

 

13.    The objections raised were on the basis of loss of solar access from overshadowing, excessive building height, and the appropriateness of the R2 Low Density Residential zone on the southern side of Railway Parade.

 

14.    On 9 July 2018 re-notification of amended plans submitted by the applicant took place in accordance with the provisions of the KDCP2013. In response one (1) submission was received raising concern with the density of development, community safety due to increased demand on utility services and roads and transport, that high density is not needed and the lack of green spaces. The height of 6 storeys is excessive, 2 should be the limit, but the approvals are supported due to the income they derive.

 

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

 

Report in Full

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

 

16.    The DA seeks consent for the demolition of all existing structures on the subject site, and the construction of a six-storey mixed-use development comprising of a ground level commercial floor space with shop-top housing above, and two and a half levels of parking.

 

17.    Further details of the proposal are as follows.

 

Demolition

18.    The proposal involves the demolition of all existing structures. The existing structures to be demolished include the single storey brick dwelling at 85 Railway Parade, and a two storey brick dwelling and detached garage at 87 Railway Parade including ancillary structures namely retaining walls, footpaths and external stairs.

 

Commercial Component

19.    The proposed mixed-use development contains a commercial component at ground level with an area of 212sqm. The commercial floor space extends for approximately half the width of the Railway Parade frontage and wraps around the corner, which activates a portion of the Ellen Subway frontage. A continuous awning along the Railway Parade and part of Ellen Subway frontages will provide weather protection for pedestrians. Plant, services areas and the waste rooms associated with both the commercial and residential components of the development are also located at ground level behind the commercial tenancy and building entry.

 

Residential Component

20.    The proposal contains a total of forty (40) apartments over 5 levels. The apartment composition is:

-    Seven (7) x single bedroom apartments;

-    Thirty (30) x two bedroom apartments; and

-    Three (3) x three bedroom apartments.

 

21.    With 8 nominated as ‘liveable’ or ‘adaptable’ dwellings which are equitably distributed across the 5 residential levels. Each apartment has an open plan living and dining arrangement and a private open space in the form of a terrace or balcony which is directly accessible from the living area.

 

Access and Parking

22.    The plans show vehicular access to the site from Railway Parade, at the south-western corner of the allotment. The car park comprises two and a half levels which are predominantly in basement to accommodate 78 car parking spaces. Of these 78 spaces, 59 spaces are allocated to the residential apartments, 8 as visitor parking spaces for the residences, 9 spaces for the commercial component of the development, 1 car wash bay and 1 loading bay.

 

23.    Bicycle parking spaces are also included within the basement levels for a total of 19 bicycles.

 

24.    Pedestrian access from the parking area to the upper levels is provided via a stairwell and passenger lift.

 

25.    The parking levels of the building also contain storage areas for the apartments, along with a bulky goods waste room.

 

Landscaping

26.    The proposal generally includes deep soil areas to the rear of the site that have a minimum of 3m dimensions. There is also some smaller deep soil components located along portions of the Ellen Subway frontage.

 

27.    The principal communal open space area for the development will be located on the roof top. The roof top terrace incorporates outdoor furniture and raised planter beds at its edges to limit the trafficable area of the roof top.

Figure 1 – Perspective of the proposed development as viewed from the Railway Parade frontage, looking north. Noted on the ground floor is the basement parking entry to the left of frame, the pedestrian entry to the centre and the commercial premises to the right of frame which wraps around the corner of Railway Parade and Ellen Subway. Located above the ground floor are five levels of residential accommodation.

 

Figure 2 - Perspective of the proposed development as viewed from the Ellen Subway frontage, looking south-west. Noted on the ground floor is the commercial premise to the left of frame which wraps around the corner to the Railway Parade frontage. The openings to the right of frame at the ground floor level are to the upper level of the parking area. Located above the ground floor is five levels of residential accommodation. Noted in this image is the contour of the embankment to the Ellen Subway frontage which is to be maintained as per the recommendation of the Design Review Panel.

 

HISTORY

28.    The following provides a brief outline as to the history of the subject DA:

 

08/09/2017    Subject DA, being DA2017/0398 lodged with Georges River Council (GRC).

18/09/2017    Application notified for a 14-day period from 18 September 2017 until 2 October 2017. One (1) submission was received on 21 September 2017, objecting to the proposal.

13/10/2017    Design Review Panel (DRP) meeting held. The recommendation from the meeting was that the application be supported, subject to a number of issues being resolved – refer to detailed discussion later in this report.

21/11/2017    Request for additional information sent to the applicant raising the following issues:

-   Consideration of site amalgamation with the adjoining property at 1 Ellen Subway.

-   Deletion of the balcony area off Bedroom 2 of Unit 106.

-   Building above the ground floor to be setback from the south-western boundary.

-   A minimum 6m setback is to be provided to ensure a more pronounced podium.

-   The break in the building between Unit 101 and 109 is to be increased.

-   The commercial area layout was considered not to provide a high level of usability, and also should be enlarged.

-   Privacy concerns from balconies off Units 401, 402 and 403 and the impact to the future building to be located at 1 Ellen Subway.

-   Consideration for additional deep soil area.

-   Fire booster doors open up onto the Council verge area of Railway Parade.

-   No structures to be built outside of the property boundaries.

-   Manoeuvrability concerns with visitor space 05-08 on Basement 1 level.

                             

26/04/2018    Request received from Sydney Trains for a formal referral to be made by Council pursuant to Clause 86 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.  A referral was made and received by Sydney Trains on 27 April 2018.

10/05/2018    “Stop the Clock” letter issued by Sydney Trains until information is submitted relating to excavation, structural design and associated information.

11/05/2018    “Stop the Clock” letter issued by Sydney Trains forwarded to the applicant.

28/06/2018    Amended and additional information provided in response to the minutes from the 13 October 2018 DRP meeting and the request for additional information dated 21 November 2017.

 

Reference should be made to the detailed assessment under SEPP65 for the responses to the DRP assessment.

 

The following provides a response to the additional information request raised by Council on 21 November 2017:

 

-   The applicant has advised that as per their discussion with Council officers, site amalgamation will not be perused with the adjoining property at 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale. While it may be argued that better urban design outcomes could be achieved with site amalgamation, there is no specified site amalgamation requirements for the subject site or adjoining land under the provisions of Appendix 3 - Site Amalgamation for RFB Development with Part C ‘Residential’ of the KDCP2013. It is also noted that there are no minimum allotment dimension or size requirements under the relevant planning controls that are offended by the proposed development. Given the proposal is generally capable of satisfying the relevant planning provisions, it is contended there is no site amalgamation/isolation issue with the subject site.

 

-   The balcony area off Bedroom 2 of Unit 106 has been removed as part of the latest plan amendments by the applicant as requested by Council.

 

-   The building has not been setback from the south-western boundary has had been requested by Council in the additional information letter. The applicant refers to previous discussions on this matter with Council officers.

 

-   There has been no change to the setbacks to create a more pronounced podium as had been requested by Council.

 

-   Regarding the break in the building between Unit 101 and 109 being increased, the applicant has responded by commenting that the aforementioned break is provided to allow natural light to the residential lobby on the upper levels of the same building, and that there are no windows between these units along this interface that would otherwise trigger any sensitivity associated with the visual privacy and building separation requirements of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

-   In response to Council’s request for improved size and usability of the commercial area, the applicant has noted that the commercial area has been amended due to the relocation of the pedestrian and vehicular access. The commercial area now occupies the corner of the development in a ‘square’ form with shopfront glazing from three sides to maximize activation and promote flexibility of usage to the occupants. It is noted however that the size of the commercial area has not changed. On this point it is noted that the size of the commercial area does not offend any specific planning controls.

 

-   Regarding the privacy concerns from balconies off Units 401, 402 and 403, the applicant has noted that the setback of 6m (from balcony) and 9m (from building wall) to the northern boundary on Level 4 has been provided as per ADG requirement. Additionally, the applicant has noted that the 1.4m depth of planters and also screens to Unit 401, 402 and 403 will assist in the protection of privacy to future tenants.

 

-   No additional deep soil area is provided despite Council’s request. Despite this, the applicant notes that landscaping with 1.5m planters are provided along the western boundary.

 

-   The fire booster doors have now been relocated to open within the subject site as per Council’s request.

 

-   The applicant notes that given the pedestrian and vehicular access has been relocated from Ellen Subway to Railway Parade, there are no longer any structures located within the embankment of Ellen Subway.

 

-   The applicant has now provided a turning bay next to the visitors car bays in Basement 1 to allow cars to manoeuver and exit when the parking is fully occupied.

09/07/2018         Referral made to Sydney Trains.

12/07/2018        Amended information re-notified for a 14-day period from 12 July 2018 until 26 July 2018.  One (1) submission was received in response to this notification.

 

29.    A review of GRC’s online DA tracking website has not identified any DAs lodged on the subject site prior to the lodgement of the subject application.

 

30.    A review of neighbouring allotments has revealed DA2017/0520 is currently under assessment by GRC for the demolition of existing structures and construction of seven (7) storey mixed use development at 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale – see discussion later in the assessment report for further details on this adjoining DA.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

31.    The subject site has a street address of 85 - 87 Railway Parade, Mortdale, and is formally known as Lot 7 Sec. 1 in Deposited Plan 1884, Lot 8 in Deposited Plan 456956, and Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 171157.

 

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

 

Site Area	1367.2sqm
Frontage to Railway Parade	34.44m
Frontage to Ellen Subway	38.99m
Rear northern boundary	27.43m
Side western boundary	44.195m

 

33.    The subject site is located on the south western corner of Ellen Subway being the corner of Railway Parade and Ellen Subway, being is approximately 30m south of the Mortdale Railway Station and the T4 Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line.

 

34.    At the eastern edge of the subject site is Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 171157 which is at the corner of Railway Parade and Ellen Subway. Located in the middle of the three allotments is 85 Railway Parade which includes a single storey brick house with a tiled roof. Adjoining to the west is 87 Railway Parade which includes a two storey brick house with a tiled roof, and a detached garage at the rear of the site with vehicle access off Railway Parade.

 

35.    The subject site comprises mostly garden plants and shrubs, and is generally clear of any significant trees, except for an 8m high Jacaranda tree located within the north-eastern rear corner of 85 Railway Parade. Adjoining the subject site within the verge of Ellen Subway is a 9m high White Cedar tree which has a 12m canopy spread that encroaches upon the eastern portion of the subject site.

 

Figure 3 – Aerial photograph depicting the subject site and surrounds at 17 July 2018. Noted in this image is the proximity of the subject site to the Mortdale railway station to the north-west, and the associated T4 Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line. Beyond to the north-west is the Mortdale neighbourhood centre. Immediately adjacent to the north and west is land also zoned B2 Local Centre under the KLEP2012. Opposite the site to the south and east is land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

 

36.    Adjoining the subject site to the north is 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale. This land contains a two-storey brick dwelling and carport, and also a single storey building with other small structures. This land is accessed via Ellen Subway. Currently under assessment by GRC is DA2017/0570 for the demolition of these existing structures and construction of a seven (7) storey mixed use development with basement car parking.

