Agenda of Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)

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

Page 2

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

LPP045-19 977 Forest Road Lugarno - DA2019/0042

(Report by Consultant Planner)

LPP046-19 47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno - DA2018/0479

(Report by Development Assessment Planner)

LPP047-19 3 Newman Street Mortdale - DA2018/190

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Officer)

LPP048-19 723 -729 Princes Highway Blakehurst - DA2018/0381

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

LPP049-19 7-11 Derby Street Kogarah - DA2018/0137

(Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner)

4. Confirmation of Minutes

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

LPP Report No	LPP045-19	Development Application No	DA2019/0042
Site Address & Ward Locality	977 Forest Road Lugarno Peakhurst Ward
Proposed Development	Fit out and use of the ground floor of an existing chruch buidling to be used as an Early Childhood Education Facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works
Owners	Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney
Applicant	Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney
Planner/Architect	Lee Environmental Planning (Scott Lee) JMH Living Design (John Hatch)
Date Of Lodgement	13/02/2019
Submissions	Forty eight (48) submissions objecting to the proposal
Cost of Works	$10,000.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	2(b) - Contentious Development - more than ten (10) submissions received
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental planning Policy – Infrastructure 2007, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River, State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007, Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation State Environmental Planning Policy, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Statement of Environmental Effects, Architectural plans, Landscape plan, Acoustic Report, Traffic Report, Arborist Report, Accessibility Report
Report prepared by	Consultant Planner

Recommendation

That the application be refused for the reasons included in this report

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

Not Applicable

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

Not applicable as the application is being recommended for refusal. The refusal reasons will be available when the report is published.

Site Plan

Figure 1: Site plan with the site outlined in blue

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application seeks consent for the fit out and use of the existing ground floor/sub-floor area beneath the existing church hall as an early childhood education facility for thirty four (34) children, with a new outdoor play area and formalised car parking for eleven (11) cars to be provided, five (5) at the front of the site and six (6) at the rear adjacent to the outdoor play area, on land legally described Lot 2 in DP 405732, known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno.

Site and Locality

2. The site is rectangular in shape with a splayed south western corner 1.83m in length which fronts Forest Road and a frontage of 24.69m to Ponderosa Place and a northern boundary of 120.120m and a southern boundary of 118.77m. The allotment has an area of 3140sqm. The site is located on the eastern side of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place. The allotment has a fall to the rear north eastern corner of 4.81m and a fall within the existing building footprint, comprising a church building and attached rear part one (1) part two (2) storey hall, of 2.72m.

3. A single storey church/sanctuary building with attached rear part one/two storey hall with sub-floor is located on the western side of the site. This building has a 2.313m setback from the southern boundary and a variable setback from the northern boundary (3.54m to 6.71). The northern boundary setback is occupied by a driveway that provides vehicular access to the rear (eastern side) of the site and the existing dwelling house at the rear.

4. Adjoining the site to the north are five (5) residential neighbours comprising dwelling houses. There are also five (5) existing dwelling houses existing to the north of the site and five (5) existing dwellings exist to the south and two (2) adjoining dwelling houses to the east of the proposal.

Zoning and Permissibility

5. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). A “centre-based child care facility” is a permissible use within the zone with development consent and the proposed use is permissible as it falls under this definition.

Submissions

6. The application was notified in accordance with the provisions contained within the Hurstville Development Control Plan. In response, forty eight (48) submissions were received. The relevant concerns raised within the submissions have been addressed in detail later in this assessment report.

Conclusion

7. An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the applicable assessment criterion as outlined in this report and the proposal generally is considered inadequate based upon the following conclusions:

a) the inconsistencies between documentation lodged by the experts;

b) the inconclusive submission on whether the proposed activity is a permissible use within the R2 Low Density Residential zone;

c) the potential traffic access and vehicle generation impacts, and on-site car parking issues associated with the development;

d) the acoustical impacts likely to result from the facility as proposed and any mechanical ventilation required to service that facility, and the likely overlapping operation of the church related activities;

e) the recommendation by the Applicants’ Arborist to retain the trees on site and the likelihood that, based on the current design, this cannot be achieved; and

f) the uncertainty that the operators, managing the joint operations of the church and the facility, can minimise potential local amenity impacts, relating to noise and traffic, to ensure that these independent site activities do not operate concurrently.

Report in Full

Proposal

8. The Statement of Environmental Effects, November 2018, provided in support of the application, describes the proposal as :

“The proposed development is for a proposed Childcare Centre use within the ground floor of an existing two story building where the upper level floor is occupied by an existing Place of Public Worship.

It involves the internal fit-out of the building space and there will be no built form changes externally to the existing bulk, scale and height of the church building.

The proposed childcare centre will operate between 7am until 6pm Monday to Friday, and will accommodate 34 children and 7 staff.

The proposed childcare centre will operate on the ground floor at the rear of the existing church building with outdoor space being located to the east of the building with a north and east aspect.

Car parking will be provided at both the front of the site for drop off and pick up and for staff and other visitor vehicles to the rear of the building. Both of these areas are already utilised as parking areas for the Church use.”

9. Detail on the proposal and its’ operations is tabulated in the SEE as follows, it is acknowledged there is discrepancy in the staff numbers, the assessment has been based on 6:

The centre will provide places for thirty four (34) children as follows:

· 0-2 year olds – Twelve (12) children

· 2-3 year olds – Twelve (12) children

· 3-5 year olds – Ten (10) children

These children will be supervised by a total of six (6) staff members

The following car parking is proposed for the site:

· Six (6) spaces for child care staff;

· Five (5) spaces for children drop off/pick –up, including one accessible space; and

· Thirteen (13) exclusive church spaces, where the child care centre spaces are utilised for church activities/functions after the child care centre operating hours cease.

10. Provision of the proposed car parking spaces within the front setback of the existing Church building will require preservation measures to be implemented to protect the three (3) canopy providing trees, including a Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), a Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and a Willow Gum (Eucalyptus scoparia). Provision of the formal car parking at the rear of the site will require protection measures to be implemented for one (1) significant Willow Gum (Eucalyptus scoparia) and an exempt Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta).

11. Vehicular access to the site is to be amended to provide an additional driveway on the southern side of the site providing a circular drive through arrangement at the front of the site. This proposal will enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

12. The application also proposes an adjustment to the existing road line-marking and traffic island arrangement. The existing arrangement is as follows.

Figure 2: Existing corner intersection design (Source: GoogleMaps)

Figure 3: Modified road/access design (Source: Applicant)

13. The Application proposes the adoption of a new southbound slip-lane exit from Ponderosa Place to Forest Road to service the development, see Figure 3 above. The proposed new road markings will require south-bound traffic on Ponderosa Place to utilise the existing right turn lane to turn left onto Forest Road.

14. Stormwater disposal from the site is proposed to be by way of a charged line to Council’s drainage system in Ponderosa Place.

Site and Locality

15. The site is described as Lot 2 in DP 405732 and is known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno. The site is a rectangular shaped site with a splayed south western corner 1.83m in length which fronts Forest Road and a frontage of 24.69m to Ponderosa Place. The allotment has an area of 3140sqm. The site is located on the eastern side of the street, see Figure 4 below.

16. A single storey church/sanctuary building with an attached rear part ground/part first floor hall and part ground/part sub-floor hall is located on the western side of the site. This building has a 2.313m setback from the southern boundary and a variable setback from the northern boundary. The northern boundary setback is occupied by a driveway that provides vehicular access to the rear (eastern side) of the site.

17. A concrete courtyard and an open car parking area are provided to the east of the church and associated buildings. A part one/part two storey dwelling house is located at the rear, eastern side of the site.

18. The allotment has a fall to the rear north eastern corner of 4.81m and a fall within the existing building footprint of the church building/sanctuary and attached rear part one (1), part two (2) storey hall of 2.72m.

19. There are three (3) significant native canopy providing trees at the front of the site immediately adjacent to the front boundary, see Figures 4 and 5 below. Two (2) significant native trees are also located in the eastern yard of the dwelling house on the eastern side of the site and two (2) significant native trees are located between the car park and the dwelling house in the eastern portion of the site.

20. Adjoining the site to the north are five (5) residential neighbours comprising dwelling houses. There are also five (5) adjoining dwelling houses to the south and two (2) adjoining dwelling houses to the east of the proposal.

Figure 4: Photograph of due east aspect of front of subject site from Ponderosa Place intersection with Forest Road (Source: SEE by LEP 2018).

Figure 5: Street view picture during congregation day (Source: Public Submission).

Zoning and Permissibility

21. The subject land is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012). The proposed development is defined by the HLEP 2012 as a ‘Centre-based child care facility’ which is a permitted land use in the zone, see Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 - Extract of Zoning Map and subject site outlined in blue.

Submissions

22. The proposed development was notified to the immediate surrounding residents. In response, a total of forty eight (48) submissions were received by Council, all objecting to the proposed development. The relevant concerns raised have been addressed in detail later in this report.

Background

23.

Date	Event
23 March 2007	Deferred commencement consent granted for an extension to the existing church building including the provision of a church hall under 06/DA-372.
21 May 2007	Deferred commencement activated for 06/DA-372.
28 September 2010	Pre-application advice is provided to the applicant in relation to the potential lodgement of a child care centre application.
15 July 2011	Development application for a child care centre lodged under 11/DA-236 for the provision of additional sub-floor area under the approved church hall for use as a child care centre.
July - November 2011	Unauthorised excavation works for the provision of the rear child care centre commence on site, increasing the excavation permitted under a previous consent for the church hall.
6 December 2011	Section 96 modification lodged under 06/DA-372REV01 for the provision of additional excavation to increase the area of the ground/sub-floor level underneath the approved church hall.
7 March 2012	11/DA-236 is refused for variations to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, numerous variations to Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1, insufficient information, traffic and parking issues and safety concerns.
4 April 2012	Development modification 06/DA-372REV01 considered at a Council meeting where the application was approved by Council.
3 June 2014	Pre-lodgement application for a child care centre lodged under PRE2014/0010.
7 August 2014	The Hurstville Traffic Advisory Committee considered proposed alterations under PRE2014/0010 at the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place for a proposed child care centre. The committee resolved: “THAT the proposed channelisation of the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place to improve road safe at the vehicular access points of the Congregational Christian Church in Samoa and the proposed child care centre at 977 Forest Road Lugarno be approved. THAT a Section 138 Application under the Roads Act 1993 be lodged to Council’s Traffic Section for determination. A detailed plan of the proposed channelisation of the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place, Lugarno be incorporated with the application. THAT all costs associated with the proposed works be borne by the applicant. FURTHER THAT the applicant be advised of Council’s decision.”
17 September 2014	Formal pre-development advice provided to the applicant detailing issues with the proposed plans including tree removal, traffic, parking and disabled access. The applicant was advised to lodge plans/information that addressed these issues in detail.
23 December 2015	Application for child care centre lodged DA2015/0443.
2 February 2016	Council requests provision of acoustic report and landscape plan
15 March 2016	Council receives complaint from neighbour relating to unauthorised fit out of the ground/sub-floor level
16 March 2016	Stop work order issued in relation to the fit out works.
27 May 2016	Acoustic Consultant, “Acoustic Dynamics” requested to prepare acoustic report on behalf of Council in relation to the proposal.
27 October 2016	DA2015/0443 for an Child Care Centre for 34 children at ground level – Refused;
18 December 2018	DA2018/0570 lodged seeking to operate an Early Childhood Education facility within the existing building.
7 January 2019	DA2018/0570 rejected due to inadequacies in drainage, traffic, parking and need for Pre-lodgement meeting
13 February 2019	Current application lodged DA2019/0042.
26 February 2019	Neighbour notification for 14 days from 26 February.
19 May 2019	Meeting with Applicant to discuss objections and issues.
3 October 2019	Noise complaint relating to Church activities currently before the Court.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

24. The site has been inspected and the proposed development has been assessed under the provisions of Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

25. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

26. The proposal is considered to not have met the statutory requirements under Schedule 1 of the Regulation.

27. In this instance the documentation provided to support the Child Care Facility application is considered inadequate and inaccurate with a variety of inconsistencies between the documents. These issues are identified as including:

Development Feature	SEE	Acoustic Report	Traffic Assessment	Architectural Plans
Staff Numbers	6 or 7	7	7	----
Children Numbers	34	40	34	----
Car parking	11-13	11	11	----
Hours of Operation	7am – 6pm	7am - 6pm	7am – 6:30pm	----
Hardstand Footprint	2,639.5sqm	----	----	2,607.55sqm
Total Floor Area (excluding residence)	1,346.98sqm	----	----	1,346.98sqm
Landscaped Area	500.4sqm	----	----	522.06sqm
Internal Play Area	169.2sqm	----	----	317.52sqm
Outdoor Play Area	270.4sqm	----	----	247.1sqm

28. The above table illustrates the differences in factual content related to the development across the consultants reports on primary matters of children/staff, operating hours, landscaped areas, children’s play area (internal and external) and site hardstand surface areas.

