Georges River Council – Minutes of Local Planning Panel - Thursday, 7 November 2019

Page 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES


Local Planning Panel

 

Thursday, 7 November 2019

4.00pm

 

Georges River Civic Centre,

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Members:

 

Mr Paul Vergotis (Chairperson)

Ms Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member)

Mr Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member)

Mr Cameron Jones (Community Representative)

 

 

1.                APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

There were no apologies received

 

 

There were no declarations of Pecuniary Interest

 

2.                PUBLIC SPEAKERS

 

The meeting commenced at 4.01pm and at the invitation of the Chair, registered speakers were invited to address the panel on the items listed below.

 

The public speakers concluded at 5.30pm and the LPP Panel proceeded into Closed Session to deliberate the items listed below.

 

3.                GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL REPORTS

 

LPP045-19        977 Forest Road Lugarno

(Report by Consultant Planner)

 

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

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Phil Armesseni (submitter)

          ●       Peter Gayton (submitter)

          ●       Taeripo Malifa (applicant)

          ●       Scott Lee (architect)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2019/0042 for the fit out and use of the ground floor of an existing church building to be used as an early childhood education facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works at 977 Forest Road, Lugarno, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.            Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant environmental planning instruments in terms of the following:

 

(a)   Clause 2.3 Zone objectives – the proposal does not satisfy the following objective of the zone: To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained. The noise emission from the indoor play area will not provide for appropriate adjoining neighbour amenity when the windows and doors are open.

 

(b)  Clause 5.9 and Clause 6.4 – The removal of landscaped areas along the street frontage and likely detrimental impacts on existing trees. These trees are significant in terms of their height and dimensions and species and contribute significantly to the visual and environmental amenity of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

(c)  Clause 6.7 – inadequate vehicular access is available to the site.

 

2.            The proposed development is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(b), 4.15(c), 4.15(d) and 4.15(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in that the site is not suitable for the development and will have an adverse impact for the reasons as follows:

 

(a)   The proposed siting and design of the outdoor play structure and acoustic fence results in unnecessary visual bulk and scale which results in an adverse impact to the built environment. Additionally inadequate setback and screen landscaping is proposed adjacent to the acoustic fence.

 

(b)   The design and sitting of the building addition results in an urban form which is incompatible with the immediate surrounding residential context.

 

(c)    The proposal results in adverse built environment and social impacts and is therefore not considered to be in the public interest.

 

3.         Refusal Reason - Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following sections of Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide

 

a)    Section 3.1 Car Parking – insufficient car parking, vehicular access and pedestrian safety is provided on site for a child care centre use and church operating concurrently.

b)    Section 3.5 Energy Efficiency – insufficient solar access and natural ventilation is available to the child care centre.

c)    Section 3.11 Preservation of Trees and Vegetation – the proposal does not satisfactorily provide for the preservation of significant trees on site.

d)    Section 5.3 Child Care Centres – the proposal does not comply with various specific requirements for child care centres.

 

4.         Refusal Reason - Regulation - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care facilities) 2017, Educations and Care Services National Regulations and the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017 as they relate to provisions dealing with: in terms of the following:

 

a)     Streetscape impacts;

b)     Provision of natural light and ventilation;

c)     identifying a suitable site based upon compatibility with the existing streetscape character;

d)     disclosure of the educational programming and practice to be provided at the Facility;

e)     ensuring and illustrating that the development retains a landscaped character complimentary to the streetscape;

f)      ensuring and illustrating that outdoor open space areas have adequate solar access to 30% of the area year round;

g)     ensuring and illustrating that the internal floor space is appropriately designed to be naturally ventilated and natural lighting; and

h)     illustrating that the facility has a visible presence from the public road and safe/secure accessibility.

 

5.         Refusal Reason - Impacts on the Environment - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the following aspects of the environment:

 

a)    Natural Environment – The proposal requires the removal of front landscaping area and potentially results in the loss of significant trees.

b)    Social Impact – The proposal will result in an intensification of the existing noise, parking and traffic impacts on surrounding neighbours.

 

6.         Refusal Reason - Suitability of Site - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

a)    The site has two (2) significant trees on the front boundary that require retention. Adequate vehicular access and car parking cannot be provided to the site on this basis.

b)     Inappropriate solar access and cross ventilation for a child care centre use is available to the existing building.

 

7.         Refusal Reason - Lack of Information

(a)    The submitted plans and documentation are inaccurate and inconsistent and are therefore insufficient to assess the proposal.