Figure 4 – Perspective image of the proposed residential flat building current under assessment by GRC on the neighbouring land to the north at 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale (DA2017/0570). This development adjoins the T4 railway line and the rear boundary of the subject site. The proposal is for demolition of existing structures and construction of seven (7) storey mixed use development with basement carpark.

 

37.    Adjoining to the south west of the subject site is land at 89 Railway Parade Mortdale. This land currently includes a two storey semi-detached brick dwelling house. A double garage presents to the street and vehicular and pedestrian access is from Railway Parade.

 

38.    Immediately opposite the site, within Railway Parade Mortdale being land at 116 and 118 Railway Parade. This land includes a pair of mixed use buildings comprising a commercial and residential component. The building at 118 Railway Parade is a two storey structure, with the commercial component occupying the ground floor and the residential component provided as shop-top housing. The building at 116 Railway Parade is a single storey structure with the commercial component fronting the street at ground level and the residential component situated at the rear. Both buildings have an awning extending over the Railway Parade footpath.

 

39.    To the east of the site at 83 Railway Parade, on the opposite side of Ellen Subway, is a single storey brick cottage with vehicular access from Rosemont Avenue. A single bathroom window is located on the south western elevation of the cottage that faces the subject site, and a timber paling fence extends the length of the south western property boundary. Substantial vegetation is situated along the verge between 83 Railway Parade and Ellen Subway and is known as Ellen Subway Gardens (Rosemont Avenue Reserve).

Figure 5 – View of the subject site from the corner of Railway Parade and Ellen Subway looking northwest. Noted in this image is the two-storey brick dwelling at 87 Railway Parade to the left of frame, the single storey brick dwelling to the centre of the frame, and the triangular vegetated allotment adjacent to Ellen Subway which includes the White Cedar tree which has a canopy spread that encroaches upon the eastern portion of the subject site – the tree is without foliage given it is deciduous and the photograph was captured in July 2018.

 

 

Figure 6 - View of the subject site from the southern side of Railway Parade looking north east across the site’s frontage to Railway Parade. Noted in this image is the two storey dwelling at 89 Railway Parade to the far-left of frame, two storey brick dwelling at 87 Railway Parade to the centre-left of frame, the single storey brick dwelling to the centre-right of frame, and brick cottage on the opposite side of Ellen Subway to the far right of frame.

 

Figure 7 - View of the subject site from the eastern side of Ellen Subway looking south-west to the secondary street frontage of the site to Ellen Subway. Noted is the Colorbond fence to 85 Railway Parade, and the land between the Colorbond fence and Ellen Street largely comprising of Lot 1 in DP 171157 which also forms part of the subject site except for a small portion adjacent to the driveway at the right of frame which is Lot 1 DP 171156.

 

Figure 8 – Image of the dwelling house located at 85 Railway Parade captured from the footpath of Railway Parade looking north.

 

Figure 9 – Image of the dwelling house located at 87 Railway Parade captured from the footpath of Railway Parade looking north.

 

Figure 10 - Two storey semi-detached brick dwelling house with the double garage presenting to the street at 89 Railway Parade. Image captured from Railway Parade looking north.

 

Figure 11 – Image of the mixed use buildings opposite the subject site on the southern side of Railway Parade at 116 and 118 Railway Parade. Image captured from the northern side of Railway Parade looking south.

 

Figure 12 – image of the dwelling house/cottage on the opposite corner of the subject site at 83 Railway Parade. Image captured from the southern side of Railway Parade looking north east.

 

APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS

·   Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

·   State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

·   State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

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

·   Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy

·   Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

·   Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

·   Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

·   Apartment Design Guide

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

 

40.    The site has been inspected and the proposed development has been assessed under the relevant Section 4.15(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Zoning

41.    The subject site is zoned Zone B2 Local Centre under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). Refer to zoning map extract below

 

Figure 13 – Zoning map extract from the KLEP2012 demonstrating the subject site is located within the B2 Local Centre zone. Within the B2 zone, mixed use development for the purposes of shop-top housing is permitted with consent.

 

42.    The objectives of the B2 zone are as follows:

-    To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

-    To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

-    To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling

 

43.    The proposed development is capable of achieving consistency with the objectives of the B2 zone as it will provide for a mix of both commercial and residential land uses within an accessible location to the nearby Mortdale Railway Station. Additional, employment opportunities will arise from the proposed commercial area on the ground floor of the building.

 

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

 

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

45.    Clause 4.4 of the KLEP2012 prescribes that the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for a building is not to exceed the FSR shown for the land on the FSR Map. The FSR Map for the subject site under the KLEP2012 indicates a maximum FSR of 2.5:1.

 

46.    The subject site has a combined site area of 1,367.2sqm, which means the maximum gross floor area (GFA) for buildings on the land is 3,418sqm. As part of the documentation submitted with the DA, the applicant has provided GFA calculation diagrams, and the information within these diagrams indicates that the proposal is compliant by less than 1sqm, with a total GFA of 3,417.57sqm.

 

47.    However, the GFA diagrams also show that relevant elements have been excluded from this calculation, and therefore the proposal has been assessed as being non-compliant with the FSR standard. It is estimated that the total proposed GFA is approximately 3,498sqm, which would equate to a non-compliant FSR of 2.558:1 and would represent a 2.32% variation to the FSR development standard under clause 4.4 of the KLEP2012.

 

48.    The estimated 80sqm discrepancy between the applicant’s GFA calculation of 3,416.68sqm and the DA assessment planner’s calculation of approximately 3,498sqm appears to relate to the following building components:

 

-    Residential and commercial waste rooms on the ground floor of the building have been excluded from the GFA calculation as outlined in part (e) of the GFA definition, only garbage areas in a ‘basement’ are excluded from the GFA calculation. The aforementioned waste rooms are not within the ‘basement’ as per the definition contained within the Dictionary of the KLEP2012. This is because the floor level of the storey immediately above the garbage rooms is not less than 1m above ground level (existing), but is in fact several metres above the ground level (existing).

-    The pedestrian access to the WC on the ground floor has not been included within the GFA definition, despite there being no apparent reason to exclude this when having regard to the GFA definition.

-    The proposal includes a surplus of one (1) residential car parking space over that of the requirements of the consent authority. Per part (g) of the GFA definition, car parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority (including access to that car parking) is excluded from the GFA definition.

 

49.    The applicant has provided a formal written clause 4.6 request dated 8 August 2018, of which is attached to this report, a synopsis of the justification is outlined below:

 

Lot size – 1,367.2sqm

Permitted FSR 2.5:1 – 3,418sqm

Proposed FSR – 3,470.2sqm being a variation 1.53% or 52.42sqm

The excess floor space relates to the waste enclosure located above ground level.

 

Conclusion:

This written request has been prepared in relation to the proposed variation to the FSR development standard contained in KLEP 2012.

Despite the non-compliance with the standard, the proposed FSR and subsequent form are compatible with the emerging character of the locality as anticipated by the changes to the height and FSR development standards.

 

It is important to note that the building density variation is not a by-product of non-compliant development height as there is no calculable gross floor area that exceeds the height limit. Rather, the resultant density increase is a result of the waste enclosure being located at the ground level rather than within a basement and therefore not excluded from GFA.

 

The proposal represents the first major redevelopment of land in the Mortdale Precinct south of the rail corridor and will establish an appropriate pattern of development. The mixed-use development will have no significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining or nearby properties and will offer a substantial level of internal amenity for future residents in a highly accessible location.

 

The proposal provides for 40 new high-quality dwellings and new commercial floor space in the Georges River Local Government Area and therefore assists in meeting the housing and commercial needs of the community needs of the community. The commercial floor space proposed is proximate to the existing Mortdale Town Centre and will support ongoing economic activity in the locality. The floor space is function in terms of its layout, attractive due to its exposure and visibility from Railway Parade and Ellen Subway, and will conceivably accommodate a broad range of commercial and business uses. This aspect of the development will create new employment opportunities and will undoubtedly have a positive economic impact.

 

The request explains that, with the proposed variation, the development satisfies the objectives of the standard and the objectives of Zone B2. It further explains why it is therefore unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance with the FSR development standard. In addition, this request demonstrates that there are sufficient site specific environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, and therefore the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

50.    The request for a variation to the floor space ratio development standard in the circumstances of the case is supported for the following reasons:

 

-    None of the GFA identified above constitutes residential apartments or commercial floor area of the building, and such, the applicant is not unduly benefiting from the FSR non-compliance through additional apartments or commercial spaces.

-    The GFA variation is largely a technical non-compliance that has largely come about through strict application of the relevant definitions within the Dictionary of the KLEP2012 that are unsympathetic to site anomalies, such as the varying topography of the land. Although these areas are located on a ‘ground level’, the gradual slope down to the commercial corner results in the areas away from the corner moving closer towards meeting the definition of the basement level. The areas listed above are located part way through this level, and their finished floor levels are well below the existing ground levels of the site.

-    A reason why the garbage rooms are not considered ‘basement’ despite their floor level being almost 2m below existing ground level, is because of the higher ceiling heights required on the ground floor of shop top housing development that see the floor level of the storey immediately above the garbage rooms being more than 1m above ground level (existing).

-    The areas of non-compliance are internal to the building, and do not include windows that would overlook adjoining property, nor do these parts of the building contribute to increased overshadowing etc.

-    It is contended that irrespective of the numerical non-compliance with the FSR development standard, the objectives of the development standard and also the B2 zone are still achieved.

-    In the circumstances of the above, it would likely be in the public interest for the consent authority to permit the minor 2.32% variation of the control.

 

51.    Given the above, it is recommended that the clause 4.6 variation to the FSR development standard be supported in the circumstances of this case.

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policies

 

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

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

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

55.    Divisions 5 (Electricity Transmission or Distribution) and 17 (Roads and Traffic) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) are not applicable to the proposal.  There is no information to indicate that an external referral to the relevant energy supply authority was required in accordance with clause 45 of the ISEPP. The proposal does not constitute “Traffic generating development”, thus a referral was not made to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

 

56.    Division 15 (Railways) of the ISEPP is however applicable to the site as pursuant to clause 86(1) it is within 25m of a rail corridor.  As required by clause 86(2), a referral was made to the Rail Authority (Sydney Trains) on 26 April 2018; a response was received on 10 May 2018 with the rail authority issuing a “Stop the Clock” letter until information was provided by the applicant.

 

57.    As per clause 86(3) of the ISEPP the consent authority must not grant consent to development to which this clause applies without the concurrence of the rail authority for the rail corridor to which the DA relates.