29. In addition to the above it is noted that the accompanying Landscape Plan by Zenith is dated 2015 and clearly relates to an earlier development design for the site as :

· The vehicular entry point is from a different position north of the southern boundary;

· The internal driveway design for the front carpark is different to the architectural plans and the Traffic Plan assessment;

· The design is based upon the removal of the three front trees contrary to architectural plans; and

· The access design off Ponderosa Place/Forest Road differs from the current architectural plans.

30. The Acoustic Report addresses the noise control measures for the Outdoor Play Area, however, it does not address the internal play area and any required mechanical ventilation installation noise attenuation measures in response to neighbour objections.

31. On the basis of the lack of adequate and consistent information and the above identified areas of inconsistencies in supporting documentation for the development application, which are on-going issues of significance for the development assessment, it is Councils’ view that the application/documentation as lodged is inadequate.

32. The proposal is considered to not have met the statutory requirements under the Schedule 1 of the Regulation.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

33. State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education and Child Care SEPP) commenced on 1 September 2017 and aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State.

34. Clause 22 of the Education and Child Care SEPP indicates that the consent authority cannot grant consent to a development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility except with the concurrence of the Regulatory Authority. However; concurrence of the Regulatory Authority is only required if the floor area of the building and the proposed outdoor spaces do not satisfy Parts 107 and 108 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations.

35. Part 107(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises is to have at least 3.25sqm per child of unencumbered indoor space equating to 111sqm for the proposed thirty-four (34) children.

36. The proposed unencumbered indoor space is 317sqmequating to 9.32sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

37. Part 108(2) of the Regulations states that, for each child being educated and cared for by the service, the education and care service premises has at least 7.0sqm of unencumbered outdoor space equating to 238sqm for the proposed thirty four (34) children.

38. The outdoor space proposed is to be 247sqm equating to 7.26sqm per child, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

Clause	Control	Proposal	Complies
25 Centre-based child care facility—non discretionary development standards	(1) The object of this clause is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to a centre-based child care facility that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for those matters.	Proposal has considered the applicable standards within this assessment.	Yes
	(2) The following are non-discretionary development standards for the purposes of section 4.15 (2) and (3) of the Act in relation to the carrying out of development for the purposes of a centre-based child care facility: (a) location—the development may be located at any distance from an existing or proposed early education and care facility, (b) indoor or outdoor space (i) for development to which regulation 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements = 3.25sqm per child) or 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements = 7sqm per child) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations applies—the unencumbered area of indoor space and the unencumbered area of outdoor space for the development complies with the requirements of those regulations, or (ii) for development to which clause 28 (unencumbered indoor space and useable outdoor play space) of the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 applies—the development complies with the indoor space requirements or the useable outdoor play space requirements in that clause, (c) site area and site dimensions—the development may be located on a site of any size and have any length of street frontage or any allotment depth, (d) colour of building materials or shade structures—the development may be of any colour or colour scheme unless it is a State or local heritage item or in a heritage conservation area.	Noted Noted Indoor unencumbered area = 9.32sqm per child. Outdoor unencumbered area = 7.26sqm per child. Noted Noted Noted. The site is not identified as a State or Local heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area.	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
26 Centre-based child care facility—development control plans	(1) A provision of a development control plan that specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to any of the following matters (including by reference to ages, age ratios, groupings, numbers or the like, of children) does not apply to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility: (a) operational or management plans or arrangements (including hours of operation), (b) demonstrated need or demand for child care services, (c) proximity of facility to other early education and care facilities, (d) any matter relating to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility contained in: (i) the design principles set out in Part 2 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, or (ii) the matters for consideration set out in Part 3 or the regulatory requirements set out in Part 4 of that Guideline (other than those concerning building height, side and rear setbacks or car parking rates).	The proposal seeks development consent for Child Care Facility (CCC) for thirty four (34) children. This clause overrides any applicable control within the Hurstville instruments. Plans of Management (POM) are not enforceable for the CCC, however, in this instance the site accommodates multiple uses and the necessity for a POM is evident. Demand is accepted No other CCC is noted as a deterrent for the subject CCC See table below. Under assessment.	Yes Noted Yes Yes See below Under review
	(2) This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.	This clause has been considered as part of this assessment.	Noted