(b)    Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate compliance with relevant government guidelines and to determine whether the use is a permissible activity within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

 

LPP046-19        47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

 

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

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Eveline Mouglalis (submitter)

          ●       Joan Bailey (submitter)

          ●       Kenny Lin (submitter)

          ●       William Morris (submitter)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0479 for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of an existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 at 47 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) and clause 6.5 (Gross floor area of dwellings in residential zones) controls within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan. The additional bulk and scale of the building will adversely affect the character of the area and will be inconsistent with surrounding approved development;

 

2.         The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of clause 6.4 (Foreshore Scenic Protection Area) controls within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan.  Structures forward of the FBL would impact on the visual environment and view to and from Georges River and affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville.

 

3.         The ecologist report submitted fails to address a number of issues including, the consultants understanding of the operation of the framework and the application of the Test of Significance, does not adequately address the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, the presence of urban adapted species, or geological features and hydrology/water quality. For these reasons Council is unable to address removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

 

4.         The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to undertake works on Lots 4 and 5 DP1012655 (known as 3 and 4 Coachwood Place) to facilitate vehicular access to Coachwood Place for the proposed development.

 

 

LPP047-19        3 Newman Street Mortdale

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

 

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

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Shafagh Bakhshalian (submitter)

          ●       Peter Prasad (planner)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Refusal

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0190 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) storey boarding housing, pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 consisting of nineteen (19) rooms and basement parking for eleven (11) car spaces at 3 Newman Street, Mortdale, is determined by refusal for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal is unsatisfactory having regarding to Clause 29(d)(i) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the development has not provided adequate linkage between the communal room and rear private open space to accommodate proposal.

 

2.     The proposal is unsatisfactory having regarding to Clause 29(e)(iia), Clause 30(1)(h)  State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the development has not provided adequate functional vehicle and motorcycle parking, a poor linkage between the communal room and rear private open space.

 

3.     The proposal does not satisfy Clause 30(A) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the development is not compatible with the character of the local area in its present form.

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the following zone objectives as per Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives and Land Use Table (R2 Low Density Residential) of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012:

 

·                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.

 

5.     The proposal is unsatisfactory in regards to providing suitable amenity relating to accessible car parking, accessibility, stormwater, energy efficiency, waste management and trees having regard to the Hurstville Development Control Plan.

 

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

 

7.     The proposed development is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the site is not suitable for the development in its present form.

 

8.     The proposed development has attracted a number of submissions in regards to Section 4.15(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 objecting to the proposed development.

 

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

 

10.  The proposal has provided insufficient information in relation to an amended BASIX Certificate, revised concept stormwater plan, revised waste management plan, plan of management and arborist report.

 

11.  Inadequate and inconsistent information has been submitted accompanying this development application.

 

 

LPP048-19        723 -729 Princes Highway Blakehurst

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

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

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Damien Rowlands (submitter)

          ●       Andrew Darroch (on behalf of applicant)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

Determination

 

Deferral

Pursuant to Section 2.20 (8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), Development Application No. DA2018/0381 for the demolition of existing structures, site consolidation and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building containing seventeen (17) apartments and basement car parking for a total of thirty seven (37) car parking spaces, landscaping and site works at 723-729 Princes Highway, Blakehurst, is deferred for the application to be amended with the following design amendments detailed below.  These amendments shall be submitted to the Council within 28 days of this decision and shall be subject to a final determination pursuant to Section 4.16(a) of the EPAA  by the Manager Development and Building.

 

1.         Design – The following design changes are to be incorporated into the plans prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate and shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager of Building and Development;

 

(a)       The ground floor courtyards to Unit 2 and 3 shall be reduced in width by 1m and the balustrade to the courtyard setback 1m from the foreshore. The area in front of the balustrade shall be non-trafficable and include pebbles. The intention of the condition is to reduce the height and scale of structures adjoining the foreshore and to create clearer steps in the built form.

 

(b)       The proposed sliding privacy screens located on the edge of the balconies shall be increased to include two privacy screens for each balcony with each privacy screen having a minimum width of 1.5m.

 

(c)       A full height privacy screen with a minimum width of 1.5m shall be installed along the southern side of all rear balconies to reduce the potential for any overlooking to the adjoining property to the south.