 

58.    Sydney Trains have not provided comments at the time of preparation of this report 8 August 2018.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

59.    A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site.  Further to the site review, submitted information and site inspections did not identify evidence of contamination. With consideration to the above, and assuming that recommended consent conditions and are satisfied in the event of an approval, it is unlikely that the site is contaminated and the site would therefore be suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

60.    BASIX Certificate No. 852364M_02 dated 8 August 2018 has been issued for the proposed development.

 

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

61.    The objectives of the SEPP are to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas and preserve the amenity of non-rural areas through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This policy applies pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the SEPP as the site is within both Georges River Council and the B2 Local Centre zone. Pursuant to Clause 8(1) of the SEPP, clearing does not require authority under the policy as it is a type of clearing that is authorised under Section 60O of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (specifically, that associated with a development consent issued under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

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

62.    State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) was gazetted on 26 July 2002 and applies to the assessment of DAs for residential flat developments of three or more storeys in height and containing at least four dwellings. Amendment 3 to SEPP 65 commenced on 17 July 2015 and implemented various changes including the introduction of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to replace the Residential Flat Design Code. Given the nature of the development proposed, SEPP 65 applies.

 

63.    Clause 28(2) of SEPP65 requires that the consent authority take into consideration the following as part of the determination of DAs to which SEPP 65 applies:

 

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

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

c)  the Apartment Design Guide.

 

64.    The following provides a comment in relation to items a) and b) above. An assessment against c) is contained within Attachment A.

 

65.    The DA was assessed by the Design Review Panel (DRP) at a meeting held on 13 October 2018 having regard to each of the nine (9) Design Quality Principles.

 

66.    In their report, the DRP recommends support of the application, subject to the issues raised within their Report being resolved.

 

67.    It is noted that the DRP indicates that the application satisfied the design quality principles contained within SEPP65.

 

68.    The issues raised by the DRP are covered below, followed by a comment on how they have been resolved:

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings	DRP Comment	Planner Comment
Context and Neighbouring Character  Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.  Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.  Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.	The site is located in an area recently rezoned B2 with a permissibly density of 2.5:1 and a height of 21m. It would be the first site to be redeveloped in the block bounded by Ellen Subway, Railway Parade and the railway to the north. Ellen Subway to the south of the railway underpass has wide nature strips on both sides with extensive planting and adjacent to the subject site is a very attractive and significant tree (Melia azedarach – Native white cedar), which should be conserved.  Vehicular access to the subject site and the adjoining site to the north is a critical issue and desirably both should be served by only a single cut through the existing embankment. Note that the ownership of the embankment is unclear and owners consent will be necessary.  The site adjoins Railway Parade to the south which offers the potential for commercial frontages on this site and the adjoining sites in the block. This also appears to be the obviously desirable location for the pedestrian entrance.	Noted. A DA has also subsequently been lodged for the adjoining site to the north at 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale for the demolition of existing structures and construction of seven (7) storey mixed use development. Regarding the native White Cedar located on the Ellen Subway frontage, it is noted that the applicant has relocated the access driveway to the development to the Railway Parade frontage and included a ‘cut-out’ in the basement to accommodate the retention of the tree as per the DRP request. The application has been referred to Council’s Tree Management Officers who have confirmed retention of the tree is capable, subject to the imposition of consent conditions. Acknowledging the critical nature of vehicular access along the Ellen Subway frontage, the applicant has relocated the vehicular entry to the Railway Parade frontage. A commercial tenancy to the Railway Parade frontage has been included in the amended plans. This wraps partially around to the Ellen Subway frontage but not so far as to impact on the existing significant vegetation. The pedestrian entry to the building has been positioned on the railway parade frontage as recommended by the DRP. This would leave only the single cut-through of the existing embankment to accommodate parking for the adjoining development at 1 Ellen Subway, Mortdale as recommended by the DRP. With the vehicular access moved to the Railway Parade frontage, this would also ameliorate land ownership concerns raised by the DRP over what was presumably the wedge shaped lot at Lot 1 in DP 171156.
Built Form and Scale  Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.  Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.  Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.	The form and scale is generally appropriate for the new increased density development of the area. However the strong white horizontal bands of the lower three (3) storeys should be made less dominant and relate more sympathetically to this context.  The following issues should be addressed:  -  Vehicular entry and basement construction should be located in a way which ensures that there be no adverse impact on the important tree, and the attractive character of the landscaped public property.  -  Future vehicular access to the adjacent site to the north must be resolved as part of this development, desirably with shared access through this site. Council should condition approval for the subject development to ensure that this access will be protected to serve the adjoining site as well.   -  Pedestrian entrance should be relocated to the Railway Parade frontage  -  The Panel recommends that amenities be provided to support the communal space on the roof garden. This should attempt to conform where possible with the height and floor space ratio.	The comments from the DRP noting the form and scale of the development being generally appropriate for the area are noted. Regarding the comments from the DRP on the ‘strong white horizontal bands of the lower three (3) storeys’, these have since been made less dominant via the applicant’s amended plans in the following manner: -  The horizontal bands have been reduced from 4 storeys to 3 storeys to relate to the lower density dwellings along Railway Parade. -  The overall bands are divided with series of slots to reduce the length of the balustrade as well as introduction of vertical screens to balance the horizontality of the balconies.   The vehicular entry has been relocated to the Railway Parade frontage to address previous impact on the White Cedar tree on the Ellen Subway frontage, and increase opportunities for landscaping on the Ellen Subway frontage. Given the location of the vehicular entry has changed to the Railway Parade frontage; there is no need to include a shared vehicular access to the adjoining development currently under consideration by Council at 1 Ellen Subway. The outcome of this arrangement will still ensure only one cut-through of the embankment is proposed, and this will be located in a position that is in the vicinity of the existing vehicular access cut-through for 1 Ellen Subway. The pedestrian entry has been relocated to the Railway Parade frontage as requested by the DRP. The roof top communal open space is claimed by the applicant to include a child play area to better support the use of this space for different age groups. However this is not reflected on the drawings. A condition requiring this is imposed.
Density  Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.  Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.	Compliant and acceptable	Noted.
Sustainability  Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.  Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.	Subject to BASIX	Noted. A revised BASIX certificate has been provided.
Landscape  Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.  Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.  Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.	As mentioned above, the existing embankment and trees along Ellen Subway are a valuable landscape asset that should be retained, protected and enhanced. To this end, and as mentioned above, the existing landform and significant vegetation must be retained and protected, including from any constraint that this development places on future development of adjoining sites. The tree protection zone for the existing Melia sp. should be calculated, mapped and protected.  Any level changes between the development and the existing levels along Ellen Subway should be handled via thoughtful landscape initiatives in preference to built structures or retaining walls.   In addition, the street landscape in front of the adjacent site to the north must be conserved and therefore considered in the design of this site.  Street tree planting should be provided to Railway Parade and Ellen Subway.    The proposed floor level of the commercial space is not apparent in the drawings provided however any grading required to ensure accessibility from the footpath must occur within the property boundary.  A program of use that considers the likely recreational needs of residents should be developed for the roof top communal open space. This may include separate areas for group gatherings, solitary pursuits, or children’s play. A small kitchenette and wc facilities should be provided. The design should eliminate any small, non-functional spaces. Access must be provided to the ‘pebble roof’ on level 1 for maintenance. There may be opportunity to provide greening of the north facing wall in this area.  The super-sized balconies require planter boxes to delineate private open space, provide an appropriate sense of scale, and screen along the property boundary. The reason for the ‘nature strip’ adjacent to the commercial frontage on Railway Parade is unclear – see architectural plan DA1103. The Railway Parade streetscape must be more fully resolved including levels, paving, landscape, any street furniture, lighting, etc.	The proposal now includes the vehicular and pedestrian access points on the Railway Parade frontage, meaning that pressure on the landscaped outcome for Ellen Subway has been largely ameliorated. A revised landscape plan has not been submitted to Council however, given the critical nature of the building’s presentation to Ellen Subway the application will be conditioned that a detailed landscape plan be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. It is recommended that a condition be included whereby an updated landscape plan is provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. As outlined above, the revised landscape plan is considered necessary for the proposed DA, and this should include details on any level changes adjacent to the Ellen Subway frontage. The amended proposal maintains a deep soil area along the northern boundary with a minimum width of 3m. The revised landscape plan is to include the proposed street tree planting in accordance with Council’s specifications. The applicant details a children’s play area and BBQ space has now been included on the rooftop terrace as recommended by the DRP, however this is not reflected on the plans. This will help facilitate use of the space by a wider age group. The applicant has noted that a WC is provided on the ground level which is accessible via the lift from the rooftop. A maintenance access door has been provided to enable access to the ‘pebble roof’ on Level 1 of the building as per the DRP recommendations. The large balconies on Level 4 of the building now include planter boxes to help define the edge of the building, and provide some screening to the property boundary. Planter boxes are also proposed for the extent of the rooftop area that does not comprise of the communal open space area. Given no amended landscape plan has been provided, there is still no detailing of the nature strips in front of the commercial premises on Railway Parade. As such, it is recommended a condition be included that details be provided with the Construction Certificate.
Amenity  Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being.  Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.	The following issues should be addressed:  -  The narrow natural light slot. See comments above under ‘Landscape’ – greening of this pebble roof might be considered.  -  Balconies should be provided with screening to ensure privacy and protection from strong winds, particularly corner balconies.  -  Provide screening and protection to bedroom windows.	The pebble roof remains as such on Level 1. Opportunities to landscape this have not been included in the amended plans, nor has this matter been appropriately responded to the applicant. Screening has now been provided to all balconies. The corner balconies are protected with solid balustrades from privacy and wind impact.
Safety  Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety. A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.	Satisfactory	Noted.
Housing Diversity and Social Interaction  Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.  Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.  Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.	Satisfactory  Consider however proximity to the railway station and nearby schools.	Noted.   The proposed development is within close proximity of the Mortdale railway station and Mortdale neighbourhood centre. The apartment mix proposed is not considered to respond poorly to this, and a good mix of dwellings sizes is included.
Aesthetics  Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.  The visual appearance of a well-designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.	Requires further refinement to take into account the evolving context, preferably avoiding stark dark and white contrast.	The applicant has responded through the introduction of polished concrete to the horizontal bands signifying weathering effects on the façade, as well as the vertical timber-looking composite cladding panelling which will complement the existing abundance of green strips along the embankment as well as the RE1 zoned land diagonally across the site to the north.   Blue bricks which are applied to the ground level wall level reinforce the podium style expression, as well as respond to the surrounding buildings which are predominantly brick dwellings.

 

69.    Having regard to the above, it is considered the advice provided by the DRP has generally been adopted by the applicant in the amendments to the drawings. The only outstanding matter would be that pertaining to a revised landscape plan which, should the DA be approved, can be addressed via the following condition:

 

Landscape Plan. The submission of a revised landscape plan having regard to the applicant’s design amendments undertaken throughout the course of the development application assessment, in particular responding to the comments raised by the Design Review Panel in their report dated 13 October 2017, and in response to Council’s additional information request dated 21 November 2017. The revised landscape plan should include, but not be limited to the following:

 

-     The landscape treatment of the Ellen Subway frontage, ensuring the White Cedar tree is retained, along with the sloping nature of the embankment.

-     Any level changes between the development and the existing levels along Ellen Subway should be handled via thoughtful landscape initiatives rather than built structures or retaining walls.

-     Detail planting for all planter boxes proposed to ensure appropriate screening and softening of the building. This also includes the narrow light slot where the pebble roof is located.