Child Care Planning Guideline Compliance Table
Controls	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
1.3 What are the planning Objectives	The planning objectives of this Guideline are to: · promote high quality planning and design of child care facilities in accordance with the physical requirements of the National Regulations · ensure that child care facilities are compatible with the existing streetscape, context and neighbouring land uses · minimise any adverse impacts of development on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood, including the natural and built environment. · deliver greater certainty to applicants, operators and the community by embedding the physical requirements for service approval into the planning requirements for child care facilities.	The proposal does not achieve this Objective as the CCC design simply aims to accommodate the facility in an existing lower ground floor of a building with evident ventilation, solar and amenity concerns. Acceptable as CCC will be located at rear of site, although the car parking at front will impact streetscape appearance and noise concerns to neighbour properties. Noise issues, traffic and car parking concerns are raised for neighbouring amenity and have not been adequately addressed. Noted. Acceptable where CCC has minor amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the locality.	Noted No - proposal does not comply Acceptable No - see discussion in report Yes
3.1 Site selection and location	C1- For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone consider:
	§ the acoustic and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the residential properties	An acoustic report accompanies the proposal which recommends the windows and doors be closed and internal play area air-conditioned when active. An acoustic fence is proposed along the outdoor play area due to potential impacts on neighbouring lands.	No.- Artificial ventilation, and most likely for lighting in winter is not a desirable outcome. Any use of acoustic fencing is recommended to be supported by boundary landscaping which is not achievable in this instance.
	§ the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context	The proposal will be accommodated in the existing building footprint on the land.	Yes
	§ traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity	The proposal seeks to provide eleven (11) car spaces on site which is in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan requirements for the CCC. However, should the activity operate whilst church activities are operating then there would be a shortfall of nine (9) spaces. The proposal is conditionally supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator of Traffic on the basis that the final design is agreed upon for intersection works, documentation be lodged illustrating the safe manoeuvring of vehicles on site, acceptance of the need for a convex mirror along the driveway and erection of a crash barrier/bollards around the play area.	No.- No legal restriction is placed on the Church operations and the application relies on acceptance that the activities will operate exclusive of each other. However, in reality there is no restriction to enforce this action and traffic and car parking is an unresolved issue.
	C2 - When selecting a site, ensure that: § the location and surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development or use	The location of the proposed child care centre is generally compatible with residential development where noise and traffic control measures are implemented.	No - Amelioration measures are not considered appropriate and raise the question as to whether this site is appropriate for the use.
	§ the site is environmentally safe including risks such as flooding, land slip, bushfires, coastal hazards	The site is not impacted by any affectations such as flooding, landslip, bushfire or coastal hazards.	Yes
	§ there are no potential environmental contaminants on the land, in the building or the general proximity, and whether hazardous materials remediation is needed	No site contamination is known on the land which has been used for residential and church activities over many years	Yes
	§ the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to: - size of street frontage, lot configuration, dimensions and overall size - number of shared boundaries with residential properties. - the development will not have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area, particularly in sensitive environmental or cultural areas.	The proposal is located on the corner of Forest Road (Main Road) and Ponderosa Place (Local Road) adjacent to a roundabout intersection in a predominantly residential environment. The property adjoins twelve (12) residential properties. Issues related to noise, traffic and car parking have been identified as directly impacting neighbouring amenity.	Yes No No
	§ there are suitable drop off and pick up areas, and off and on street parking	The proposal provides car parking on site, with 5 spaces at the street frontage and 6 behind the building. The Traffic Report relies on the CCC and Church activities to operate at different times to ensure there is adequate onsite car parking	No - Policing or enforcing this remains questionable. A tight turning and manoeuvring area is proposed at the street frontage which will potentially impact the trees to be retained.
	§ the type of adjoining road (for example classified, arterial, local road, cul-de-sac) is appropriate and safe for the proposed use	Ponderosa Place is a local road. This road is not identified as a collector road within the Hurstville DCP 2013. Forest Road is a Main Collector and the access is to be modified.	Yes
	§ it is not located closely to incompatible social activities and uses such as restricted premises, injecting rooms, drug clinics and the like, premises licensed for alcohol or gambling such as hotels, clubs, cellar door premises and sex services premises.	The subject site is located in a residential setting and is not impacted by any of the criterion listed within this clause.	Yes
	C3 - A child care facility should be located:
	§ near compatible social uses such as schools and other educational establishments, parks and other public open space, community facilities, places of public worship	The subject site is surrounded by residential uses within the immediate vicinity and the site accommodates a place of public worship and is within 500m of a shopping precinct, parks and school.	Yes
	§ near or within employment areas, town centres, business centres, shops	The subject site is located relatively close to Lugarno commercial precinct known as Chivers Hill.	Yes
	§ with access to public transport including rail, buses, ferries	Bus stops are located along Forest Road.	Yes
	§ in areas with pedestrian connectivity to the local community, businesses, shops, services and the like.	The subject site has pedestrian connectivity to the Lugarno commercial precinct known as Chivers Hill	Yes
	C4- A child care facility should be located to avoid risks to children, staff or visitors and adverse environmental conditions arising from proximity to:
	§ heavy or hazardous industry, waste transfer depots or landfill sites § LPG tanks or service stations § water cooling and water warming systems § odour (and other air pollutant) generating uses and sources or sites § which, due to prevailing land use zoning, may in future accommodate noise or odour generating uses § extractive industries, intensive agriculture, agricultural spraying activities	The site is not located within proximity to any of the risks identified within this clause.	Yes
	§ any other identified environmental hazard or risk relevant to the site and/ or existing buildings within the site.	No other hazards identified.	Yes
3.2 Local character, streetscape and the public domain interface	C5 - The proposed development should:
	§ contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape	The proposal utilises the existing church built form and will not be visible from the street. The car parking will however result in the loss of landscaped area at the street front and will detract from the streetscape.	No.
	§ reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas	The proposal utilises the existing church built form and will not be visible from the street. This is considered to be compatible with the built forms within the immediate vicinity.	Yes
	§ recognise predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, materials and colours	The existing building form is not inconsistent with the character of the existing streetscape.	Yes
	§ include design and architectural treatments that respond to and integrate with the existing streetscape	The proposal relies on the existing building form and will not result in any new building form. The street front appearance will be adversely impacted due to increased hardstand surfaces for car parking which detracts from the streetscape and may lead to the loss of existing mature trees located in the setback.	No - The proposal will have a negative impact on the streetscape due to the loss of landscaped area, lawn areas and potentially mature trees.
	§ use landscaping to positively contribute to the streetscape and neighbouring amenity	The proposal will result in an overall reduction in site landscaping due to the creation of car parking in the front setback.	No - Landscaped area will be lost on a low density residential zoned site with existing site coverage exceeding 50%
	§ integrate car parking into the building and site landscaping design in residential areas.	Car parking is proposed to be formalised at the rear of the Church Hall and also for parental use at the street front, see Figure 3.	No - Provision of additional car parking on site will detract from the current appearance of the site.
	C6 - Create a threshold with a clear transition between public and private realms, including:
	§ fencing to ensure safety for children entering and leaving the facility	Appropriate fencing is proposed, and would be conditionally required if approved, to ensure safe child access from the street and car parks into the CCC.	Yes - Achievable.
	§ windows facing from the facility towards the public domain to provide passive surveillance to the street as a safety measure and connection between the facility and the community	CCC is to be located in the existing basement level of the Church Hall and will not have a visual presence from the street to provide for passive surveillance	No - CCC is not appropriately located to achieve this standard.
	§ integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.	Landscaping is reduced and will not be improved.	No
	C7- On sites with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with the child care facility should be differentiated to improve legibility for visitors and children by changes in materials, plant species and colours.	The proposal has a defined pedestrian entry which is clearly legible.	Yes
	C9- Front fences and walls within the front setback should be constructed of visually permeable materials and treatments. Where the site is listed as a heritage item, adjacent to a heritage item or within a conservation area front fencing should be designed in accordance with local heritage provisions.	No front fence is proposed. The site is not listed as a heritage item or within a conservation area.	Yes
	C10- High solid acoustic fencing may be used when shielding the facility from noise on classified roads. The walls should be setback from the property boundary with screen landscaping of a similar height between the wall and the boundary.	Forest Road is not a classified road in this location although it is a local collector road.	N/A
3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design	C11- Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to:
	ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by: - facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties - placing play equipment away from common boundaries with residential properties - locating outdoor play areas away from residential dwellings and other sensitive uses	The proposal has no choice in location of Outdoor Play area, as it is confined to the area adjacent to rear of the Hall and bounded by a carpark. Noise issues are proposed to be addressed by the use of hooded screens over the play area. Noise will still project from the play area open roof and will also have a visual impact due to the screen size.	No - High screening walls, partly roofed, are proposed to address noise from the outdoor play area. This wall will have visual impacts as well as funnelled noise concerns.
	§ optimise solar access to internal and external play areas	The CCC is located within the basement area of the church hall but has a northerly aspect for the windows/doors along this façade. The outdoor play area is proposed to be heavily screened and partly roofed, whilst being located on the eastern end of the Hall building. Hence solar access is likely to be impacted. The Applicant has not submitted any solar access analysis.	No - Potentially both the internal and outdoor play areas may lack adequate solar access, however timing on the use of outdoor areas may satisfy solar access, however has not been resolved.
	§ avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties	Proposal will not result in structures which adversely overshadow neighbouring lands.	Yes
	§ minimise cut and fill	The proposal seeks no cut and fill.	Yes
	§ ensure buildings along the street frontage define the street by facing it	The proposal involves no external building works.	Yes - although an additional hardstand car parking area and outdoor play area is proposed.
	§ ensure that where a child care facility is located above ground level, outdoor play areas are protected from wind and other climatic conditions.	The proposal is located at ground level with appropriate shelter protection from the elements.	Yes
	C12- The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character:
	§ building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality	The proposal involves no external building additions.	Yes
	§ building height should respond to the scale and character of the street	The overall building height is existing.	Yes
	§ setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility	The building position is existing.	Yes
	§ setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance	The building position is existing.	Yes
	§ setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character.	The building position is existing.	Yes
	C13- Where there are no prevailing setback controls minimum setback to a classified road should be 10m. On other road frontages where there are existing buildings within 50m, the setback should be the average of the two closest buildings. Where there are no buildings within 50m, the same setback is required for the predominant adjoining land use.	The building position is existing.	Yes
	C14- On land in a residential zone, side and rear boundary setbacks should observe the prevailing setbacks required for a dwelling house.	The building position is existing.	Yes
	C15- The built form of the development should contribute to the character of the local area, including how it:
	§ respects and responds to its physical context such as adjacent built form, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage	The building position is existing. The provision of onsite car parking within the front setback is proposed through necessity, as there is not another location available.	No - The streetscape will be further impacted due to car parking in the front setback, whereas currently formal car parking is located at the rear, although Figure 3 illustrates current usage impacts.
	§ contributes to the identity of the place	The building position is existing.	Yes - Place identity unchanged.
	§ retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant	The proposal seeks to retain trees on the site and within the front setback. This is likely to be difficult to achieve due to increased demands for use.	No - Lawn area and potentially trees will be impacted at the street front.
	§ considers heritage within the local neighbourhood including identified heritage items and conservation areas	The subject site and immediate surrounding area are not identified as being heritage listed or within a conservation area.	Yes
	§ responds to its natural environment including local landscape setting and climate	The proposal seeks to retain trees on site and provides for landscaping. Landscaped areas will be reduced due to car parking requirements.	No - Retention of trees will be an issue due to the increased use and paving.
	C16- Entry to the facility should be limited to one secure point which is:
	- located to allow ease of access, particularly for pedestrians - directly accessible from the street where possible - directly visible from the street frontage - easily monitored through natural or camera surveillance - not accessed through an outdoor play area. - in a mixed-use development, clearly defined and separate from entrances to other uses in the building.	The proposal seeks a main entry along the northern side elevation which is accessed from Ponderosa Place via a pedestrian walkway. This is a direct path in accordance with this clause. The rear car park access is via a ramp along the northern facade.	No - the proposal seeks a dual entry/exit arrangement to provide a circular drive to the front hard stand car parking area. This arrangement raises safety and manoeuvring concerns as discussed in report.
	C17- Accessible design can be achieved by:
	- providing accessibility to and within the building in accordance with all relevant legislation - linking all key areas of the site by level or ramped pathways that are accessible to prams and wheelchairs, including between all car parking areas and the main building entry - providing a continuous path of travel to and within the building, including access between the street entry and car parking and main building entrance. Platform lifts should be avoided where possible - minimising ramping by ensuring building entries and ground floors are well located relative to the level of the footpath. - NOTE: The National Construction Code, the Discrimination Disability Act 1992 and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 set out the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.	The proposal is accompanied by an Access Report which concludes that the CCC will be suitably accessible in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code and relevant Australian Standards.	Yes
3.4 Landscaping	C18- Appropriate planting should be provided along the boundary integrated with fencing. Screen planting should not be included in calculations of unencumbered outdoor space. Use the existing landscape where feasible to provide a high quality landscaped area by:
	- reflecting and reinforcing the local context - incorporating natural features of the site, such as trees, rocky outcrops and vegetation communities into landscaping.	The proposal results in a reduction of landscaped area, where car parking is proposed across the street front. A landscape plan has been lodged to improve the remaining landscaping, although it is noted that this landscape plan is dated 2015 and identifies a different vehicular access arrangement. If the application was to be supported than a requirement for a revised landscaping plan would be required.	No - The reduction in landscaped area is a poor design outcome for a large site which will adversely impact streetscape.
	C19- Incorporate car parking into the landscape design of the site by:
	- planting shade trees in large car parking areas to create a cool outdoor environment and reduce summer heat radiating into buildings - taking into account streetscape, local character and context when siting car parking areas within the front setback - using low level landscaping to soften and screen parking areas.	The proposal has been designed to respond to the requirements of this clause. Existing large trees are to be retained as shade and low level landscaping to screen cars.	No - The potential for the existing trees to survive the construction and paving impacts are considered low.
	C21- Minimise direct overlooking of indoor rooms and outdoor play spaces from public areas through:
	- appropriate site and building layout - suitably locating pathways, windows and doors - permanent screening and landscape design	The proposal has been designed to reasonably satisfy the requirements of this clause.	Yes
	C22 Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through: - appropriate site and building layout - suitable location of pathways, windows and doors - landscape design and screening.	The proposal has been designed having regard to reducing adverse overlooking impacts to adjoining properties. This is also assisted by screen planting and acoustic screening.	Yes
	C23- A new development, or development that includes alterations to more than 50 per cent of the existing floor area, and is located adjacent to residential accommodation should:
	§ Provide an acoustic fence along any boundary where the adjoining property contains a residential use. (An acoustic fence is one that is a solid, gap free fence).	New works and use are proposed and acoustic screening and roof over to the northern and southern sides of the outside play area has been proposed implementing the recommendations of the acoustic report.	Yes - An acoustic fence has been provided, however, as discussed in this report the design and form is considered unacceptable
	C24- A suitably qualified acoustic professional should prepare an acoustic report which will cover the following matters:		Yes
	§ identify an appropriate noise level for a child care facility located in residential and other zones § determine an appropriate background noise level for outdoor play areas during times they are proposed to be in use § determine the appropriate height of any acoustic fence to enable the noise criteria to be met.	The acoustic report has identified an appropriate background noise and requires an acoustic fence to an overall height of 2.4m, with pitched roof, along the northern Outdoor Play Area (OPA) and a roof element to 4m in height above the existing 3.12m high southern boundary wall OPA. The acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Health who raised concern that the internal areas should be air-conditioned rather than naturally ventilated.	No -. The acoustic wall/fence with a roof over, at the rear of the site is an undesirable outcome for a site of 3,000sqm due to building site constraints and poor internal amenity.
3.6 Noise and air pollution	C25 Adopt design solutions to minimise the impacts of noise, such as: - creating physical separation between buildings and the noise source - orienting the facility perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses - using landscaping to reduce the perception of noise - limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources - using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (winter gardens) - using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties, such as solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits - locating cot rooms, sleeping areas and play areas away from external noise sources.	The proposal incorporates an acoustic fence with roof over around the outdoor play area. The proposal has incorporated design elements consistent with the intent of this clause to respond to potential noise impacts from the centre.	Yes - CC design is generally responsive to this issue. Although the design of the centre within this building form attempts to respond to the issues raised, concern remains that development will result in additional noise concerns for neighbouring properties and within the centre, and will potentially be affected by a noise tunnelling affect.
	C26- An acoustic report should identify appropriate noise levels for sleeping areas and other non-play areas and examine impacts and noise attenuation measures where a child care facility is proposed in any of the following locations:	An acoustic report was reviewed by Council’s Coordinator Environmental Health.	No - See comments at C10 and C24 above.
	C27- Locate child care facilities on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development.	The site is located on a local road, with partial frontage to the collector road Forest Road, and is not within close proximity to any industrial uses.	Yes
	C28- A suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care facilities close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines. The air quality assessment report should evaluate design considerations to minimise air pollution.	The subject site is located away from potential impacts from external sources. Therefore an air quality assessment report was not required.	N/A
3.7 Hours of operation	C29- Hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The hours of operation of the proposed child care facility may be extended if it adjoins or is adjacent to non-residential land uses.	The proposal seeks consent to operate between 7.00am – 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Closed on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.	Yes
3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation	C31 Off street car parking should be provided at the rates for child care facilities specified in a Development Control Plan that applies to the land.	Compliant car parking provided on site in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013, where the Centre use operates exclusively of the church activities only.	Yes
	C33- A Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised. - the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected - there will be no impacts on the safe operation of the surrounding road network	A Traffic and Parking study was submitted. This was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Coordinator Traffic and is supported subject to conditions and requirements for further details. Concerns are raised at internal circulation, potential queuing to enter/exit site, paving impacts on landscaping and potential dual use of car parking	No - Access and entry to the site compounded by the corner position, which raises traffic and car parking management concerns.
	C36- The following design solutions may be incorporated into a development to help provide a safe pedestrian environment: - separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility	The proposal provides separate pedestrian and vehicular access from Ponderosa Place	Yes
	- pedestrian paths that enable two prams to pass each other	A pedestrian pathway is proposed along the northern side façade adjacent to the driveway.	Yes – via a condition the path be 1.5m wide if the application was to be supported. This would require a redesign of the driveway /pedestrian access (8.4m wide), but both should be safely accommodated
	- delivery and loading areas located away from the main pedestrian access to the building and in clearly designated, separate facilities	Delivery and loading areas can be accommodated in the waiting bay area at the front of the site. Deliveries are to occur outside peak pick up and drop off times.	Yes via a condition to ensure that deliveries occur outside peak pick up and drop off times, if the application was considered worthy of support.
	- vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction.	Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction which is facilitated by a turning area in the rear carpark and curved drive at the street front.	Yes
	C38 Car parking design should:
	- include a child safety fence to separate car parking areas from the building entrance and play areas - provide clearly marked accessible parking as close as possible to the primary entrance to the building in accordance with appropriate Australian Standards	The proposal provides a separate pedestrian entry to that of the basement entry.	Yes - Requiring safety fence and markings can be imposed as a condition if the application was to be supported.

39. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in design and form when assessed against the broad principle provisions of the Education and Care Services National Regulations and the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017. Of particular note are the non-compliances with provisions relating to the following:

a) Identifying a suitable site based upon compatibility with the existing streetscape character. The locality, although adjacent to a roundabout, remains a low density residential area with soft landscaping the predominant visual feature which is not attainable with the current proposed design;

b) Disclosure of the educational programming and practice at the Facility is required to be provided. This is a necessary requirement for the subject application to clearly illustrate that the Facility will achieve the requirements for the definition of a Centre-Based Child Care Facility to be a permissible land use;

c) Ensuring and illustrating that the development retains a landscaped character complimentary to the streetscape as identified in point (a) above;

d) Ensuring and illustrating that outdoor open space areas have adequate solar access to 30% of the area year round. The current proposal seeks to introduce large arched acoustic walls around the outdoor play area to minimize noise for neighbouring properties. Generally where such features are proposed adjacent to boundaries they are required to include landscaping along the boundaries of similar size and this has not been proposed. With the arched design and high wall height it is questionable whether the outdoor play area can achieve direct solar access to 30% of the play area year round and the Applicant has failed to illustrate that this is achievable;

e) Ensuring and illustrating that the internal floor space is appropriately designed to be naturally ventilated and achieves adequate natural lighting. Generally internal areas should not have a depth greater than 2.5 times the room height to ensure reasonable natural ventilation and lighting can be achieved. In this instance the height at 2.42m provides for only an acceptable depth of 6.05m whilst the subject design provides an internal play area depth of 12.2m;

f) Illustrating that the facility has a visible presence from the public road and safe/secure accessibility. In this instance the entry to the Facility will be :

· in excess of 25m from the street front;

· located 15m behind the existing church building alignment; and

· will not be able to provide visual security surveillance of the access pathway or the carpark area at the street front.