 

(d)       The two existing jetties shall be retained and a detailed plan shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Development and Building showing how these structures are to be retained and direct, level access to them from the development site shall be  provided.  Details of compliance with this condition shall be provided prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

 

(e)       A detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted which shows how the foreshore area will be rehabilitated and treated. This plan should include all landscaping works proposed along Blake Avenue and Princes Highway. The plan should include all pathways, types of plants and access to and from existing structures such as the Jetties.

 

(f)        The existing boatsheds and any ancillary structures (except the two Jetties and slipway) at the rear of the subject sites which encroach on the boundary and foreshore shall be removed. Details of how the foreshore will be treated after the removal of these structures is to be lodged with Council. Access to the jetties shall be maintained from the development site.

 

(g)       The windows to the living spaces along the southern elevation to Units 5, 8 and 11 shall be constructed of obscure glazing and/or be highlight windows with sills at a minimum height of 1.6m from floor level to reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

(h)      The WC proposed on the ground floor adjoining the entry to Unit 2 shall be removed and shall become a storage room.

 

(i)        Storage spaces no’s 14 and 15 shall be deleted and the space shall be backfilled in line with the space at the front of the site. One new storage room shall be provided adjoining the storage space for Unit 2 and shall be in line with the other storage spaces in the B1 car park level.

 

(j)         Two (2) new Banksia integrifolia street trees shall be planted along Blake Avenue with a minimum pot size of 100L.

 

(k)       The WC in the Bin store area will be removed and shall become additional space for bins and larger bulky goods to be stored.

 

(l)        The non-trafficable roof on Level 4 on the southern side of the building shall include pebbles.

 

(m)     A rainwater tank shall be installed along the southern side of the site at the ground floor level and shall be used to water all deep soil areas and associated landscaping (planters or planter boxes)

 

(n)      The plans shall include hydrant pump and associated services and these shall be located so that they can be accessed but will be appropriately screened from view where possible.

 

(o)       A separate plan and application will need to be submitted to Council in accordance with the Roads Act in respect to the proposed relocation of the public car parking spaces. The proposed arrangement and relocation of these spaces shall be approved prior to the commencement of works.

 

(p)       If an electrical substation is required it shall be well designed, integrated and screened from view where possible.

 

(q)       Any proposed hydrant boosters shall be located along Blake Avenue and shall be screened from view and softly landscaped.

 

(r)        Where possible all electrical services should be relocated underground.

 

(s)       Letterboxes shall be designed to be located within the development adjacent to the main entry along the northern or western side and shall be recessed so they are not located on the front fence.

 

(t)        The balustrades to courtyards Units 2 and 3 shall be setback a minimum of 900mm from the western edge of the structure and this area is to become non-trafficable and include pebbles. This is to further reduce the dominance of structures from the waterway and create defined steps in the built form at the lower levels. The balustrade to the courtyards shall be of a palisade style. Upper level balconies shall have balustrades constructed of glass.

 

(u)      Kitchen facilities and an accessible toilet compliant with the BCA is to be included adjacent to the lift on the rooftop open space area.  The design of the kitchen facilities and toilet is not to result in an exceedance of the maximum floor space ratio on the site.

 

(v)       Design amendments to the balconies, external envelope and internal floor plan in accordance with the amendments made to the architectural plans as shown below.

 

 

 

2.    Additional conditions as follows:

 

·         NBN Connection - Prior to the issue of the Subdivision or Construction Certificate in connection with a development, the developer (whether or not a constitutional corporation) is to provide evidence satisfactory to the Certifying Authority that arrangements have been made for:

 

(i)      the installation of fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project so as to enable fibre to be readily connected to any premises that is being or may be constructed on those lots. Demonstrate that the carrier has confirmed in writing that they are satisfied that the fibre ready facilities are fit for purpose; and

 

(ii)     the provision of fixed-line telecommunications infrastructure in the fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project demonstrated through an agreement with a carrier.

 

(Note real estate development project has the meanings given in section 372Q of the Telecommunications Act).

 

·         Electricity Supply Development – The electricity supply to the Development must be underground.

 

 

LPP049-19        7-11 Derby Street Kogarah

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

 

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

 

Speakers

 

          ●       Andrew Nicolle (applicant)

          ●       Peter Smith (applicant)

 

Voting of the Panel Members

The decision of the Panel was unanimous.