-     The Railway Parade streetscape must be more fully resolved including levels, paving, landscape, any street furniture, lighting, etc.

 

70.    The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) provides planning and design standards for apartments across NSW. It provides design criteria and general about how development proposals can achieve the nine design quality principles identified in SEPP 65.

 

71.    As outlined earlier, Clause 28 of SEPP65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. Contained in Attachment A is a detailed compliance table assessment how the proposed development, as currently amended, performs against the relevant provisions of the ADG.

 

72.    As demonstrated within the ADG compliance table, the proposal is satisfactory when considered against the relevant objectives, design criteria and design guidance for residential flat buildings.

 

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Draft Environment SEPP

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

 

74.    Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

·    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011

·    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50 – Canal Estate Development

·    Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

·    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997)

·    Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

·    Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property.

 

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

 

Development Control Plans

 

KOGARAH DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2013 (KDCP)

Part C1 KDCP 2013 – Development Compliance Table

76.    A detailed assessment of the development against the relevant sections of KDCP 2013 is contained in Attachment B of this assessment report.

 

77.    Below is a discussion on the key non-compliances/issues with the KDCP2013.

 

Active Frontages

78.    Part 3.6.2 of D1 outlines requirements for active frontages within the B1 and B2 zones. The objectives of the controls are provided as follows:

 

a)   Achieve a well designed streetscape that engages and activates the commercial locality and contributes to its economic viability.

b)   Ensure streetscapes enhance pedestrian safety and provide adequate lighting and opportunities for passive surveillance.

c)   Provide shopfronts and openings that relate in scale and proportion to the new and existing neighbouring buildings.

d)   Preserve the surviving heritage character of whole shop frontages and their elements.

e)   Ensure that non-retail uses and their entries do not detract from the retail streetscape.

f)    Design buildings with active frontages that engage and activate the centre.

 

79.    The proposal provides a large commercial area at the street corner, which is the most prominent location of the site, as well as being the lowest point of the site.

 

80.    The commercial area occupies approximately one-third of the Ellen Subway frontage which is currently characterised by a continuous embankment, between the intersection with Railway Parade and the Railway bridge further to the north. A previous design had sought a basement entry along this frontage; however, the Design Review Panel had considered that the streetscape would be better served with the retention of trees within the embankment, and the maintenance of a landscape setting within at this frontage.

 

81.    This is consistent with Part 3.13 of Part D1, which requires landscape buffers to the proposed adjacent to low density residential development, an appropriate landscape buffer is to be planted to provide separation and screening between the proposed development and the existing low density development. Single dwellings within the R2 Low Density Residential zone sit directly opposite the site across Ellen Subway, and the retention of the embankment will better allow for a landscape buffer between the higher density development at the subject site, and the low density development on the eastern side of Ellen Subway. As a consequence of the retention of the embankment, there is little utility in providing an active frontage at the northern end of this frontage, as the ground floor areas will sit behind the retained embankment.

 

82.    The commercial area comprises over half of the frontage to Railway Parade, with the remainder occupied by a residential lobby, basement vehicular access, and services (i.e. emergency egress, fire hydrant pump room, and fire booster). Given these services cannot be located on the Ellen Subway frontage, it is considered that the active frontages at the Railway Parade frontage is maximised, noting that the residential lobby will also generate pedestrian traffic, and will be visible from the street.

 

83.    It should be noted that the shortest pedestrian route from the site to Mortdale Railway Station is along Railway Parade, and not Ellen Subway. It is considered that active frontages have been optimised at this site.

 

Parking

84.    Part B4 and Clause 3.7 of Part D1 outline car parking requirements for the subject development.

 

85.    The table below indicates the required residential parking:

 

Type	Required Parking & Dwelling Mix	Number of Dwellings	Total Required Parking
1 Bed	1	7	7
2 Bed	1.5	30	45
3+ Bed	2	3	6
Total Parking			58
Visitor	1/5	40	8
Total Residential Parking			66

 

86.    The proposal provides a total of 67 parking spaces which is compliant with the requirement for residential parking. One (1) additional resident parking space is provided above that required by Part 3.7; this is discussed further within in relation to the floor space ratio non-compliance.

 

87.    The proposal also complies with the minimum requirements for accessible parking, and carwash spaces.

 

88.    In relation to non-residential parking, Part B4 outlines the following relevant parking rates:

·    1 space per 25sqm for retail

·    1 space per 40sqm for commercial

 

89.    The calculations on the plan show that parking has been provided in accordance with the higher retail parking rates, despite retail not being specifically proposed. This is considered to be preferable, as it requires a greater amount of parking, which may be necessary in the event that the use is changed to a retail use via a complying development application. The proposal provides the 9 parking spaces (rounded up) required for the 212sqm of commercial/retail floor space that is proposed. The proposal also provides the required loading bay.

 

90.    Finally, bicycle parking is required in accordance with the following:

 

Type	Required	Proposed	Total Required
Bicycle - Residents	1/3	40	13.3
Bicycle - Visitors	1/10	40	4.0
Bicycle Commercial	1/5	8.5	0.8
Total Bicycle			18.2

 

91.    The proposal complies with this requirement.

 

Design & Layout of Car Parking Areas

92.    Part B4 and Clause 3.7 of Part D1 also provide further guidance on the design of car parking areas. The proposal does not comply with the following specific requirements:

 

·    Separate driveways should be provided for the use of residents and service/ customer vehicles accessing non-residential development.

·    Basement car parking is to be located within the building footprint.

·    Include natural ventilation to basement and semi basement car parking.

 

93.    Each of these non-compliances is considered to be acceptable as discussed below:

 

·    The site is not large enough to accommodate two driveways, and to do so would be to the detriment of the streetscape, and landscaping within the street.

·    The basement is predominately located within the building footprint, with the exception of a small portion of a basement which extends towards the Ellen Subway boundary towards the northern corner of the site. Given the limited space available at each level to provide parking, and the proportion of each basement level dedicated to manoeuvring, a small encroachment outside of the footprint is acceptable. The additional area of the basement is located away from the tree to be retained and will not be visible from the street.

·    Natural ventilation is not provided as landscaping is provided within the area described above. Exhaust is able to be expelled to above the roof.

 

IMPACTS

 

Natural Environment

94.    The proposed development is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to the natural environment. There are three (3) street tree located on the nature strip at the front of the site with the most important of these being the White Cedar be retained and protected. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect has been prepared for the development which shows appropriate deep soil planting to the northern boundary. It is noted a condition for an updated landscape plan has been recommended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate condition to ensure the landscape outcome reflects the applicant’s amended plans, particularly with regard to the sensitive Ellen Subway frontage and the retention of the significant White Cedar tree.

 

95.    The proposed excavation to the site is for the purposes of providing two basement levels for car parking and associated facilities. The excavation is consistent with that required for most new developments and has generally been supported by Council’s development engineers.

 

Built Environment

96.    The proposed development is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to the built environment. The proposed development complies with the relevant requirements except for FSR. This variation is discussed in the report and is supported by a Clause 4.6 variation as the additional 80m² of floor area is not considered to result in adverse impacts to adjoining developments and the streetscape. The applicant has furnished Council with a 4.6 variation to the Floor Space Ratio development standard. See detailed discussion earlier in this report.

 

Social Impact

97.    No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment of the subject DA that could not otherwise be addressed by conditions of consent should the DA be approved.

 

98.    It is noted that the proposal will provide for 40 new dwellings with a mix of typology in the Georges River Local Government Area and therefore assist in meeting the housing needs of the community. The range of dwelling sizes, including adaptable, can cater for a cross-section of the community including a range household compositions, and could therefore be construed as having a positive social impact.

 

Economic Impact

99.    The proposed development has no apparent adverse economic impact. There may be a positive economic impact as a result of the development through increased demand, and the provision of additional commercial floor space within the Mortdale neighbourhood centre. Employment opportunities would also arise beyond construction of the proposed development with the associated commercial premises, and also ongoing maintenance of the building.

 

Suitability of the Site

100.  Should the outstanding matters associated with Sydney Trains under the ISEPP be addressed, the proposed development is considered capable of satisfying the objectives and requirements of the relevant planning provisions. In this circumstance, the subject site would be suitable for the proposed development.

 

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

101.  The proposed development requires payment of $436,286.41 of developer contributions based on the provisions of an additional dwellings on the subject site. The contribution amount is based on the following.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.1 - Roads and Traffic Management - Residential	$25,298.64
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.5 - Open Space 2007	$395,938.30
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Buildings	$8,785.47
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Books	$6,264.00
TOTAL for Section 7.11 contributions	$436,286.41

 

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

102.  As part of the assessment of the subject DA, notification of the proposal was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013) on 14 September 2017. In response to the notification of the DA, one (1) submission dated 19 September 2017 was received objecting to the proposal.

 

103.  On 9 July 2018 re-notification of amended plans submitted by the applicant took place in accordance with the provisions of the KDCP2013. In response one (1) submission has been received.

 

104.  The issues raised in the submission dated 19 September 2017 are covered below, followed by a response from the assessing planner:

 

1.   Loss of Solar Access – concern has been raised that the development will result cause overshadowing and consequently a loss of solar access to the property at 114 Railway Parade, Mortdale.

 

Planner Comment – Part C1 – Low Density Housing of the KDCP2013 includes the development controls pertaining to dwelling houses. Control 1.6(3) specifies the minimum solar access for dwelling houses as follows:

 

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

 

105.  Submitted with the DA are shadow diagrams which depict the impact of the proposal on solar access to the open space of neighbouring properties. As demonstrated in shadow diagram extracts below, the objector’s property will not experience any overshadowing as a result of the proposed development between the 9am-3pm on 21 June (i.e. the winter solstice).

 

106.  Given compliance with the solar access provisions of the KDCP2013 are achieved, it is noted that pursuant to Section 4.14(3A)(a) of the Act, Council is not to require more onerous standards.

 

107.  Having regard to the above, the overshadowing impacts of the proposed development are considered satisfactory.

 

2.    Building Height and Number of Storeys – concern is raised over the building height of the proposed development, both in terms of its overall height and number of storeys. The objector claims the building height is excessive for the neighbourhood of Mortdale.

 

Planner Comment – Clause 4.3 of the KLEP2012 is a non-discretionary development standard that outlines the height of a building must not to exceed the maximum height shown on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

108.  The Height of Buildings Map indicates a maximum building height of 21m for the subject site.

 

109.  The assessment of the proposed development has revealed that the building will have a maximum building height of 21m, and as such achieves compliance with the maximum building height prescribed for the subject site under the KLEP2012.

 

110.  The KDCP2013 also prescribes a number of development controls in relation to building height, including floor to ceiling heights, the massing of buildings, and the height of new development at the street boundary. As outlined within the compliance tables included within this assessment report, the proposed development achieves satisfactory compliance with these development controls.

 

111.  Having regard to the above, the building height of the proposed development is considered satisfactory.

 

3.    Zoning on Opposite Side of Railway Parade – the objector suggests that mixed-use development should occur on the opposite (southern) side of Railway Parade via a land use zoning change.