40. With design modifications these issues may be resolvable, or improved, however, the general landscaping, car parking, accessibility, tree retention, streetscape and solar access requirements under the Regulations/Guidelines appear to be issues that require significant re-assessment and redesign in order to achieve an acceptable outcome.

41. On the basis of this assessment, it is concluded that the current application design/form would not conform to the aims and objectives of the Regulations or Guidelines and is therefore not an appropriate form of development under those instruments.

Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

42. The subject land is located within the Georges River Catchments and as such The Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River applies to the application.

43. Georges River Catchment generally aims to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries. The proposal seeks to drain to the front of the site being Ponderosa Place which is supported by Council’s Development Engineer subject to conditions of consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy Vegetation 2017

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

45. The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

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

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

47. The proposal is supported by Council’s consulting arborist subject to conditions of consent and retention of the existing trees.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of land

48. The subject land has traditionally been utilized for residential or place of public worship uses and has no record of contamination concerns making the land unsuitable for a proposed centre-based child care facility. In this regard appropriate consideration has been given to the SEPP. The application was not supported by a preliminary contamination report; however the Statement of Environmental Effects raised no concerns on the basis that preliminary investigations revealed no contamination issue.

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

49. The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. This consolidated SEPP proposes to simplify the planning rules for a number of water catchments, waterways, urban bushland and Willandra Lakes World Heritage Property. Changes proposed include consolidating the following seven existing SEPPs:

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

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

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

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

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

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005;

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

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

Draft Remediation SEPP

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

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

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

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

· clearly list the remediation works that require development consent; and

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

A contamination report was not required for this development as the works are proposed on a residentially zoned allotment of land which has historically been used as a place of public worship with no known contamination issues recorded. In this regard, due consideration has been applied to the draft SEPP.

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

Clause	Standard	Assessment Under HLEP 2012
Part 2 – Permitted/Prohibited Development	R2 Low Density Residential	The Application is for an early childhood education facility. For the purposes of definition the Applicant seeks approval as a Child care centre (CCC) which is permissible in the zone. See comments below.
	Objectives of the Zone	The proposal does not comply with two objectives of the zone (1).
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	As existing - 8.9m.
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map	As existing - 0.48:1, inclusive of church/hall and residence.
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	N/A as existing.
5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation	Consent is required for pruning or removal of specified vegetation	Council’s consultant Arborist concurs with the Applicants Arborist with the retention of the existing trees, but raises concerns with the ability to protect the trees with the subject design.
5.9AA – Trees or vegetation not prescribed by DCP		Trees are not proposed to be removed. It is noted that SEPP now deals with assessment of such proposals.
6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area	Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made of the following: “(3)(a) affect the natural environment, including topography, rock formations, canopy vegetation or other significant vegetation, and (b) affect the visual environment, including the views to and from the Georges River, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places, and (c) affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville, and (d) Contribute to the scenic qualities of the residential areas and the Georges River by maintaining the dominance of landscape over built form.”	The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal has been assessed against the matters for consideration and is concluded to be unacceptable. The development comprises work that reduces the landscaped area within the street front setback and is replaced with paving for car parking. It is also likely that due to the extent of paving required for parking and manoeuvring that the 3 trees in the setback will be under threat and not able to survive. The proposal will not impact on view corridors. The proposal will not impact on any items of environmental heritage listed under Schedule 5 of the LEP. The removal of the lawn and possibly significant trees at the front of the site and the provision of parking and driveways within the front setback does not result in the “dominance of landscape over built form.”
6.7 – Essential Services	The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required: * Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage * Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation * Suitable vehicular access	Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land. Appropriate stormwater disposal is proposed. An existing charged system was approved via DA2006/0372 for the Church Hall and Additions. Vehicular access from Ponderosa Place/Forest Road is proposed subject to agreement being reached on modifications to the intersection.

Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 – Land Use Zones

53. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the Applicant seeks approval of an early childhood education centre which is being assessed as a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility” being a permissible form of development with Council’s consent, and defined as follows:

centre-based child care facility means:

(a) a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides any one or more of the following:

(i) long day care,

(ii) occasional child care,

(iii) out-of-school-hours care (including vacation care),

(iv) preschool care, or

(b) an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)),

Note. An approved family day care venue is a place, other than a residence, where an approved family day care service (within the meaning of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)) is provided.

but does not include:

(c) a building or place used for home-based child care or school-based child care, or

(d) an office of a family day care service (within the meanings of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)), or

(e) a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f) a child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium) to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(g) a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or providing private tutoring, or

(h) a child-minding service that is provided by or in a health services facility, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating in the facility.

54. With regard to the subject application the Applicant has not clarified the basis for the proposals compliance with the definition with regard to :

· What is the educational role of the Facility as required by (a) and (g)? and

· Whether the Education Facility has a religious role and thus would be excluded from the definition?

At this time the Applicant has failed to confirm that the proposed activity is consistent with the definition for a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility”.

55. Where the facility is determined not to be a “Centre-Based Child Care Facility” (CCC), the Applicant would need to rely on the Facility operating as an ancillary use to the existing “Place of Public Worship” use to be assessed as a permissible use. Reliance on this approach to permit the activity would necessitate the Applicant illustrating that the “Place of Public Worship” use would remain the dominant land use considering that the CCC Facility is proposed to operate 5 days weekly and the Church only on weekends this seems unlikely.

Objectives of Zone

56. The proposed use seeks consent to provide a child care service that must satisfy the following objectives of the zone, including:

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

57. A CCC is a service that provides for the day to day needs of residents and the wider community. However, the plans provided in support of the proposal do not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposal can provide a satisfactory facility which can suitably accommodate the children and maintain reasonable neighbour amenity.

58. This assessment identifies that the proposal has not been suitably designed to provide :

· appropriate car parking and vehicular site egress/access;

· appropriate indoor/outdoor space to safely and securely accommodate the children whilst providing sufficient natural light and ventilation to the centre;

· appropriate noise amelioration measures to ensure preservation of the neighbouring residential property amenity; and

· suitable measures for the retention of the existing significant trees on the site.

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

59. The existing building has already proved to be insufficient, in terms of acoustic treatment, to provide a satisfactory level of acoustic amenity to adjacent neighbours. The provision of a child care centre in the existing building without adequately addressing the noise impact from the indoor/outdoor play spaces associated with the child care centre use remains unsatisfactory.

60. The application has not demonstrated that the proposal achieves suitable acoustic amenity from the use of indoor areas. The Acoustic Dynamics 2016 report, commissioned by Georges River Council, had previously advised that:

“…the calculated noise emission from the indoor playground will not achieve compliance with the relevant noise emission criteria when windows and sliding doors are open. Accordingly Acoustic Dynamics advises that air conditioning should be installed to service the Child Care Centre. This will provide the option for mechanical ventilation of the Child Care Centre, and provide the occupants with the option to leave external doors and windows closed.”

61. The Applicants current acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works, November 2018, provides comments on outdoor play area of the Facility but does not make any recommendations for the indoor play area. Further, the noise monitor positioning between the proposed outdoor play area and the on-site dwelling is not an appropriate location, as this should be located on the northern/southern boundaries between the noise generator (child care facility) and the impacted dwellings in order to provide realistic noise readings, particularly along northern boundary where windows/doors of the facility may be opened.

62. The suggested resolution of the internal noise generation impact, involving keeping windows/doors closed during use, will appropriately address noise generation, however, for the operation of the child care centre it is considered to be a poor amenity outcome. A plan of management (POM) is warranted, considering the multiple use activities of this site, to ensure suitable action is taken by the child care centre operator when necessary. Although reliance on air-conditioning is not a preferred outcome for a child care centre, indeed the SEPP encourages natural ventilation, it is an option where noise levels during active periods is unreasonable and this is generally acknowledged as an option by the SEPP provisions. Air-conditioning is not an appropriate option where there is no enforceable POM available to instruct the centre operators.

63. As such, the proposal cannot provide for appropriate acoustic amenity for the adjoining neighbours and therefore fails to satisfy the objective of the LEP.

64. Additionally, the proposed development involves increased paved areas within the front setback thus reducing the potential landscaped area further. The Applicants architectural plans indicate that the site, within a low-density residential area, would provide only 16% (500.41sqm) of the site as soft landscaping being a reduction of a further 7% (234.64sqm) of soft landscaped area on site. This further loss of landscaped area is considered unreasonable in a residential precinct where the development adjoins standard residential housing, see Figures 1 and 2.

Development Control Plans

Hurstville Development Control Plan 2013

65. The proposal has been considered in accordance with the applicable subsections and considerations below.

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

Section 3.1	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
3.1.4.1 (table) – Child care centres refers requirements under 5.4.10	1 space per 2 staff (7 staff required) = 3.5 car spaces Short term drop off and pick up spaces at 1 space per 10 children (single access driveways) (34 children) = 4 car spaces Total required = 8 car spaces	6 proposed 5 proposed 11 proposed spaces	Yes Yes Yes
3.1.4.1 Place of Public Worship	1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 10sqm GFA whichever is greater) GFA is 839.279sqm = 84 spaces	11 available – shared with proposed child care centre use (church original approval required the provision of 9 spaces including 2 disabled spaces)	No
3.1.4.1 Residential – controls under 4.1	Dwelling House 2 car parking spaces required for 3 or more bedrooms	Single garage – 1 space	No

On site car parking

66. As demonstrated in the table above, the child care centre development proposes complying car parking spaces for the proposed child care centre use. For each individual activity taking place on the subject land, the proposed car parking is considered to be adequate, noting that the Church activity was approved with a requirement for nine (9) spaces. However, concerns remain that without appropriate management conditions applying to all uses of the land, the likelihood of multiple uses occurring on the land simultaneously is high. As the site is unsuitable to provide for appropriate car parking for both proposed uses, being the church and the child care centre, where active concurrently then the application is recommended for refusal.

Intensification of car parking demand

67. The car parking approved for the site as part of the previous extensions to the hall under 06/DA-372 and later modified under 06/DA-372REV01 included the provision of nine (9) car parking spaces at the rear of the church hall. Two (2) of these spaces were to be designated accessible spaces. Two (2) additional spaces were provided for the existing dwelling house resulting in a total of eleven (11) spaces for the site.

68. The original Council report identified a shortfall of car parking provision of fifty (50) spaces for the site for the church and church hall use. This existing shortfall of fifty (50) spaces was permitted to be increased (when the sub-floor area was increased in size) on the basis that existing congregation numbers were demonstrated to be low and the parking provided on site would be sufficient for the existing congregation size. The justification claimed the additional floor space would not result in an intensification of the use. This was supported by Council with the provision of the following condition of consent:

65. The proposed hall shall be used for purposes ancillary to the church only and shall not be hired or let to other persons for private use.

79B. The approved hall shall only be used for church activities and is not permitted to be leased for commercial activities, functions or the like.

69. The intention of these conditions was to ensure the intensity of use of the hall was in accordance with the existing approved place of public worship. That is the church hall was to be used by parishioners that would otherwise attend the church itself and that eleven (11) spaces were sufficient.

70. The “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” (dated November 2018, prepared by Traffic Impact Services Pty Ltd) specifies that the weekday use of the proposed child care centre “will not conflict with the church activities which are held only on a Sunday.” However timetable information provided by the church indicates that the occasional church related activity occurs during the week. On occasions where church use and child care centre use overlap, it is claimed that church events during the week “would be restricted to the hours of 9.30am-3.30pm which would be outside the child care drop off and pick up times.” Demonstration of how events would be restricted has not been provided.

71. Potential instances of parking overlap are problematic where the church/church hall use and the proposed child care centre use operate concurrently, significant deficiencies in car parking would result. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be no parking conflict between any use of the church/church hall and the child care centre during the week. Existing conditions of consent relating to the use of the church and church hall do not specify that the church and ancillary uses cannot occur during the week. There is no capacity to provide conditions of consent under the current application that will prevent multiple activities overlapping.

72. As such there is no certainty that the combined uses, church and facility related, will not result in an intensification of car parking demand and its spill over into the surrounding road network. Insufficient management strategies, i.e. no plan of management, have been provided in support of the application to demonstrate how this issue can be avoided through general agreement arrangements.

Available car parking and site constraints

73. The “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” has based its assessment on the provision of eleven (11) car parking spaces on site with five (5) spaces provided at the front of the site and six (6) spaces provided at the rear of the site exclusive of the residential car parking. The paving required for manoeuvring in the front setback raises concerns with the retention of the existing trees, which Council’s consultant Arborist contends are likely to be adversely impacted.

74. The five existing trees on site are recommended to be retained in accordance with the recommendations of the “Arborist development assessment report” (prepared by Moore Trees Arboricultural services, dated December 2018) submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal. This report requires the retention of three (3) significant trees at the front of the site with the following protection measures :

It is recommended that this area has a surface that is permeable to water and oxygen. Brick paving will still allow a limited amount of water and oxygen exchange …..