 

Determination

 

Approval

The Panel is satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0137 for the lot consolidation, demolition of existing structures and construction of a twelve (12) storey mixed use building with three (3) levels of basement parking at 7-11 Derby Street, Kogarah, is determined by granting consent to the application subject to the conditions recommended in the report submitted to the LPP meeting of 7 November 2019 except;

 

1.         Replace Condition 25 with the following:

 

Use of Rooftop open space - A Plan of Management (POM) for use of rooftop open space must be submitted for approval of Council. The POM must outline the:

 

·                hours of use of the rooftop deck which shall be restricted from 8am until 10pm;

·                maximum number of users at any one time shall be specified (for this development a maximum of 30 is recommended);

·                Outline provisions to maximise the safety (fire safety and general safety) for users of this area.

·                No amplified music to be played;

·                identify other measures to ensure that the amenity and safety of persons within the development and in nearby existing and future development is maintained.

·                Location and type of signage to be installed in the building to notify residents and visitors in respect to the use of this space.

·                The approved POM shall be incorporated into the Owners Corporation by-laws in any future Strata subdivision and a sign in the front entry of the building shall be included to ensure the use of this space is monitored and understood by all occupants.

 

The POM shall be prepared and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Building and Development.

 

2.         Additional Condition 5a to read as follows:

 

5a     Public Domain Plan and Works - A public domain plan is to be submitted to Council consisting of full civil engineering drawings to Australian Standards. Inclusive of new kerbing, driveway, drainage, paved footpath, landscape and  tree pits, and  in accordance with Councils “Public Domain Streetscape Works Specification“.

 

The Approved plans for public domain works shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications issued under the “Application for Driveway Crossing and Associated Works on Council Road Reserve” Roads Act 1993 Section 138 Approval issued by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Division.  Applications to be made at Georges River Council Customer Service Centre.

 

A separate application approval is required under section 68 Local Government Act 1993 for any modifications to Council’s drainage network.

 

The Plans are also to generally reflect the requirements of the Kogarah Town Centre Public Domain Strategy and Technical Manual. The Plan must be approved by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Division prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

 

A private contractor shall carry out the above work, at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with the approved Specifications for works.

 

The driveway and road frontage works are to be completed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

3.         Additional conditions 26a as follows:

 

26a   On basement level C3, car space no. 34 be dedicated as a turning bay.  Amended details to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any construction certificate.

 

26b   In relation to Apartment 10.01, highlight windows with a sill height of 1.5m above finished floor level are to be installed on the north eastern wall of the kitchen on level 10 and the bedroom (north east wall) in north east corner on level 11.

 

4.         Additional conditions as follows:

 

·         NBN Connection - Prior to the issue of the Subdivision or Construction Certificate in connection with a development, the developer (whether or not a constitutional corporation) is to provide evidence satisfactory to the Certifying Authority that arrangements have been made for:

 

(i)      the installation of fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project so as to enable fibre to be readily connected to any premises that is being or may be constructed on those lots. Demonstrate that the carrier has confirmed in writing that they are satisfied that the fibre ready facilities are fit for purpose; and

 

(ii)     the provision of fixed-line telecommunications infrastructure in the fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project demonstrated through an agreement with a carrier.

(Note real estate development project has the meanings given in section 372Q of the Telecommunications Act).

 

·           Electricity Supply DevelopmentThe electricity supply to the Development must be underground.

 

Statement of Reasons

·         The proposal is an appropriate response to the “up-zoning” of the site (including increased FSR and height limits) afforded by the Kogarah “New City Plan”. The building is consistent with the desired future character of the B4 zone along Railway Parade and is commensurate with nearby recent RFB development.

·         The proposal is fully compliant with the maximum 4:1 FSR limit that applies to the site under KLEP2012.

·         The proposed variation to the 39m building height limit will allow for the provision of a high quality area of communal open space on the rooftop and is supported pursuant to Clause 4.6 of KLEP2012.

·         The proposals bulk and scale is appropriately contained within a generally compliant building envelope that is respectful of the established character of the area in relation to height, street setback and boundary setbacks.

·         The proposal has sufficient façade modulation and wall articulation that will serve to provide visual interest and reduce the bulk of the building.

·         The proposal achieves compliance with the Apartment Design Guide with respect to both internal and external amenity. Building separation requirements in particular are for the most part compliant and, where numerically non-compliant, visual privacy impacts will be mitigated by the use of screening and other appropriate measures.

 

 

 

4.                CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

 

The meeting concluded at 6.50pm.

 

 

 

 

                                                                       

 

Paul Vergotis

Chairperson

 

Helen Deegan

Expert Panel Member

 

 

 

 

Michael Leavey

Expert Panel Member

 

Cameron Jones

Community Representative