 

Planner Comment – The land on the southern side of Railway Parade, Mortdale is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the KLEP2012, while land to which this DA relates is zoned B2 Local Centre under the KLEP2012. The difference in zoning is considered largely attributable to the B2 land’s proximity to the Mortdale railway station.

 

112.  Any suggested zoning changes to the KLEP2012 should be made to Council’s strategic planning department, or formally pursued via submission of a planning proposal.

 

113.  While the objector’s comments are noted, they are not considered pertinent to the assessment of the subject DA.

 

4.    Development Density – the high density is jeopardising the safety of the community.

 

Planner Comment – The density proposed by this application is consistent with the planning instruments applicable to the site with respect to height and scale.

 

5.    Impact on utilities, traffic and transport

 

Planner Comment – The application proposes compliant car parking with pedestrian and vehicle access compliant with the relevant Australian Standards to ensure safety of the public and the future users/occupiers of the building.

 

114.  The utilities are considered able to be extended to meet the demands of the development. The applicant will be required if the proposed development is supported to have all the utility providers comments and requirements in place prior to development commencing.

 

115.  An assessment of the additional traffic movements in relation to development within this precinct was considered when the site was zoned for commercial purposes having regard to the development form envisaged.   

 

6.    Increase in crime

 

Planner comment – the comments in relation to crime are noted, this application is consistent with the development form and density envisaged by the planning controls. The design has activated the street frontages and is considered not be directly impact the crime rates of the locality.

 

7.    Supporting this form of development as it has financial benefits for Council –

Planner comment – this application will derive Section 94 contributions in accordance with the adopted Section 94 Plan. The money from this development will be used by Council for community improvements.

 

REFERRALS

 

Council Referrals

 

Tree Management/Landscaping

116.  Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has reviewed the amended plans and supported the amendments made to retain the White Cedar tree on site. Conditions of consent have been recommended.

 

Building

117.  The applicant has indicated the location of fire safety measures, as a result the application is considered acceptable for a DA assessment whereby a full compliance check at the Construction Certificate assessment stage will be undertaken. Standard conditions imposed.

 

Environmental Health Officer

118.  Comments:

 

Acoustic Report

 

The Acoustic Report submitted by Acoustic Logic Consultancy (Project number 20171088.1) dated 28 August 2017 assessed noise impacts associated with the proposed mixed development at the 85-87 Railway Parade, Mortdale.  Unattended noise monitoring (day, evening and night) was conducted from 18 August 2017 to 25 August 2017 to establish the background noise levels.

 

Acoustic Logic reported that major external noise sources are traffic noise from Railway Parade and Ellen Subway and train noise from the South Coast and T4 Rail Corridors. Acoustic Logic reported that internal noise levels are compliant and recommended the following construction:

 

•           Glazed windows and doors

•           External roof/ ceiling construction from concrete or masonry elements

•           External walls  to be constructed from concrete or masonry elements

•           Entry doors will be via internal corridors. The construction will be formulated pursuant to the Building Code of Australia

 

Habitable rooms on southern façade of the development will be able to achieve the internal noise goals with windows open. All habitable spaces along southern façades of the development will be required to have their windows closed in order to meet acoustic requirements. Supplementary ventilation requirements to meet the Australian standard AS1668.2 will be confirmed by the mechanical engineer.

 

The acoustic consultant recommended detailed acoustic review should be undertaken at Construction Certificate stage to determine acoustic treatments to control noise emissions to satisfactory levels.

 

This application was also accompanied by waste management plan by Elephants Foot Recycling Solutions dated 28/08/2017 which addresses waste management during demolition, construction and ongoing management.

 

Based on the submitted information, no objections are raised to DA2017/0398 for demolition of existing structures and construction of six storey mix use development comprising ground level commercial floor space and shop top housing above two and half levels of basement parking and associated landscaping and drainage works the subject to… conditions of consent.”

 

Drainage Engineer

119.  The application has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer who considers the application to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Heritage

120.  Comments:

 

The proposed demolition of existing dwellings within the subject site can be considered acceptable given they appear to have no identifiable heritage values which would warrant protection. The proposed development would likely have little or no adverse heritage impact on heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site including those noted in pt 2 above.

 

From a brief site survey, the proposed building would not likely obscure any significant views to and from the Mortdale Railway Parade. The proposed building has the potential to over-shadow a heritage item of State significance. It will be incumbent upon the applicant to confirm if the heritage item would be impacted by over-shadowing, and if so, discuss the extent of adverse heritage impacts which may arise and measures to be taken to minimise same – if any.”

 

Waste

121.  The application is considered acceptable from a waste room size, configuration and access arrangement. The proposal is supported subject to conditions.

 

External Referrals

Sydney Trains

122.  A formal referral was made to Sydney Trains on 26 April 2018 pursuant to Clause 86 (Excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

123.  A “Stop the Clock” letter was subsequently issued by Sydney Trains on 10 May 2018 seeking additional information that includes:

 

1.         Geotechnical Report based on actual borehole testing with a section specific to any potential impacts to the rail corridor and Structural report/drawings.

2.         Construction methodology with details pertaining to structural support during excavation. 

3.         Cross sectional drawings showing ground surface, rail tracks, sub soil profile, proposed basement excavation and structural design of sub ground support adjacent to the Rail Corridor. RL depths and horizontal distances between the site boundary, closest point of excavation and the rail corridor boundary and centre of the nearest rail track must be provided by a registered surveyor.

4.         Detailed Survey Plan showing the relationship of the proposed development with respect to RailCorp’s land and infrastructure.

 

124.  This information was forwarded to the applicant on 11 May 2018.

 

125.  At the finalisation of this report Sydney Trains have not provided concurrence. As this matter will not fundamentally impact the design or impacts of the development given all issues raised by Sydney Trains have been addressed by the development amendment to move all access pedestrian and vehicle to be via Railway Parade, it is requested that the LPP consider the application and if supportable when concurrence from Sydney Trains is received delegation be granted to the Manager of Development and Building having regard to the conditions contained below and any amendments arising from Sydney Trains concurrence.

 

CONCLUSION

126.  The application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The application seeks approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six storey mixed use development with basement parking.

 

127.  At the finalisation of this report Sydney Trains have not provided concurrence. As this matters do not fundamentally impact the design or impacts of the development given there is no impact or access across Ellen Subway and is not adjacent to the railway corridor, which has alleviated the concerns previously raised by Sydney Trains, it is requested that the LPP consider the application and if supportable when the concurrence is received that delegation be granted to the Manager of Development and Building having regard to the conditions contained below and amendments arising from the concurrence from Sydney Trains.

 

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

128.  Statement of Reasons

 

·    The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the site and the character of the locality

·    The proposed development, subject to the recommended conditions, will have no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the natural or built environments

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

 

129.  THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Council defer development consent to Development Application DA2017/0398 at 85 - 87 Railway Parade, Mortdale for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six storey mixed use development with basement parking, for the following reasons:

 

·    For concurrence to be provided by Sydney Trains required by Clause 86 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, relating to excavation in, above or adjacent to rail corridors as the matters raised in their initial comments have been resolved as there is not impact on the rail corridor or land in the ownership of Sydney Trains being Ellen Subway subject to the adoption of the conditions outlined below.

 

SECTION A - GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

Plans

Description	Reference No.	Date	Revision	Prepared by
Compliance Summary	DA 1003	09/02/2018	B	CD Architects
Site Plan	DA 1005	29/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Site Analysis	DA 1006	01/09/2017	A	CD Architects
Demolition Plan	DA 1007	29/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Basement 2 Floor Plan	DA 1101	26/06/2018	C	CD Architects
Basement 1 Floor Plan	DA 1102	26/06/2018	C	CD Architects
Ground Floor Plan	DA 1103	26/06/2018	C	CD Architects
Level 01 Floor Plan	DA 1104	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Level 02 Floor Plan	DA 1105	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Level 03 Floor Plan	DA 1106	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Level 04 Floor Plan	DA 1107	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Level 05 Floor Plan	DA 1108	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Roof Terrace Level Plan	DA 1109	01/09/2017	A	CD Architects
Roof Plan	DA 1110	01/09/2017	A	CD Architects
North Elevation	DA 2001	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
South Elevation / Streetscape Elevation	DA 2002	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
East Elevation	DA 2003	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
West Elevation	DA 2004	26/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Section A	DA 3001	29/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Driveway Section	DA 3002	29/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Section B	3003	07/06/2018	A	CD Architects
Pre and Post Adaptable Unit Layout	DA 5001	01/09/2017	A	CD Architects
Finishes Schedule	DA 7041	29/06/2018	B	CD Architects
Survey Plan	10549-DET	04/07/2017	A	CitiSurv Pty Ltd

 

Reports and Documents

Description	Reference No.	Date	Prepared by
BASIX Certificate No. 852364M_02	---	8 August 2018	Outsource Ideas Pty Ltd
Access Report	217177	25/08/2017	Accessible Building Solutions
DA Acoustic Assessment	20171088.1/2808A/R0/MF	28/08/2017	Acoustic Logic
Arboricultural Impact Assessment	AIA-CDA (M) 08/17	25/08/2017	NSW Tree Services Pty Ltd
Waste Management Plan	---	05/09/2018	CD Architects
Waste Management Plan	---	29/08/2017	Elephant’s Foot Waste Compactors Pty Ltd

 

2.       Amended Landscaping Plan - The following amendments are to be made to the plans:

 

A.        An electric security door and intercom system shall be installed at the entrance of the carpark (i.e. the car park entrance from Railway Parade) to prevent unauthorised pedestrian and vehicular access to the site outside the approved operating hours of any future commercial activity.

B.        Another electric security door and intercom system shall be installed within the carpark to prevent unauthorised pedestrian and vehicular access to the Basement 1 and Basement 2 car park levels from the ground level whilst any approved commercial activity is undertaken.

C.        The southwest side elevations of the balconies of Units 204, 303 and 503 are to be screened to prevent overlooking of the adjoining site.  The screens shall be at least 1.8m above the finished floor levels of the associated balcony and consist of fixed angled louvres to direct views away from the adjoining site to the southwest (i.e. 89 Railway Parade).  The materials and colours of such screens shall be consistent with the approved material and colour schedule.

D.        Where natural ventilation of the carpark is proposed, any ventilation features (e.g. grills) shall be integrated into the façade and landscaped design.  The design of such features shall not form a prominent feature when viewed from public areas, and the materials and colours of such elements shall be consistent with the approved material and colour schedule.

E.        All skylights associated with units on Level 5 shall be of an openable design.  The skylights must be capable of being manually opened/closed in the event of a power failure.  The skylights must also be designed so that any hinges face towards the planter boxes on the rooftop level (i.e. so that the skylights open away from the planter boxes, and so that the planter boxes do not block breezes that would assist with the natural ventilation of the Level 5 apartments).

F.         Where not already addressed by an approved BASIX Certificate, energy efficient lighting shall be implemented throughout the development.

 

The amendments specified within this condition shall be indicated on the plans submitted construction drawings and completed to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

3.         This consent does not approve any use of the commercial premises on the ground floor.  Consent shall be obtained for the first use of such premises.