75. The provision of this tree retention measure is contended by Council’s consultant Arborist as inadequate to ensure the long term retention of the impacted trees.

Summary

76. The child care centre use will increase the current car parking demand for the site and the subject application has not adequately addressed the following:

· The dual driveway access and car parking proposed at the front of the site cannot be supported as the design and finishes would threaten the long term retention of the three (3) significant trees;

· The rear car parking cannot be supported for use by visitors to the child care centre as it raises a safety issue for pedestrians accessing the child care centre via the driveway and potential conflicts in passing vehicles along the access drive;.

· The site cannot provide suitable vehicular access and car parking on site to accommodate the demand of concurrently operating activities and as such is not supported.

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

77. This section of Development Control Plan No 1 requires the provision of “access for all persons through the principal entrance and access to appropriate sanitary facilities in accordance with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards.”

78. The Application is accompanied by an “Accessibility Report” prepared by Accessibility Solutions Pty Ltd, dated 10 October 2017, which relies on outdated plans for the development, including a larger car park at the rear. The conclusions reached relating to the accessibility of the existing building remain relevant as no changes are proposed as part of this application. The Consultant concluded as follows:

“The plans confirm the new works will provide appropriate ramped entry and internal circulation to essential features and amenities for children and staff with disabilities, including outdoor play areas in a manner that can comply with the abovementioned standards and legislation”.

79. If the application was to be supported than a condition would be imposed to have the Construction Certificate plans reviewed to ensure compliance prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

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

Section 3.4	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
Fencing	Allows natural surveillance to street	The front of the site has no fences and the proposal will not alter the existing level of natural surveillance to the street currently available, however surveillance is not available from the child care centre given its recessed location within site.	Yes
Blind Corners	To be avoided	Blind corners, such as to the car parks, are generally overlooked by windows by the church above. This clause could only be satisfied if the Church was operating at the same time as the childcare facility.	No
Communal Areas	Provide opportunities for natural surveillance	The child care centre entry and outdoor play spaces are visible from within the centre or the adjacent church office.	Yes
Entrances	Clearly visible and not confusing	The entry to the child care centre is at the rear of the premises and pedestrian access is via a designated pathway adjacent to the driveway. This may be confusing without appropriate signage.	No
Site and Building Layout	- Provide surveillance opportunities - Building addresses street - Offset windows	Surveillance opportunities provided at the rear of the premises only. The existing church provides street surveillance opportunities from the office window but this is proposed to be replaced with doors. To maintain this casual surveillance any doors introduced in this area should be glass doors.	No, as the adequacy of surveillance is only achieved where the church is functioning concurrently which would raise parking demand issues.
Lighting	- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally - Access/egress points illuminated - No light spill towards neighbours - Hiding places illuminated - Lighting is energy efficient	Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved.	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	The proposal is accompanied by a landscaping plan which was prepared in 2015 and identifies a different access/egress arrangement. Generally these issues could be addressed conditionally where an updated Landscape Plan is required to be lodged if the application was to be supported.	No, the landscape plan lodged to address these issues is out dated and addresses a different development form
Building Identification	- Clearly numbered buildings - Entrances numbered - Unit numbers provided at entry	Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved.	Yes
Security	Provide an appropriate level of security	Sufficient level of security provided.	Yes
Ownership	Use of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownership	Ownership is implied by the church building and appropriate signage could be installed to direct the users of the childcare centre if the proposal was supported.	Yes

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

80. The provisions of Section 3.5.2.1 specify a number of requirements relevant to the proposal.

Solar Access

81. Solar access to buildings is encouraged in order to provide for energy efficiency. The indoor play area occupies a central area of the floor plan and is 19.8m deep measured from the doors; hence, solar access to the majority of the indoor play area is unavailable. No openings, and therefore no solar access or natural lighting, is provided to the southern or western rooms in the childcare centre as this portion of the centre is underground. No detailed solar access analysis has been submitted to illustrate that reasonable solar access can be provided to either the internal of the centre or the outdoor play areas.

Windows and cross ventilation

82. As described above, no windows are provided to any of the southern or western rooms of the child care centre and the indoor play area will not be cross ventilated should the doors to the rear play area be closed as required by Council’s Acoustic Consultant (providing advice on a similar proposal under DA2015/0443) where no air conditioning is proposed. The design for the conversion of the Church Hall basement level is considered to be inappropriate for a child care centre in that natural light and ventilation is not provided to the majority of the centre.

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

83. The hydraulic plan provided with the site relates to a previous design of the proposal, including having ten (10) car parking spaces at the rear. This plan does not take into account the excavation undertaken for the provision of the outdoor play area to the rear and the drainage of this area has not been detailed appropriately. It is acknowledged that the proposal seeks to utilise the existing site drainage system, including an existing pump-out arrangement for the rear carpark. Insufficient information has been provided to enable a final assessment of the stormwater disposal from the site in accordance with this section of Development Control Plan No 1. The building form is as approved and relies on the existing stormwater system whilst the outdoor paving and car parking areas are to be drained to existing pump out system shown on plans.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT

84. A waste management plan has been provided. A final detailed waste management plan for construction will be required in order to undertake a full assessment of the proposal. Inclusion of a plan of management with appropriate details of waste storage and disposal required for the child care centre and the Church uses should be provided. On this basis insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with this section of Development Control Plan No 1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.11 PRESERVATION OF TREES AND VEGETATION

85. The application is uncertain relating to the preservation of trees on site as the SEE advises that one tree at the street front and two at the rear are to be removed whilst the Arborist report recommends retention of the trees. As described previously in the report, consent cannot be granted for removal of these trees due to their assessed significance and the preservation measures proposed by the Applicants consultant Arborist are not considered to be long term effective. This inconsistency between consultant reports remains a matter of concern and raises uncertainty as to what is sought for determination.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 5.3 CHILD CARE CENTRES

86. The proposed child care centre has been assessed against the requirements of Section 5.3 of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as shown below.

Section 5.3	Standard	Proposed	Complies
DS2.1-DS2.13 Locational Criteria	Should be located close to community focal points	The site is located diagonally opposite Lugarno Public School.	Yes
	Minimum site area of 500sqm	3140sqm	Yes
	Min. frontage of 18m where a separate entry and exit is provided	24.69m	Yes
	Sites must not have a property boundary to a state road	The site does not adjoin a state road.	Yes
	Site must be at least 300m away from telecommunications towers, large over-head power wires, any other inappropriate area	High tension power lines, telecommunications towers or other inappropriate structures or uses are located within 300m of the site.	Yes
	Approval will not be given to sites which are less than 55m from an LPG above ground gas tank or tanker unloading position	The site is not located near an LPG tank or tanker unloading position.	Yes
	Analysis of existing and/or potential site contamination	As the previous use of the site was for a place of public worship, no significant contamination is likely to be present on the site.	Yes
	Approval will not be given to sites located within cul-de-sacs or closed roads	The site is not located within a cul-de-sac or closed road, but the site is located on an intersection with Ponderosa Place which is a cul-de-sac requiring all vehicles to exit/enter from this intersection.	Yes
	Child care centres are not to be located on bushfire or flood prone land, or located adjoining drug clinics or other inappropriate land uses	The site is not bushfire or flood prone land.	Yes
	Proposals must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Statement provided by a qualified Consultant	A traffic report has been provided.	Yes
DS3.1-DS3.4 Cumulative Impacts from Centres within Residential Areas	Only one child care centre is permitted at an intersection	No other child care centres are located at the intersection.	Yes
	Child care centres will not be permitted on land adjoining any other existing or approved child care centre	The site does not adjoin any other existing or approved child care centres.	Yes
	Only one child care centre is permitted per street block	No other child care centre is located on the same block.	Yes
DS5.1-DS5.3 Size of Centres and Child Age Groups	Maximum 40 children within the R2 - Low Density Residential	Maximum 34 proposed.	Yes
DS5.1-DS5.3 Size of Centres and Child Age Groups	Minimum number of places within the 0-2 year age group is to be the same as the % of 0-2 year olds in the under 5 years population at most recent census (which is 35% from the 2011 census) = 12 children	12 children = 35.29%	Yes
DS6.1-DS6.3 Building Form	Height – Single storey in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone	Within existing part single part two storey building.	Yes
DS6.4 –DS6.6 Setbacks	Front Setback 5.5m to primary front	>5.5m.	Yes
	Side Setback - 0.9m	>0.9m to 2.313m	Yes
	Rear Setback – 3m	48.1m and there is a dwelling separating the childcare centre and the rear boundary.	Yes
DS6.7-DS6.12 Relationships to Adjoining Properties	Impacts of the following to be considered: · Play areas – indoor and outdoor · Windows and doors (particularly those associated with indoor play areas) · Verandahs · Point of entry · Pick-up and drop-off points · Any plant equipment which may be required within the context of the centre · Openings such as windows and doors should not correspond with existing opening on adjoining properties	Acoustic barriers relating to the outdoor play areas may be designed so as to meet satisfy acoustic amenity. Indoor play areas have not been demonstrated to be capable of achieving appropriate acoustic amenity for adjacent neighbours. Acoustic separation between internal spaces and the adjacent neighbours does not provide appropriate acoustic amenity when windows are open. No verandah play area is provided. The point of entry is adjacent to the rear yards of the northern neighbours. The Acoustic Dynamics report of 10 August 2016 (prepared on behalf of Council for DA2016/0443) has concluded that the child care centre may provide appropriate acoustic separation with a 2.2m high acoustic barrier along the northern boundary and the undertaking of all internal play with windows closed and mechanical ventilation provided. The current design however is considered inadequate as the acoustic barrier cannot operate in compliance with the DCP or Regulation whilst also achieving the provision of natural light and ventilation.	No No N/A No Yes N/A No
DS6.13—DS6.15 Solar Design and Energy Efficiency	A minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm is to be maintained to adjoining private open space, habitable rooms and solar collectors	Complies for neighbouring land impacts. However, Solar access issues arise potentially for minimum solar access to internal areas and outdoor play areas.	Yes
DS6.16 Streetscape Assessment	Streetscape and the design principles used to improve the existing streetscape	Removal of the landscaped area at street front will have a negative impact on the streetscape.	No
DS6.17 Building Detail	The design of the centre must provide strong visual links between indoor and outdoor spaces	Provided through two glazed double doors.	Yes
DS7.1– DS7.11 Parking and Driveway	1 space per 2 staff 7 staff = 4 spaces 1 space per 15 children 34 children = 3 spaces Total = 7 spaces	See assessment. Only adequate where other uses do not operate concurrently.	No
	Vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in a forward direction	Vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction.	Yes
	Bike racks must be provided on site. 1 required	No bike racks proposed.	No
	Driveway crossing on corner allotments must not be located closer than 9m to the property alignment at the intersection	11m from roundabout.	Yes
	Landscaping and paving design associated with driveways must achieve the following: · Pedestrian safety and visibility · Level, hard surface from vehicles to entry point · Satisfactory manoeuvrability for disabled persons and/or prams · Clear delineation between driveway and yard areas	Driveway and pedestrian access provides for inappropriate pedestrian safety.	No
	A “Neighbourhood Parking Policy” and a “Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Risk Assessment Report” must be submitted for Council’s consideration	The submitted Traffic Report considers pedestrian safety and on street parking.	Yes
	Physical demarcation is required to be provided between pedestrians and vehicular access ways to ensure pedestrian safety	Any shared position is to be demarcated by use of bollards/fencing to ensure separation.	Yes - via conditions if the application was to be supported.
DS7.12- DS7. Traffic Considerations	Council to consider traffic and safety impacts	A Traffic Report was submitted with the application. The report has been reviewed by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer and found that circulation must be improved in relation to the dual driveway design, visual lines improved and restrictions imposed on the rear carpark use prior to being acceptable. Design changes required to the vehicular access entry to the site may also impact the carpark functioning and landscaping.	No
DS7.12- DS7. Traffic Considerations	Consideration of traffic impacts between 7.30am-9am and 3.30pm-6pm.	The submitted traffic report has considered traffic impacts. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer will further assess this when the final design for vehicular entry has been resolved.	No - concerns are raised at accessibility to site, adequacy of car parking on site and potential manoeuvring issues.
DS7.15-DS7.16 Access for Persons with Limited Mobility	A 1m wide landscaped area is required to be provided along the front setback	1.2m landscaped area is provided along the primary frontage.	Yes
	Disabled access is to be provided from the street to the main entrance	The Applicant’s Accessibility Report indicates that the site will be accessible, albeit based on a previous revision of plans. Further plans would be required to illustrate this compliance; however, the site has sufficient length to accommodate the required ramps.	Yes - The DA has addressed this issue and considers that access can be attained.
	Disabled access ramp is to be provided to the playground areas	An accessible access ramp is provided between the playground areas.	Yes
DS8.1-DS8.8 Tree Preservation and Planting	A 1m wide landscaped area is required to be provided along the front setback Screen planting is to be provided along the side boundaries	1.2m along the frontage. Screen planting is provided along the northern side boundary of the site.	Yes Yes
DS8.1-DS8.8 Tree Preservation and Planting	Tree retention where required by Council’s Tree Officer/Arborist	No significant tree removal is proposed by the Applicant as referenced in the Arborist Report.	Yes - Although concerns are raised by Councils consultant Arborist that the trees will survive the construction works and manoeuvring required in close proximity.
DS8.8.7 Drainage	Play areas must be capable of rapid clearance of surface water	The hydraulic plan does not provide sufficient information to enable assessment.	No
DS11.1-11.3 Hours of Operation	Max. 7am – 6.30pm	Mon – Fri: 7am – 6.30pm. It is acknowledged there is conflicting information in the documentation; however the latest time referenced is 6.30pm which is compliant.	Yes
DS12.1-12.2 Visual Privacy	Minimise overlooking through screening etc.	A 2.4m high acoustic barrier (1.8m wall to 2.4m pitched roof) along the northern boundary of Outdoor play area (OPA) and 4m barrier (3.12m wall to 4m roof pitch) along the southern boundary of OPA is proposed. The indoor play area is not visible from adjacent properties.	Yes
DS12.1-12.2 Visual Privacy	Play equipment to be setback 3m from boundaries adjoining residential	No details of play equipment provided but sufficient outdoor play space is available.	Yes
DS12.3-12.4 Acoustic Amenity	Acoustic Report by a suitably qualified consultant to be provided	An Acoustic Report has been provided by Acoustic Works Pty Ltd.	Yes
DS12.5-12.6 Fencing	Where it is essential that side street boundaries be fully fenced, they are to be designed to allow landscaping along the boundary.	Boundary fencing is retained as existing.	Yes