 

4.         No advertising and/or signage is approved as part of this consent. Any new/future signage must either:

·          Obtain separate consent(s); and/or

·          Be erected/installed in accordance with relevant exempt provisions within State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

5.         Any outdoor/security lighting must be located, designed and shielded in a manner that does not cause disturbance to surrounding premises and/or passing vehicular traffic.

 

6.         Any new boundary fencing erected along the side and rear boundaries shall not exceed a height of 1.8 metres.

 

7.         Any new electrical connections to the site are to be carried out using underground cabling.

 

8.         Any materials or surfaces addressing the public domain on the ground and first floor (where accessible by members of the public) shall utilise graffiti-resistant materials.

 

9.         The design of the carpark shall allow for electric vehicle charging points to be installed in the future.  The location(s) of any such charging point should be located within parking spaces within the ground floor carpark.

 

SECTION B - SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

 

10.       Section 138 Roads Act 1993 and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 - Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.  If separate activity approvals are required under other legislation, these approvals will be obtained and evidence of the approval(s) provided to the Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

  

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

 

(a)       Placing or storing materials or equipment;

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

(c)        Erecting a structure or carrying out work

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

(e)       Pumping concrete from a public road;

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

(g)       Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h)        Establishing a “works zone”;

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02) 9330 6400.

 

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

 

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

(b)       All associated road pavement restorations.

(c)        Installation of turf as required across all street frontages. 

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

(e)       Construct a new 150mm high concrete kerb with 450mm wide gutter for the full frontage(s) of the site in in accordance with Council’s Specifications for kerb and guttering, applying at the time construction approval is sought.

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

 

Constructing a vehicular crossing and/or footpath requires separate approval under the Roads Act 1993, prior to the commencement of those works. 

 

12.       Building - Hoarding Application - Prior to demolition of the buildings on the site or the commencement of work above ground level a separate application for the erection of an A class (fence type) or a B class hoarding or C type scaffold, in accordance with the requirements of Work Cover Authority of NSW, will be erected along that portion of the footway/road reserve, where the building is within 3 metres of the street boundary.

 

An application for this work (Hoarding Application) under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 will be submitted for approval to Council.

 

13.       Below ground anchors - In the event that the excavation associated with the basement carpark is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways, an application will be lodged with Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 for approval, prior to commencement of those works.

 

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

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

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

(d)       The applicant must register a non-terminating bank guarantee in favour of Council for the amount of $34,440.00.

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

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

 

Unless authorisation is received to the contrary, Sydney Trains will not permit any rock anchors/bolts (whether temporary or permanent) within its land or easements.

 

SECTION C - REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

 

14.       Notice of Requirements for a Section 73 Certificate - A Notice of Requirements for a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 that relates specifically to this development consent must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An application will be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. The Notice of Requirements will be submitted prior to the commencement of work.  The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

15.       Electricity Supply - An application will be made to Ausgrid for a network connection. This may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. Evidence of this application to Ausgrid will be provided to the Certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

SECTION D - PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

16.       Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Applicant is to submit a revised landscape plan to Council’s satisfaction which has regard to the design amendments undertaken throughout the course of the development application assessment, in particular responding to:

 

·          The comments raised by the Design Review Panel (DRP) in their report dated 13 October 2017; and

·          Council’s additional information request dated 21 November 2017.

 

The revised landscape plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and shall include (but is not limited to) the following details:

 

A.        Proposed landscape treatment of the Ellen Subway frontage, ensuring the White Cedar tree is retained, along with the sloping nature of the embankment.  This condition does not authorise the removal of the Melia azedarach (White Cedar).

B.        Any level changes between the development and the existing levels along Ellen Subway should be handled via thoughtful landscape initiatives rather than built structures or retaining walls.

C.        Planting details for all planter boxes are to ensure that such landscaping appropriately screens and softens of the building.  This shall also include the narrow light slot on the eastern side of the building where the pebble roof is located.

D.        Details of mature trees that are to be planted within the deep soil area at the rear of the site (i.e. adjacent to the northern boundary); such details must however incorporate minimum 75L pot sizes for all large trees.

E.        Details shall also be provided for the landscape screening of units with landscaped areas on Level 1, specifically:

ii.     The rear boundaries of the private open space areas of Units 102, 103 and 104; and

iii.    The southwest side boundaries of the private open space areas of Units 104, 105 and 106.

Such landscape screening shall be of capable of growing to a thickness that will effectively obscure views of adjoining sites from the nominated private open space areas.  Such vegetation shall be capable of growing to a maximum mature height of two metres above the finished ground levels and shall be capable of growing in areas with limited solar access, should such areas be overshadowed by future development on adjoining sites.

F.          The Railway Parade streetscape must be more fully resolved including levels, paving, landscaping, any street furniture, lighting, etc.

 

All proposed vegetation shall consist of locally native species.  No environmental weeds are to be planted on the site.

 

17.       Prior to the activation of this consent, the Applicant is to submit a revised set of stormwater and engineering plans, which shall have regard to:

 

A.        The design amendments undertaken throughout the course of the development application assessment; and

B.        Any changes to the site layout and landscape design as a result of satisfying the requirements above.

 

The design specifics of the stormwater system shall reflect the requirements of the engineering conditions contained within Part B of this consent Council’s standards and requirements.

 

18.       Any clarification of the stormwater design shall be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer prior to the lodgement of the amended engineering plans.

 

19.       Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent authority) or an accredited Certifier.

 

20.       Appointment of a Principal Certifier - The erection of a building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent has appointed a Certifier for the building work.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fee Type	Fee
GENERAL FEES
Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service Corporation.  See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/
Builders Damage Deposit	$42,567.84
Vehicular crossing and frontage work deposit	$40,600.00
Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit	$742.00
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.1 - Roads and Traffic Management - Residential	$25,298.64
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.5 - Open Space 2007	$395,938.30
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Buildings	$8,785.47
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Books	$6,264.00
TOTAL for Section 7.11 contributions	$436,286.41

 

General Fees

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

 

Development Contributions

 

Indexation

The above contributions will be adjusted at the time of payment to reflect changes in the cost of delivering public amenities and public services, in accordance with the indices provided by the relevant Section 94 Development Contributions Plan.

 

Timing of Payment

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

 

Further Information

A copy of all current Development Contributions Plans may be inspected at Council’s offices or viewed on Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

 

22.       Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report - Private Land - A professional engineer specialising in structural or geotechnical engineering will prepare a Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report detailing the current structural condition of all neighbouring buildings likely to be affected by the excavation as determined by the consulting engineer.

 

The report will be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifier prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

A copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report is to be provided to the properties that are the subject of the dilapidation report a minimum of 5 working days prior to the commencement of work. Evidence confirming that a copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining properties must be provided to the Certifier prior to the commencement of any work on the site.

 

Should the owners of properties (or their agents) refuse access to carry out inspections, after being given reasonable written notice, this will be reported to Council to obtain Council’s agreement to complete the report without access. Reasonable notice is a request for access in no sooner than 14 days between 8.00am-6.00pm.

 

23.       Fire Safety Measures - Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a list of the essential fire safety measures that are to be provided in relation to the land and any building on the land as a consequence of the building work must accompany an application for a construction certificate, which is required to be submitted to the Certifier.  Such a list must also specify the minimum standard of performance for each essential fire safety measure included in the list. The Certifier will then issue a Fire Safety Schedule for the building.

 

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

 

A copy will be forwarded to Council where Council is not the Principal Certifier.

 

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

 

(a)       Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development and to ensure the construction of the civil works to be complete at the applicant’s expense: $68,000.00

(b)       Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $150.00

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

 

At the completion of work Council will review the dilapidation report and the Works-As-Executed Drawings (if applicable) and inspect the public works.

 

The damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage occurs and where Council is satisfied with the completion of works. Alternatively, the damage deposit will be forfeited or partly refunded based on the damage incurred.

 

26.       Access for Persons with Disabilities -   Access for persons with disabilities will be provided throughout the site, including to all common rooms, lobby areas and sanitary facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1. Details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application.  Pedestrian access throughout basement levels will be highlighted/line marked and sign posted to safeguard egress.

 

27.       Commonwealth Disability (Access to Premises) Standard - The Commonwealth Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards) applies to all applications (including a Construction Certificate). This requires any new building, part of a building and the affected part of the existing building to comply with the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.

 

28.       Geotechnical Report - The applicant must submit a Geotechnical Report, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in geotechnical engineering who holds the relevant Certificate of accreditation as required under the Building Professionals Act 2005 in relation to dilapidation reports, all site works and construction.  This is to be submitted before the issue of the Construction Certificate and is to include:

 

(a)       Investigations certifying the stability of the site and specifying the design constraints to be placed on the foundation, any earthworks/stabilisation works and any excavations.

 

(b)       Dilapidation Reports on the adjoining properties prior to any excavation of site works.  The Dilapidation Report is to include assessments on, but not limited to, the dwellings at those addresses and any external paths, grounds etc.  This will be submitted to the Certifying Authority and the adjoining residents as part of the application for the Construction Certificate.  Adjoining residents are to be provided with the report five (5) working days prior to any works on the site.

 

(c)       On-site guidance by a vibration specialist during the early part of excavation.

 

(d)       Rock breaking techniques.  Rock excavation is to be carried out with tools such as rock saws which reduce vibration to adjoining buildings and associated structures.

 

(e)       Sides of the excavation are to be piered prior to any excavation occurring to reinforce the walls of the excavation to prevent any subsidence to the required setbacks and neighbouring sites.

 

29.       Vibration Damage - To minimise vibration damage and loss of support to the buildings in close proximity to the development, any excavation is to be carried out by means of a rock saw and if available, in accordance with the guidelines of the Geotechnical Engineer’s report.

 

Alternatively where a hydraulic hammer is to be used within 30 metres of any building (other than a path or a fence) a report from a qualified geotechnical engineer detailing the maximum size of hammer to be used is to be obtained and the recommendations in that report implemented during work on the site. The report must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

30.       Slip Resistance - All pedestrian surfaces in areas such as foyers, public corridors/hallways, stairs and ramps as well as floor surfaces in the wet rooms in any commercial/retail/residential units will have slip resistance classifications, as determined using test methods in either wet or dry conditions, appropriate to their gradient and exposure to wetting.  The classifications of the new pedestrian surface materials, in wet or dry conditions, will comply with AS/NZS4586:2004 - Slip Resistance Classifications of New Pedestrian Materials and will be detailed on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

31.       Advice from Fire and Rescue NSW -      Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the applicant may be required, under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation, 2000 to seek written comment from FR NSW about the location of water storage tanks, construction of hydrant/booster pump and valve rooms, and any Fire Engineered Solution developed to meet the performance requirements under the Category 2 Fire Safety Provisions.

 

The applicant is also advised to seek written advice from FR NSW on the location and construction of the proposed Fire Control Centre Facility and location and installation of the sites Fire Indicator / Mimic Panels.