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Hydraulic plan details pump out to the front of the site and gravity fed to the street. The proposal does not provide a sufficient stormwater plan to facilitate assessment.
Proposed Stormwater System	As existing.
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	No (pump systems not permitted). It is acknowledged that a pump out system exists on this site approved via DA2016/0372 for the approval of the church hall and additions.
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	Yes by approximately 3m, RL63.62 to RL60.60.
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	Yes from front property boundary, but is charged to this point.
Discharge into the same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

Streetscape Character and Amenity

87. The proposed development, although proposing only internal alterations to the existing building, will result in changes to the physical streetscape appearance of the property when viewed from the public domain due to the introduction of an additional hardstand area to accommodate car parking and the drop-off/pick-up driveway. In accommodating the needs of the child care facility the removal of the front grassed areas is required and the potential for tree removal. This design option will detract from the local Ponderosa Place streetscape and the Forest Road appearance, see Figures 4 and 5.

Relationship with adjoining properties

88. Consideration is required to be given to the impacts of the proposed child care centre on existing adjoining development. One of the main neighbour issues in relation to the proposal is the provision of acoustic amenity to adjacent residential neighbours. The application has been accompanied by an Acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Works Pty Ltd that concluded noise from outdoor play areas can be reduced to complying levels by means of an acoustic barrier (proposed 1.8m wall to 2.4m roof in height and the existing 3.12m wall to 4m roof barriers) to both the northern and southern boundaries and to the immediate north and east of the outdoor play area.

Figure 7: Acoustical Consultant acoustic barrier recommendation.

89. Noise from the indoor play area and any air-conditioning plant associated with the indoor play area, have not been identified as issues in the Acoustic Works report. Previous reports on past applications have concluded that internally generated noise will satisfy acoustic amenity if undertaken with the windows closed and mechanical ventilation provided. This is generally not recommended as an appropriate option for the indoor play areas as natural ventilation is a preferred requirement for child care centres under the Regulation.

90. On this basis the provision of acoustic barrier measures to provide for an appropriate level of neighbour amenity is currently unresolved as the Acoustic Report should have regard to all potential noise concerns, including air-conditioning plant associated with operation of internal play areas.

Traffic, Parking and Driveway

91. The Application is supported by an “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” prepared by Traffic Impacts Services, dated November 2018. This Assessment was undertaken on the basis that the Church activity would only operate on Sundays and the child care centre would operate Monday to Friday only, as a result there would be no overlap of the activities. The conclusion of the Assessment was therefore that adequate car parking, as proposed, would be available for the proposed and existing activities where they operated exclusively and not concurrently. The basis for the assessment is considered to be inappropriate having regard to the following considerations:

· The Church operations are currently under legal challenge due to the noise impacts on neighbouring residential properties, which includes activities occurring during weekdays;

· The Church has no conditional restriction on when the activities of the church can be undertaken; and

· The Assessment clearly indicates that the Church activities have previously included operations during weekdays.

92. Having regard to the above comments and the conclusions of the assessment the car parking requirements have been tabulated as follow, based upon uses operating concurrently:

Land Use Activity	Required	Proposed	Compliance
Staff requirements – 1 per 2 staff	4	4	Yes
Child Care Centre –1 per 15 children	3	3	Yes
Church – as approved	9	4	No

93. The above table illustrates car parking requirements where the proposed Centre and Church activities operate concurrently, then there will be insufficient available car parking on site to accommodate the demand (It is noted that the existing residence is serviced by its own garage). This outcome would result in traffic management concerns including:

· Managing car parking time limits for the drop-off/pick-up within the front setback;

· Restricting parents from using the rear carpark for drop-off/pick-up as this would create conflict along the single lane driveway for passing vehicles in peak periods;

· Managing patron use of street car parking where a shortfall is experienced on site.

94. The proposed car parking is considered to be acceptable for the Childcare Centre operations however; it would be inadequate where church activities operate concurrently. In addition, it is noted that due to the location and design of the car parking, access and driveways the following issues arise:

· Car parking is split, 5 within the setback at the front of the site (including accessible parking) and 6 at the rear for staff, (although the plans indicate that parents will be able to utilise these for drop-off/pick-up). The Architectural plans and a Facility Plan of Management would need to clearly illustrate that the rear car park is not available for drop-off/pick-up as it is only suitable for staff car parking;

· Traffic queuing at the entry or down the drive is likely to occur in peak hour situations if used for pick-up/drop-off services;

· Reversing areas of 5.8m in the front setback abutting pedestrian pathways and existing mature trees is likely to result in vehicle conflicts for peak hour drivers attempting to negotiate these barriers and is likely to result in accidents;

· During peak hour drop-off/pick-up periods the front carpark area would need to be suitably managed to ensure patrons utilise the service efficiently rather than parking in the street or in the rear car park area, resulting in congestion and queuing concerns.

95. It is concluded that the criteria for the Traffic Impact Services Assessment was ill conceived and should have regard to the worst case scenario for the site, being all operations acting concurrently and the lack of management control of the church operations.

Disabled Access

96. Insufficient details, including section plans and elevations, have been provided to demonstrate that compliant access for all is provided to and within the site.

Tree retention and planting

97. The proposal is for the retention of all trees on site, however, Councils consultant Arborist raises concerns that the trees in the front street setback are likely to be adversely impacted by vehicle movements and the proposed paving finishes.

Drainage

98. A hydraulic plan has not been provided in association with the child care centre use on the basis that the stormwater will be directed into the existing stormwater system, including a pump out arrangement from the rear carpark. The plan provided relates to the previous proposal which does not take into account the new level of the outdoor play area and the drainage of this area, however, these details could be resolved at the Construction certificate stage if the proposal was to be supported.

Indoor Spaces

99. The indoor spaces provided for the child care centre are generally inappropriate. While the majority of room sizes are satisfactory, the majority of rooms have no natural light or ventilation and will require mechanical ventilation and artificial lighting. This is considered to be unsatisfactory for a child care centre use.

Outdoor Spaces

100. No shaded area is provided for the outdoor play area. This is not a major issue in the afternoon as the play area will be overshadowed by the child care centre/hall. However the outdoor play area will have no shade until the afternoon. Some shading for morning play must be provided.

Heating and Cooling

101. With unsatisfactory cross ventilation provided to the proposal it is assumed that some form of mechanical ventilation will be proposed. No indication of the location of this system is provided on the plans or in the statement of environmental effects. The existing floor plate only has available solar access and ventilation from the northern and eastern elevations. The southern and western sides of the building footprint have no windows as these areas are within a sub-floor (basement) area. The provision of a child care centre within a building that has approximately half its floor area in a basement is not appropriate for this type of use, as appropriate natural light and ventilation cannot be provided to the child care centre.

Building Materials and Finishes

102. The proposal relies upon the use of the existing approved building and only external works involved relate to the materials and finishes of the Outdoor Play Area (OPA), the finishes of the OPA have been recommended as part of the Acoustic Works report for acoustical treatment of the OPA, as follows:

“The acoustic barriers should be constructed using either 20mm lapped timber (minimum 40% overlap), masonry, 9mm fibre cement sheet, Hebel, Perspex, plywood, or other materials with a minimum surface density of 11kg/m2 and shall be free of gaps and holes.

The partially covered play area is recommended to be constructed using either 10mm thick Perspex, Colorbond roofing backed with 4.5 or 6mm fibre cement sheet, or other materials that achieve the minimum surface density. The junction of the roof and barrier needs to be joined, ensuring no gaps or holes.

Acoustic absorptive linings can be added to the internal faces of the roof for the benefit of improved amenity within the play area and maximising the acoustic performance of the barrier system. Acoustic absorptive linings may include 50mm polyester insulation,”

103. These recommendations are standard forms of finish for works of this nature.

Built Environment

104. The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts upon the built environment as the majority of physical work will be internal within the Church/Hall complex.

Social and Economic Impact

105. The proposed development will result in unreasonable adverse social and economic impacts within the locality and for neighbouring lands.

Suitability of the Site

106. It is considered that the proposed development is of a type, scale and design that is not suitable for the site having regard to the land shape, topography, the built form and relationship to adjoining developments.

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

107. The proposal was notified to adjoining neighbours for a period of fourteen (14) days during which forty eight (48) submissions objecting to the development were received. The submissions raised the following issues.

Noise Impacts

104. Ongoing concerns are raised by objectors with regard to noise generated by the Church activities and it is noted that Council currently has legal action pending on this matter. The submissions detail that the proposed Child Care Facility will further exacerbate this situation.

Officer Comment: This issue has been addressed within this Report where the issue of noise is acknowledged as a matter of concern warranting strict controls as part of any approval. The Applicants submission is that this can be managed by sealing the indoor play area during use and providing a semi-enclosed outdoor play area with sound barriers. Concerns have been raised that enclosing the internal play area would not be appropriate for the amenity of the children due to the lack of natural light and ventilation. This argument is considered to be justified as the proposal has the potential to exacerbate the existing noise compliant concerns particularly where the church activities and Child Care Centre operate concurrently on site. If the proposal is to be approved then a commitment to the development of a Plan of Management is warranted due to the multiple uses which will operate from this constrained site.

The noise issue may be able to be managed if the Childcare Centre operates in isolation from the other church activities, using the controls recommended. This has not been resolved in this application.

Car Parking and Traffic Generation

105. Concern is raised that there is inadequate on-site car parking considering that church patrons currently park in the street and often illegally in resident driveways. Figures 5 and 8 illustrate the on-site car parking of the congregation. This issue has been discussed in detail in this Report where it is acknowledged that if all site functions operate concurrently then on-site car parking would be inadequate.

Figure 8: Rear Car park during church congregation (Source Objector Picture)

Officer Comment: The Applicant contends that this is resolved where church activities take place outside the operating hours of the Child Care Facility as the car parking demand would be adequately catered for. This position is accepted, however, there are no controls existing, or proposed via a Plan of Management (POM), that would legally restrict the operations of the Church. On this basis it is agreed that on-site car parking numbers are inadequate without applied restrictions.

The issue of traffic generation compliance or non-compliance relies on whether more than one activity takes place on the land at the same time. It is noted that the revised vehicular entry and queuing length on site for the Childcare Centre will result in further issues with access and manoeuvring on-site. This issue may also be compounded further where access to the rear carpark via a driveway in excess of 40m in length which is a single lane with a width of 2.8m will result in queuing to enable passing of vehicles.

This issue remains a valid concern which would require acceptance, and action, by the Applicant to ensure that operating hours of activities do not cross over and thus place pressure on the availability of the existing on-site car parking and manoeuvring areas.

Access & Intersection Modification

106. Concern is raised at any modification to the Forest Road/Ponderosa Place intersection will result in queuing and potentially accidents at the entry point.

Officer Comment: This issue is considered to be a valid concern which requires full analysis should the application be recommended for approval. Any modification to the intersection/roadway will require final approval from the Local Traffic Committee and design approval from Councils’ Engineering Department to ensure safety and functionality of the roundabout and site entry is not compromised.

Facility Functionality for Local Community

107. Residents raise concerns that the Childcare Centre will only provide a service for the Samoan community and that the majority of users will not be residents of the local community.

Officer Comment: The operation of any child care facility is not constrained to servicing only the local community and can draw on the wider Sydney community to ensure viable enrolments are achieved. This does not negate a local resident from enrolling children in the Centre when places are available. On this basis, and considering there is no evidence that the Centre will be offered as a restricted entry facility.

Lack of Natural Light and Ventilation to Facility

108. Previous applications have been refused partly on the basis that natural light and ventilation of the lower floor level was inadequate for a child care facility.

Officer Comment: This issue remains a valid concern for the current application. The Applicant proposes that the lower floor level can be air conditioned to ensure a satisfactory level of personal amenity and artificial lighting. This is acknowledged as a positive response to this issue, however, it is not a preferred outcome considering Energy Efficiency and BCA preferences are for natural lighting and ventilation measures to maintain personal amenity. In this instance, any additional window openings along the southern boundary would create potential noise concerns for neighbouring properties off Tara Place. The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactorily resolved in this regard.

Adequacy of Application and Report Inconsistencies

109. Submissions have noted that there are inconsistencies and errors in the Application documentation, including the Landscape Plan being from 2015 and a different site layout.

Officer Comment: This issue has also been addressed in this report and is acknowledged as a matter of concern, with inconsistencies relating to hours of operation, floor areas, landscaped areas, and the like, leading to uncertainty in assessment of the proposal by the public and Council Officers.

Internal Vehicle Circulation and potential Queuing Concerns

110. This issue relates to the accessibility of vehicles to the car park at the rear of the site along the 40m by 2.8m wide driveway.

Officer Comment: This access cannot cater for two way traffic flow and hence any vehicles attempting to use the driveway would need to give way to vehicles on the driveway, resulting in potential queuing situations. The design layout provides for a small queuing area adjacent to the street entry, however, in reality the adequacy of this queue area is dependent upon the activities taking place on the site at any one time and is considered to be inadequate at peak childcare centre times.

This issue is considered to be a valid concern, where vehicles required to queue may instead seek on-street car parking or be forced to reverse some distance to enable other vehicles to access, these outcomes are unacceptable.

Overdevelopment of Property and lack of demand for Facility

111. Concerns are raised that the development is significantly greater than residents expected to occur on the site and that it is likely to continue increasing uses. Further, the demand for the Facility is not justified and likely to be restricted in accessibility for general public.

Officer Comment: The issue of the overall development of the land is addressed in this report. It is acknowledged that the current development, although not increasing floor space, will result in a reduction of landscaped area due to increased hardstand surface areas. This outcome, having only 16% landscaped area on a 3,140sqm residentially zoned allotment, is not a preferred arrangement, notwithstanding that on-site car parking is more formalised. This issue is valid and justified where the existing use of the land is becoming more diversified and the use of the buildings intensified.

The demand for child care facilities is generally acknowledged across the Sydney metropolitan area and any approval is not conditional upon the children being local residents. Centres with acknowledged performance values will attract patrons from local community or from far afield. There is no requirement as part of an assessment under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017, the Educations and Care Services National Regulations or the Child Care Planning Guidelines NSW 2017 for the operator of a commercial enterprise to illustrate there is demand for the activity/service. Indeed the commercial viability of the proposal is a matter for the Applicant.

Existing Church operations contrary to consents and Patron behaviour

112. Objectors note that the existing church operations are under investigation and action by Council for noise issue complaints and this is compounded by patron behaviour, relating to litter.

Officer Comment: Council is currently pursuing action on noise complaints associated with activities by the Church, however, this remains a matter separate to the subject application.

Concerns are raised that the Church operations currently operate with limited regard for local amenity or amenity controls, and that this will be replicated as part of any approval for the Childcare Centre. Should the Application be approved then appropriate conditions would be recommended that are reflective of the site operations and would be enforceable in the Land and Environment Court.

Tree Removal or Loss

113. Concerns are raised that Trees will be lost as part of the proposal due to increased hardstand areas and vehicle manoeuvring.

Officer Comment: The Applicant proposes to retain the existing trees on site in accordance with the recommendations of the Consultant Arborist. The initial consultant Arborist advice to Council is that the retention of the trees, with the proposal in its’ current form, is questionable having regard to the amount of work proposed within the tree protection zones.

The mature trees are healthy, providing shade cover and softening the bulk of the buildings, see Figures 4 and 5.

Compliance with National Construction Code requirements

114. Concerns are raised that the building should be classified as a 9B building, being a place of worship and hall, which, based upon floor space, should not accommodate more than 100 persons unless fire upgrades are implemented.

Officer Comment: This issue is a matter that would need to be satisfied as part of any Construction Certificate sought once a development consent has been issued. The Applicant contends that when the Childcare Centre is in operation the Church activities will not operate and thus the premises will not accommodate greater than 100 persons at any time. This issue may become a valid concern should there be problems relating to managing, or imposing enforceable conditions to control the hours of operation of the Church related activities on site.

Council Referrals

Traffic Engineer

115 Comment: The proposed intersection works at Ponderosa Place and Forest Road require final design approval prior to further consideration being given to the operation of the proposed drop-off/pick-up carpark area at the front of the site. The Engineer recommended:

“…..the intersection treatment that the development is proposing at the intersection of Forest Road and Ponderosa Place. The applicant will need to submit detailed designs to the design section for review and approval. Once the Design section approves the intersection treatment detailed designs. The design will then need to go to the Traffic Advisory Committee for review and approval.”

Environmental Health Officer

116. Comment: Any assessment of the noise impacts from the site should include a variety of Church activities which overlap into daytime operations involving the following potential uses: Weddings, Birthdays, Funerals, Special events (such as "fashion event"), Christmas celebration, Easter celebration, Meetings, Women’s Bingo, Choir Practice, Language classes and Youth group activities.

Concerns are raised with the Noise Report with regard to the basis for locating the noise logger, differences in number of children proposed, discrepancy in hours of operation and vague references in final recommendations. This raises concerns as to whether the recommendations are optional. Further, although no noise issues have arisen relating to mechanical ventilation, the likely need for placement of a ventilation system along the southern façade is likely to raise concerns from neighbouring properties and should have been addressed.

Consultant Arborist

117. Comment: Council’s consultant arborist is unable to support the proposal, advising that:

“The landscape plan by Zenith shows the three trees at the front to be removed, whilst the Arborist report recommends retention. This is conflicting. The arborist report mentions permeable paving at the front, but the widths on site from the trees to the building and proposal designs cannot be supported as the trees viability would be in jeopardy. The applicant / proposal would need to get further away from the trees but still enable proper swept paths for vehicles in accordance with Standards and safety. The existing driveway would be a better outcome, south end, to add!. Also the “staff” parking allocated close to T3 must be removed”.

It is agreed that the Zenith Landscape Plan is inconsistent as it references an outdated front driveway/carpark layout from that proposed in the current architectural plans and Traffic Consultant report.

Development Contributions

118. The development is subject of a Section 7.12 contribution (former Section 94A Contribution), under the provisions of the Georges River Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2017. The below information, will form a part of the conditions of consent (if applicable).

Fee Type	Fee
Georges River Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2017	$500.00

CONCLUSION

119. Development consent is sought for the fit out and use of the lower ground floor area beneath the existing church/hall as an early childhood education facility for thirty four (34) children.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the zone under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and results in multiple variations to the Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide and the Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017.

As a “Centre-based child care facility” it is a permissible use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The Application seeks approval as an “Early Childhood Education Facility” which would normally come under the definition for a “Centre-based child care facility”, however, no justification has been submitted to support that this use complies with the permissible definition. The sites primary function is as a place of public worship and education activities associated with providing “a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity” is excluded under the definition for a “Centre-based child care facility”. The current application has not provided documentation to confirm the activity will be consistent with this interpretation and thus may be a prohibited use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The proposed development generally does not comply with the planning controls and objectives of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Centres) 2017 applies to the land, where the activity is defined as a Centre-based child care facility’, however the Applicant has not at this time adequately confirmed that the activity would conform to the land use definition. An assessment has been undertaken of the controls under the SEPP and the Child Care Planning Guidelines 2017 and the application does not comply with primary controls.

The application is recommended for REFUSAL having regard to:

· the inconsistencies between documentation lodged by the experts;

· the inconclusive submission on whether the proposed activity is a permissible use;

· the potential traffic access and generation, and on-site car parking issues associated with the development;

· the acoustic impacts likely to result from the child care facility proposal, any mechanical ventilation required and the continued and overlapping operation of the church functions;

· the recommendation by Arborist to retain the trees on site and the likelihood that based on the current design that this cannot be achieved; and

· the uncertainty in managing the operations of the church and the child care facility in order to minimise potential local amenity impacts by ensuring that these activities do not overlap.

The provision of a Child Care Centre in addition to the existing Church use and associated hall is considered an unacceptable intensification of the site and as such the proposal is recommended for refusal.

DETERMINATION

120. THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuses development consent to Development Application DA2019/0042 for the fit out and use of the ground floor of the existing church building to be used as an early childhood education facility for 34 children, associated landscaping and car parking works on Lot 2 in DP 405732 and known as 977 Forest Road, Lugarno, 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.

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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site plan - 977 Forest Road Lugarno
Attachment ⇩2	Elevations - 977 Forest Road Lugarno

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

Page 102

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

LPP Report No	LPP046-19	Development Application No	DA2018/0479
Site Address & Ward Locality	47 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno Peakhurst Ward
Proposed Development	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
Owners	Rosemary Geagea
Applicant	Design and Building Group
Planner/Architect	Planner – Planning Ingenuity and Architect - Design and Building Group
Date Of Lodgement	13/11/2018
Submissions	14 submissions were received
Cost of Works	$3,278,000.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	The number of submissions exceeded ten (10) “unique” submissions as referenced in the 9.1 Ministerial direction of 23 February 2018.
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy – (Infrastructure) 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Architectural Plans by Design Building Group Statement of Environment Effects by Planning Ingenuity Bushfiure Hazard Assessment by Bushfire Planning & Design Arborist Report by Nada Kbar
Report prepared by	Development Assessment Planner

Recommendation

That the application be refused in accordance with the reasons contained within 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

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

Not Applicable

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, the application is recommended for refusal. The refusal reasons can be viewed when the report is published.

Site Plan – the site is outlined in blue

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application seeks development consent for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2.

2. The site is identified as being Bushfire Prone Land; the application was referred to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) for their concurrence. Formal approval has been issued by RFS and specific conditions recommended if consent is granted.

Site and Locality

3. The application applies to land known as 47 Woodlands and legally described as Lot 24 in DP205787. The site is a battle-axe allotment located on the southern side of Woodlands Avenue between Coachwood Place and Tea Tree Place. The access handle is located along the western side of the allotment. The site has an area of 2,063.06sqm excluding the access handle, and falls approximately 47m from the street to the waterfront.

4. Immediately adjoining the site to the east and west is a mix of older and contemporary detached dwelling houses with similar subdivision patterns of battle-axe allotments extending to the Georges River. To the west of 45 Woodlands Avenue is a right of carriageway known as Coachwood Place which provides vehicular access to eleven (11) properties.

Figure 1: View from Woodlands Avenue

5. The northern side of Woodlands Avenue is a more conventional subdivision pattern with a mix of older style and contemporary detached dwellings.

6. The site is affected by a foreshore building line (FBL) as indicated in the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). The FBL extends 133m from the southern boundary adjacent to the Georges River.

Zoning and Permissibility

7. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP). The proposed two lot subdivision and construction of dwelling house and alterations and additions to a dwelling house is permissible with consent.

Submissions

8. The development application was notified to neighbours in accordance with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 (HDCP1). It was noted that the initial notification omitted a number of properties to the west of the site and a second notification was carried out between 21 February and 7 March 2019.

9. A total of 14 submissions were received. In summary the concerns raised by the submitters include:

· Incomplete Development Application as owners consent not sought from 3 Coachwood Place to traverse their property to permit access to Coachwood Place;

· Access by the proposed development via Coachwood Place will increase traffic by 50% to a private road;

· Excessive car parking spaces proposed;

· Destruction of native fauna and flora;

· Overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining properties;

· Loss of views to Georges River;

· Overshadowing to adjoining properties;

· Traffic Impact Assessment misrepresents the impact of additional traffic to Coachwood Place;

· Proposal exceeds the permissible GFA;

· Proposed Lot 2 does not provide indicative building envelope;

· No Waste Management Plan provided for residential rubbish collection;

· Concern for access to Coachwood Place during the construction phase, and issue of liability to Coachwood Place during construction;

· Limited visitor car parking on Coachwood Place;

· Safety for children playing on Coachwood Place;

· No architectural plans that indicate the proposed floor area;

· SEE does not reference plans submitted with the DA;

· Arborist recommendations regarding Tree 13 is not adhered to in the proposed development of proposed Lot 1;

· Geotechnical Report – not assessment of the possible interference with groundwater on the site and likely impact of proposed significant excavation on the capacity to retain trees on site or possible impact on trees on adjacent sites or downhill of the proposed excavation.