 

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

 

(a)       location of protective site fencing;

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

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

(d)       provisions for public safety;

(e)       dust control measures;

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

(g)       details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

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

(i)         provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

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

(k)        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

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

(m)      construction and demolition traffic management details.

         

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

 

33.       Traffic Management - Compliance with AS2890 - All driveways, access ramps, vehicular crossings and car parking spaces will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current version of Australian Standards, AS 2890.1-2004 (for car / motorbike parking facilities), AS 2890.2-2002 (for commercial vehicle facilities), AS 2890.6-2009 (Off-street parking for people with disabilities) and AS 2890.3-2015 (bicycles). A “Detailed Design” certificate, prepared by a tertiary qualified and experienced traffic engineer that fully addresses this condition, will be submitted to the Principal Certifier with the Construction Certificate Application. An “As Constructed” certificate, prepared by a tertiary qualified and experienced traffic engineer that fully addresses this condition, must be submitted to the Principal Certifier with the Occupation Certificate Application.

 

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

 

(a)       construction vehicle routes;

(b)       anticipated number of trucks per day;

(c)        hours of construction;

(d)       Access arrangements; and

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

 

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

 

35.       SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - A design verification statement, prepared by a qualified designer, must be submitted to the Certifier verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design quality principles set out under Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 -Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

36.       Waste Management Plan - A Waste Management Plan incorporating all requirements in respect of the provision of waste storage facilities, removal of all materials from the site that are the result of site clearing, extraction, and, or demolition works and the designated Waste Management Facility must be submitted to the Certifier prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

37.       Car Wash Bays – Plans and specifications of the car washing system approved by Sydney Water must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate. 

 

All car washing bays will be contained within a roofed and bunded car wash bay with pre-treatment approved by Sydney Water.  The water from the car wash bay must be graded to a drainage point and connected to sewer.    

 

If alternative water management and disposal options are proposed (ie where water is recycled, minimised or reused on the site), detailed plans and specifications of the water recycling system must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate for approval.

 

38.       Design Quality Excellence (Major Development) - In order to ensure the design quality excellence of the development is retained:

 

(a)         The design architect is to have direct involvement in the design documentation, contract documentation and construct stages of the project;

(b)         Evidence of the design architect’s commission is to be provided to the Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

39.       Driveway Construction Plan Details - Detailed engineering plans for the driveway will be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

40.       Council Property Shoring - Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, plans and specifications prepared by a professional engineer specialising in practising structural engineering will detail how Council’s property will be supported at all times.

 

Where any shoring is to be supporting, or located on Council’s property, certified structural engineering drawings detailing; the extent of the encroachment, the type of shoring and the method of removal, will be included on the plans.  Where the shoring cannot be removed, the plans will detail that the shoring will be cut to 150mm below footpath level and the gap between the shoring and any building will be filled with a 5MPa lean concrete mix.

 

41.       BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

 

42.       Tree Removal & Replacement - Tree removal - Permission is granted for the removal of the Jacaranda.  Consent is not given for the removal of the White Cedar tree within Council’s road reserve.

 

43.       On-Site Detention - A 23.1sqm On-Site Detention system with a Maximum Site Discharge of 23.9 Litres per Second is to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow is to be directed to the site drainage system.

 

44.       Requirements of amended stormwater plans - A Detailed Stormwater Plan and supporting information of the proposed on-site stormwater management system is to be submitted. The required details in this Plan and the relevant checklist are presented in Council’s Water Management Policy.  The detailed stormwater plans are to include the following:

 

A.        The design parameters and the general concept of the proposed on-site stormwater management system are to be the same as documented in the approved Concept Stormwater Plan for the proposed development. Any conceptual variations to the stormwater design will require written approval from Council and will require to be justified and supported by appropriate details, calculations and information to allow for proper assessment.

B.        The Detailed Stormwater Plan is to address the following issue(s):

i.       The Concept Stormwater Plan has the stormwater discharge from the site draining to the north and away from the site’s main natural catchment and toward a location prone to significant flooding. The Detailed Stormwater Plan is to be amended to direct the stormwater discharge from the On-site Detention storage to discharge towards the intersection of Railway Parade and Ellen Subway.

ii.      A suitably qualified engineer is to certify that appropriate design measures have been taken to ensure that the ground floor and basement levels are protected from flooding in the case of the On-site Detention system malfunctioning.

iii.     An oil/silt separator sized to the catchment area must be specified on the Detailed Stormwater Plan and located downstream of the proposed basement car parks and prior to discharge to Councils stormwater system.

C.        The Detailed Stormwater Plan is to be certified by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering. A Statement, that the stormwater system has been designed in accordance with the document ‘Water Management Policy. Kogarah Council. August 2006’ and satisfies the provisions and objectives of that policy along with the requirements stated above must be included with the Detailed Stormwater Plan.

D.        The Detailed Stormwater Plan is to be lodged and receive written approval by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

45.       Under Awning Lighting - The design of the awning shall incorporate under-awning lighting of the public footpath and entrances to the development.  This information shall be reflected on construction drawings submitted to the certifying authority.

 

46.       Acoustic requirements for timber flooring - If timber flooring is installed within the development, then appropriate insulation between floors shall achieve a minimum sound attenuation of (50Rw).

 

47.       Design of Waste Management facilities - The design of the waste storage areas shall incorporate the following requirements:

 

(a)       Waste room floors are to be sealed;

(b)       Waste room walls and floors and surfaces shall be flat and even;

(c)        All walls are to be painted with light colour and washable paint;

(d)       Equipment electric outlets are to be installed 1700mm above floor levels;

(e)       The bin storage rooms will be mechanically exhausted as required by AS 1668.2;

(f)         Light switches installed at a height of 1.6m;

(g)       Waste rooms must be well lit (sensor lighting recommended);

(h)        Optional automatic odour and pest control system installed to eliminate all pests;

(i)         All personnel doors are to be hinged and self-closing;

(j)         Waste collection area must hold all bins - bin movements should be undertaken with ease of access;

(k)        Conform to the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and local laws; and childproofing and public/operator safety shall be assessed and ensured.

 

This information shall be reflected on construction drawings submitted to the certifying authority.

 

48.       Excavation works near tree to be retained – Excavation near trees are to satisfy the following requirements:

(a)        A cut out within the basement shall cater for and be at least the TPZ being 8.28 metres radially around the trunk of the Melia azedarach (White Cedar) to allow the retention and viability of this tree. Tree Protection measures shall be implemented for this tree.

(b)        Excavations around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root system will not adversely be affected.

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

(d)        Tree Protection Zone around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level changes, building product / materials stored or services installed in this area. Any structures proposed to be built in this area of the trees are to utilise pier and beam or cantilevered slab construction.

 

Details satisfying this condition shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

Removal or pruning of any other tree (that would require consent of Council) on the site is not approved. All pruning must be undertaken by a minimum certificate Level 3, Licenced and insured Tree surgeon / Arborist in accordance with AS4373 -2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and Amenity Tree Industry, Code of Practice (SafeWork NSW August 1998).

 

SECTION D - PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION)

 

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

 

For demolition work which involves the removal of asbestos, the asbestos removal work will be carried out by a licensed asbestos removalist who is licensed to carry out the work in accordance with the NSW Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011 and the Demolition Code of Practice (NSW Wok Cover July 2015).

 

50.       Dial before your dig - The applicant will contact “Dial Before You Dig on 1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.  The sequence number obtained from “Dial Before You Dig” will be forwarded to Council’s Engineers for their records.

 

51.       Dilapidation Report on Public Land - Major Development Only - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a dilapidation report will be prepared for the Council infrastructure adjoining the development site, including:

 

(a)       Photographs showing the existing condition of the road pavement fronting the site,

(b)       Photographs showing the existing condition of the kerb and gutter fronting the site,

(c)        Photographs showing the existing condition of the footpath pavement fronting the site,

(d)       Photographs showing the existing condition of any retaining walls within the footway or road, and

(e)       The Dilapidation Report will be prepared by a qualified structural engineer.  The report will be provided to the Certifier and a copy provided to the Council. 

 

The Dilapidation Report will be prepared by a professional engineer. The report will be provided to the Certifier and a copy provided to the Council. 

 

The report is to be supplied in electronic format in Word or PDF. Photographs are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

 

52.       Registered Surveyor's Report - During Development Work - A report will be submitted to the Certifier at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

 

(a)         Set out before commencing excavation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

54.       Structural Engineer’s Details - Supporting Council road/footway - Prior to the commencement of work in connection with the excavation of the site associated with the basement carpark, structural engineer’s details relating to the method of supporting Council’s roadways/footways will be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

56.       Erosion & Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be in place prior to commencement of any work on the site.  These measures include:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

57.       Structural Engineer’s Details - Supporting excavations and adjoining land - Prior to the commencement of work in connection with the excavation of the site associated with the basement car park, structural engineer’s details relating to the method of supporting the excavation will be submitted.

 

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

 

59.       Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent must give at least two (2) days notice to the Council and the Principal Certifier of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

 

60.       Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2) days before the building work commences, the Principal Certifier must notify:

 

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

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

 

SECTION E - DURING WORK

 

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

 

62.       Site sign - A sign must be erected in a prominent position onsite only showing:

 

(a)       the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority for the work, and 

(b)       the name of the principal contractor or the person responsible for the works and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and 

(c)        that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

 

          The sign must to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

 

63.       Site sign - A clearly legible Site Management Sign is to be erected and maintained throughout the course of the works.  The sign is to be centrally located on the main street frontage of the site and is to clearly state in legible lettering the following:

 

A.        The builder's name, builder's telephone contact number both during work hours and after hours.

B.        That no works are to be carried out in Council's Road Reserve without prior application and approval of a Road Opening Permit from Council.

C.        That a Road Opening Permit issued by Council must be obtained for any road openings or excavation within Council's Road Reserve associated with development of the site, including stormwater drainage, water, sewer, electricity, gas and communication connections.  During the course of the road opening works the Road Opening Permit must be visibly displayed at the site.

D.        That no skip bins or materials are to be stored on Council's Road Reserve.

E.        That the contact number for Northern Beaches Council for permits is 9970 1111.

 

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

 

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

 

66.       Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993 and/or the Local Government Act 1993. 

 

67.       Hours of Construction for Demolition and Building Work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery must not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity is permitted on Sundays, or Public Holidays.

 

68.       Hazardous or Intractable Waste – Removal and Disposal. Hazardous or intractable waste arising from the demolition or construction process must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of SafeWork NSW and the NSW Environment Protection Authority and all applicable legislation.

 

69.       Structural Certificate During Construction - The proposed building will be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by the practising qualified structural engineer. All structural works associated with the foundations, piers, footings and slabs for the proposed building will be inspected and structurally certified for compliance by an independent practising geotechnical and structural engineer.  In addition, a Compliance or Structural Certificate, to the effect that the building works have been carried in accordance with the structural design, will be submitted to the Principal Certifier at each stage of Construction or prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

70.       Stormwater to Kerb - Any stormwater connections to the kerb and gutter are to be in accordance with Council's 'Specification for Construction by Private Contractors'. 

 

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas are to be disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Plan by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2015. The line will pass through a silt arrestor pit.

 

71.       Redundant Driveway - All existing vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject premises that have become redundant will be removed and the footway and kerb and gutter reinstated at the developer/applicant’s expense.

 

72.       Damage within Road Reserve & Council Assets - The owner will bear the cost of restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site. This may include works by Public Utility Authorities in the course of providing services to the site.

 

73.       Public Utility & Telecommunication Assets - The owner will bear the cost of any relocation or modification required to any Public Utility Authority assets including telecommunication lines & cables and restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site.

 

74.       Works Zone - The installation of a "Works Zone" for the site will require the approval from the Traffic Advisory Committee. As a result, the applicant will provide a formal request to Council's Traffic Section with the duration and exact location of the required "Works Zone" at least 6 weeks prior to its required installation date.  All costs associated with the installation of a “Works Zone” will be at the applicants expense.

 

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

 

Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials will be submitted to the Principal Certifier and Council, where Council is not the Principal Certifier.

 

76.       Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing will be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing will be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

 

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

 

77.       General Tree Removal Requirements – Tree removal shall be undertaken subject to the following requirements:

 

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

(b)       No trees are to be removed on the site or neighbouring properties without the prior written approval of Council.

 

78.       Street Tree Removal / Replacement by Council – Tree planting within the road reserve will be subject to the following:

(a)       Three (3) street trees shall be provided in the road reserve fronting the site.

(b)       Council shall be appointed to remove and plant all tree/s on public land. All costs associated with the removal of the tree/s and the planting of replacement trees shall be met by the applicant. Fees and charges outlined in the table below are subject to change and are set out in the current version of Council's ‘Schedule of Fees and Charges’, applicable at the time of payment.

 

Fee Type – Tree removal on public land	Amount
Administration Fee for Tree Removal	$154.50
Replacement Tree Fee (per Tree) x3	$185.40
Cost of tree removal	To be determined
Cost of Stump Grinding	To be determined

 

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

 

SECTION F - PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

79.       Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building.  Only the Principal Certifier appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

 

80.       SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - The Principal Certifier will not issue an Occupation Certificate to authorise a person to commence occupation of the residential flat development unless the he/she has received a design verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the qualified designer verifies that the residential flat development achieves the design quality of the development as shown in the plans and specifications in respect of which the construction certificate was issued, having regard to the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

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

 

Restrictions on Use of Land

 

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

 

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

 

Positive Covenants

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

83.       Structural Certificate - The proposed building will be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by a practising qualified structural engineer. All structural works associated with the foundations, piers, footings and slabs for the proposed building will be inspected and structurally certified for compliance by an independent practising geotechnical and structural engineer.  In addition, a Compliance or Structural Certificate, to the effect that the building works have been carried out in accordance with the structural design, will be submitted to the Principal Certifier at each stage of construction and prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

84.       Consolidation of Site - The site will be consolidated into one allotment and by a Plan of Consolidation being prepared by a Registered Surveyor. This Plan will be registered at the NSW Land and Property Information prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.

 

85.       Requirements prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate - The following will be completed and or submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

 

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

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

(c)   Construct any new vehicle crossings required.

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

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

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

 

THIS CONDITION MAY NEED TO BE CHECKED WITH COUNCIL’S DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER.

 

86.       Dilapidation Report on Public Land for Major Development Only - Upon completion of works, a follow up dilapidation report will be prepared for the items of Council infrastructure adjoining the development site.  The dilapidation report will be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in structural engineering, and include: 

 

(a)       Photographs showing the condition of the road pavement fronting the site

(b)       Photographs showing the condition of the kerb and gutter fronting the site

(c)        Photographs showing the condition of the footway including footpath pavement fronting the site, and

(d)       The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

 

The report will be provided to the Principal Certifier and a copy provided to the Council. The reports are to be supplied in electronic format in Word or PDF. Photographs are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

 

Council will use this report to determine whether or not to refund the damage deposit.

 

Council’s Engineering Services Division will advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

88.       Fire Safety Certificate before Occupation or Use - In accordance with Clause 153 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, on completion of building works and prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the owner will cause the issue of a Final Fire Safety Certificate in accordance with Clause 170 of the aforesaid Regulation. The Fire Safety Certificate will be in the form or to the effect of Clause 174 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000. In addition, in relation to each essential fire or other safety measure implemented in the building or on the land on which the building is situated, such a Certificate is to state:

 

(a)       That the measure has been assessed by a person (chosen by the owner of the building) who is properly qualified to do so.

(b)       That as at the date of the assessment the measure was found to be capable of functioning at a standard not less than that required by the attached Schedule.

 

A copy of the certificate is to be given by the applicant to the Commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW and a further copy is to be displayed in a frame and fixed to a wall inside the building's main entrance.

 

89.       Acoustic Certification - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant will certify that the operation of the premises and plant equipment will not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the relevant acoustic criteria. The development will at all times comply with these noise levels post occupation.

 

90.       BASIX Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate in the plans approved with the Development Consent, will be implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.  A Compliance Certificate will be provided to the Principal Certifier regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate before any Occupation Certificate is issued.

 

91.       Long Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986.

 

Payment of the required Long Service Levy payment must be made and proof of payment provided to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

93.       Allocation of Car Parking Spaces – A total of 76 car parking spaces, one car wash bay, one loading bay and a minimum of 23 bicycle parking spaces associated with the development is to be allocated as follows:

 

A.        Residential Component:

·          Fifty nine (59) residential spaces, including four (4) accessible spaces.

·          Eight (8) visitor spaces.

·          One (1) dedicated wash bay.

·          Seventeen (17) bicycle spaces and two (2) visitor spaces)

B.        Commercial Component:

·          Nine (9) spaces, including one (1) accessible space.

·          Four (4) bicycle spaces.

C.        Loading Bay:

·          One (1) space

 

94.       Signage for allocation of parking - Prior to an occupation certificate, the allocation of all onsite parking shall be clearly indicated via signage and/or line-marking.

 

95.       Vehicular Access A vehicular access (entry and exit) must be provided from Stanley Lane.  To that end, the applicant must submit a formal application to Council for its approval for the following interim Traffic Management Measures (TMMs).

 

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

 

97.       Structural Certificates - The proposed structure will be constructed in accordance with details designed and certified by the practising qualified structural engineer. In addition, Compliance or Structural Certificates, to the effect that the building works have been carried in accordance with the structural design, will be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

98.       Stormwater & Ancillary Works - Applications under Section 138 Roads Act and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 – The applicant must obtain all necessary approvals.  An approval for a new or modified vehicular crossing will contain the approved access and/or alignment levels which will be required to construct the crossing and/or footpath. Once approved, all work will be carried out by a private contractor in accordance with Council’s specifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

The developer must meet all costs of the extension, relocation or reconstruction of any part of Council’s drainage system (including design drawings and easements) required to carry out the approved development.

 

The preparation of all engineering drawings (site layout plans, cross sections, longitudinal sections, elevation views together with a hydraulic grade analysis) and specifications for the new storm water drainage system to be arranged by the applicant.  The design plans must be lodged and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

NOTE: A minimum of four weeks should be allowed for assessment.

 

99.       Vehicular crossing & Frontage work - Major development - The following road frontage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council's Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works together with the Vehicular Crossing Approval issued by Council’s Engineering Services Division:

 

(a) Construct a 1.5m wide footpath for the full length of both street frontages of the site.

(b) Construct a new heavy duty vehicular crossing.

(c) Construct new kerb and gutter for the full length of both street frontages of the site.

(d) Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed.

 

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

 

SECTION G - ONGOING CONDITIONS

 

100.    Noise Control - The use of the premises will not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

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

 

102.    Activities and Storage of Goods Outside Buildings - There will be no activities including storing or depositing of any goods or maintenance to any machinery external to the building with the exception of waste receptacles.

 

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

 

The maintenance of the landscaping shall be undertaken in perpetuity.  Should any plants or trees die, then they shall be replaced with the same species (i.e. like for like).

 

104.    Annual Fire Safety Statement - The owner of the building premises will ensure the Council is given an annual fire safety statement in relation to each essential fire safety measure implemented in the building. The annual fire safety statement will be given:

 

(a)       Within 12 months after the date on which the fire safety certificate was received.

(b)       Subsequent annual fire safety statements are to be given within 12 months after the last such statement was given.

(c)        An annual fire safety statement is to be given in or to the effect of Clause 181 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(d)       A copy of the statement is to be given to the Commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW, and a further copy is to be prominently displayed in the building.

 

105.    Responsibility of Owners Corporation - The Owners Corporation will be responsible for presenting all approved waste and recycling receptacles for collection, and returning all receptacles to the Main Waste Collection Room, as soon as practicable after they have been serviced.

 

The Owners Corporation will also be responsible for maintaining all equipment, systems, facilities and storage areas used in conjunction with the provision of waste management services in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, relevant health and environmental standards, and to the satisfaction of Council.

 

106.    Management of Waste Facilities – The ongoing management of onsite waste facilities shall be undertaken in accordance with the following requirements:

 

(a)       Occupational Health and Safety issues such as slippery floors in waste rooms and the weight of the waste and recycling receptacles will need to be monitored.

(b)       Cleaners will monitor the bin storage area and all spills will be attended to immediately by cleaners.”

 

107.    The ongoing operation of Recycling and Waste Management Services is to be undertaken in accordance with the Waste Management Plan.

 

108.    Any external plant/air-conditioning system must not exceed a noise level of 5dBA above the background noise level when measured at the boundaries of the property.

 

109.    Any graffiti on the site is to be removed within forty eight (48) hours.

 

SECTION H - OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

 

SECTION I - PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

117.    Clause 97A – BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

 

118.    Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

119.    Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.  The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the Principal Certifier and the Principal Contractor.

 

120.    Clause 98E – Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

 

END CONDITIONS

 

 

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

 

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

 

122.    Appeal Rights - Part 8 (Reviews and appeals) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

 

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

 

124.    Electricity Supply - This development may need a connection to the Ausgrid network which may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. The applicant is advised to contact Ausgrid for further details and information on lodging your application to connect to the network.

 

125.    Disability Discrimination Act – The applicant is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

 

126.    Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

 

Council will cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

 

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year.  Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

 

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

 

127.    These conditions comprise the operational and statutory conditions which must be satisfied under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. Please refer to the full details of the Act and Regulations as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.  It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which operational and statutory conditions apply.

 

If you need more information, please contact the Development Assessment Officer, below on 9330-6400 during normal office hours.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site Context Analysis Plan  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale
Attachment ⇩2	Elevations  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale
Attachment ⇩3	Shadow Diagrams  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP032-18              85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale [Appendix 1]           Site Context Analysis Plan  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale

Page 120

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP032-18              85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale [Appendix 2]           Elevations  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale

Page 121

 

 

 

 

Georges River Council - Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP) - Thursday, 16 August 2018 LPP032-18              85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale [Appendix 3]           Shadow Diagrams  - 85-87 Railway Parade Mortdale

Page 125