Reasons for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

10. This application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination, as the number of submissions exceeds ten (10) “unique” submissions as reference in 9.1 Ministerial Direction of 23 February 2018.

Planning and Design Issues

11. The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

12. The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, 40% of dwelling 1 is forward of the FBL; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the GFA.

13. 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 adequately assess the removal of vegetation on proposed Lot 1.

Conclusion

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

a. The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

b. The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address the variations to the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, 40% of dwelling 1 is forward of the Foreshore Building Line; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the Gross Floor Area.

c. 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.

15. Given the above considerations, the proposal is not supported in its current form and is recommended for refusal.

Report in Full

Proposal

16. The proposed development involves the subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of a dwelling house and swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 and retention of the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2.

17. More specific details of the proposal are included below.

Proposed Subdivision

The site is to be subdivided into two lots. Proposed Lot 1 is 1,252.1sqm with the access handle to Woodlands Avenue for vehicular and pedestrian traffic to be maintained. Proposed Lot 2 is 1,006.2sqm with access to the Georges River, the existing dwelling house is being retained.

Proposed Dwelling on Proposed Lot 1

The proposed dwelling consists of four (4) levels and basement garage area:

Basement Level

o parking for four (4) cars

o workshop

o waste bin enclosures for Lots 1 and 2

Lower Ground Level

o rumpus room/gym

o store room and wine cellar

o bathroom/change room

o lift access

o swimming pool and decking with a BBQ area

Ground Floor

o four bedrooms one with ensuite and 2 with walk in robes

o 2 bathrooms

o sitting room/breakout area

o lift access

o balcony

Upper Ground Floor

o 20 seat home theatre

o bathroom

o lounge area

o laundry

o kitchen with butler’s pantry and coolroom

o dining room

o family room

o lift access

o decking with BBQ area

o drying courtyard

First Floor

o entry lobby

o master bedroom with retreat, ensuite, walk in robes and a deck area

o outdoor deck

Retaining walls and landscaping works are proposed.

Proposed Lot 2

o retain existing three (3) bedroom dwelling

o construction of double car garage

o access driveway and retaining walls.

Vehicular Access

The application is seeking to gain access to both proposed Lots 1 and 2 via an extension to a private road and right of carriageway known as Coachwood Place. The extension of this carriageway will result in a right or access being required over proposed Lot 1 to access the new garage associated with proposed Lot 2.

Coachwood Place being a private road requires owners consent to facilitate the extension of the access to service proposed Lots 1 and 2, owners consent has not been provided with this application.

18. The following is a photomontage of the proposed development, including surrounding existing dwellings.

Figure 3: Photomontage of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties (source: Design Building Group)

Background

19. The proponent had a pre-DA meeting 7 October 2015 (PRE2015/0022) to consider 47 and 49 Woodlands Avenue Lugarno. The proposal consolidated the two allotments and creation of five (5) Torrens title allotments with vehicular access via a right of way along the eastern boundary of the site.

20. Council had concerns with construction of dwellings forward of the FBL, the extremely steep terrain, dwellings within close proximity of the MHWM, and the extensive loss of existing vegetation. Lots 4 and 5 to the southern boundary where therefore not supported.

21. The applicant corresponded with Council between 3 March and 9 August 2017 discussing the possibility of vehicular access via Coachwood Place.

22. The application was lodged with Council on 13 November 2018. On 16 November 2018 payment for integrated development to Rural Fire Service was requested. This payment was received on 4 February 2019.

23. On 13 February 2019 Council requested the applicant obtain all landowners consent to access the right of carriageway which provides vehicular access to the site. Alternatively, withdraw the application until such time owners consent was obtained.

24. Legal advice was provided by the applicant on 14 March 2019 outlining an alternative outcome to providing owners consent by way of deferred commencement determination. Council did not accept this option and advised the application would be refused in its current form.

State Environmental Planning Policies

25. Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is summarised in the table, and discussed in more detail below.

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017	Not enough information to assess
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018	Yes

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

26. The main aims and objectives of this plan are (not limited to);

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

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

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

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

27. The application is accompanied by concept stormwater plans prepared by John Romanous & Associates. A pump out system is acceptable for the basement which would accommodate a silt arrestor pit and holding tank.

28. This method of stormwater detention has been referred to Council’s Engineering Section. No objection has been raised in respect of the management and disposal of stormwater subject to the imposition of conditions if consent is granted. All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and will satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment.

29. Final vehicle access provision is not defined in the submitted plans hence no assessment is possible for runoff from this hard surface.

30. The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the aims, objectives and purpose of the Regional Plan.

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

31. BASIX Certificate No.902706S_02 dated 29 October 2018 has been issued for the proposed development and the development meets the provisions and minimum requirements of BASIX in terms of water, thermal comfort and Energy efficiency.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

33. Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. The consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether or not the land is contaminated.

34. A review of the site history indicates that the site has been used for residential purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site. The Geotechnical Report that accompanies the application prepared by EI Australia does not identify any potential contaminants at the site. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

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

37. Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings in respect to contamination of the Site. Appropriate conditions are included in respect to any potential asbestos removal and an expected finds condition will ensure that if any trace of contamination is found appropriate measures in accordance with EPA requirements are implemented.

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

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

39. The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

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

41. The proposed development involves the removal of several trees at the front of the Site which affect the location of the building. An Arboriculture report was lodged with the application (prepared by Nada Kbar AQF Level 5). The report assessed a total of seventeen (17) trees within the property (see Figure 4). Twelve (12) trees are identified for removal. The report rates most of the trees as Low to Very Low significance and condition with one tree identified as Tree 6 being a Sydney Red Gum (Angophora costata) which is rated of high significance.

42. Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site “…is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush”. The twelve (12) trees in question are considered to be in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

Figure 4: Location of trees to be removed/retained on site (extract from the Aboricultural report)

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

43. The Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 was formally implemented to conserve and protect biodiversity values and systems across the State. The legislation lists threatened species and ecological communities (EEC’s) and outlines processes and procedures in the assessment of these valuable and sensitive environmental species and communities.

44. First step of the process in accordance with the Act is to see whether a tree is threatened. Twelve trees are to be removed from the site: three (3) Angophora costata, three (3) Glochidion ferdinandi, two (2) Eucalyptus (E.) floribunda, two (2) Casuarina cunninghamiana one (1) E. robusta and one (1) E. sp. None of these trees are listed as threatened species. However, collectively it is remnant bushland.

45. The second stage is to see whether it forms part of an EEC or remnant vegetation of an EEC. Council’s mapping system identifies the site having vegetation that forms part of the Sydney Hinterland Apple-Blackbutt Gully Forest towards Woodland Avenue and Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest located in the southern corner (Figure 5).

46. Council’s mapping system identified the site having a vegetation that forms part of the Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest and Sydney Hinterland Apple Blackbutt Gully Forest (refer to Figure 5 below). These are not identified as an EEC within the Act and Council’s mapping system which also shows where biodiversity and EEC’s exists does not highlight this site or any vegetation/area within the immediate surround of the Site.

Figure 5: SCMA Vegetation 2016 Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest (blue) &Sydney Hinterland Apple Blackbutt Gully Forest (pink)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

47. SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 updates and consolidates three previous SEPPs (SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands, SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests, SEPP 71 Coastal Protection) into one integrated Policy and is a matter for consideration for the current DA.

48. Under SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018, the subject site is mapped as a Coastal Environment area and a Coastal Use area. These have the following management objectives under the SEPP:

(a) to protect and enhance the coastal environmental values and natural processes of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, and enhance natural character, scenic value, biological diversity and ecosystem integrity,

(b) to reduce threats to and improve the resilience of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, including in response to climate change,

(c) to maintain and improve water quality and estuary health,

(d) to support the social and cultural values of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons,

(e) to maintain the presence of beaches, dunes and the natural features of foreshores, taking into account the beach system operating at the relevant place,

(f) to maintain and, where practicable, improve public access, amenity and use of beaches, foreshores, headlands and rock platforms.

49. The following is an assessment of the matters for consideration listed under the SEPP as applicable to the Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area.

SEPP Control	Proposal	Complies
13. Development on land within the coastal environment area
(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:
(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,	Surface water runoff is to be managed in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan and imposition of conditions. The proposed removal of significant trees has not been adequately addressed and has the potential to impact on the integrity of the hydrological processes.	No – see discussion below
(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,		No – see discussion below
(c) the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,	The site is not located on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1.	N/A
(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,	The ecologist report submitted fails to address the impact upon a number of issues including, adequately address the impact to native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, geological features and hydrology/water quality. A detailed assessment cannot be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.	No – see discussion below
(e) existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,	The subject site is privately owned and there is no public access to Georges River.	Yes
(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,	The site is not known as a place of Aboriginal significance. There is no impact in terms of Aboriginal heritage.	Yes
(g) the use of the surf zone.	The development is not located near the surf zone.	NA
(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or	The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 is located within the coastal environment area. Construction of a garage attached to the existing dwelling is proposed. The dwelling on proposed Lot 1 is considered excessive in bulk and scale. The proposal in its current form is not supported.	No – see discussion below
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact
14 Development on land within the coastal use area
(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority:
(a) has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:
(i) existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,	The proposed development does not provide public access to the Georges River.	N/A
(ii) overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,	There are no unreasonable overshadowing impacts generated by the proposal on public places or the foreshore/waterways. It should be noted there are currently no views from the public domain to the waterways.	Yes
(iii)the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,	The proposal has minimal impact on the visual quality when viewed from the waterways.	Yes
(iv)Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,	The property is not a known site of Aboriginal heritage.	Yes
(v) cultural and built environment heritage, and	The site does not contain or adjoin any heritage items.	Yes
(b) is satisfied that:
(i) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or	The proposal is not supported in its current form. The proposal has a number of issues with regards to siting of the dwelling on proposed Lot 1, removal of vegetation and negative impact on the environment. Although Lot 1 is not within the coastal use area the proposed development in its entirety must be considered. A detailed assessment can’t be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.	No
(ii) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or
(iii) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and
(c) has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.	Development is non-compliant with regards to FSR and GFA. The dwelling 1 on proposed Lot 1 is considered excessive in bulk and scale and does not satisfy built form controls in HLEP and HDCP1. The development is not consistent with the built form immediately adjoining development and is not supported.	No

50. Generally, the proposed development is consistent with the management objectives of the SEPP. However, the ecologist report submitted fails to address the impact upon a number of issues including, adequately addressing the impact to threatened native flora and fauna, the connectivity to the Georges River foreshore, geological features and hydrology/water quality.

51. The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered excessive and has the potential to negatively impact on the visual quality and amenity when viewed from the waterway.

52. A detailed assessment cannot be carried out as sufficient information has not been provided.

Environmental Planning Instruments

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

53. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Refer to the zoning map below. The proposed development is for subdivision and construction of a dwelling house and alterations and additions to a dwelling house which are permissible land uses in the zone.

Figure 5: Zoning map – site outlined in red

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

Clause	Standard	Proposal	Complies
2.2 Zoning	R2 Low Density Zone	The development type proposed comprises of “dwellings” and “subdivision”	Yes
2.3 Zone objectives	Objectives of the R2 Zone.	The density and height of the proposal and design generally satisfies the zone objectives.	Yes
2.6 Subdivision	Permissible subject to Council’s consent	Satisfies the Clause and needs to satisfy Clause 4.1	Yes
4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size	Land identified as “K” on lot size map which prescribes a minimum allotment size 550sqm The objectives of Clause 4.1 are; (a) to retain the pattern of subdivision in residential zones while allowing infill development of smaller lots in some areas, (b) to ensure lots have a minimum size that would be sufficient to provide useable area for building and landscaping, to require larger lots in the foreshore area or where the topography or other natural features of the site limit its subdivision potential. Subclause (3A) states that if a lot is a battle-axe lot or other lot with an access handle, the area of the access handle and any right of carriageway is not to be included in calculating the lot size.	Lot 1 has a proposed area of 1,058.16sqm Lot 2 has a proposed area of 1,006.2sqm The proposal satisfies the objectives of the subdivision clause as the lot closest to the Foreshore will have an area of 1,006.2sqm. The calculation of each lot excludes the area of the access handle.	Yes Yes Yes
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	Dwelling 1 – A maximum height of 9m. Each level has been designed to step down the slope of the site in accordance with the natural fall of the land. Dwelling 2 – The existing dwelling complies. The proposed garage has a finished height of 7m.	Yes
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map (An assessment under Clause 6.5 – Gross floor area of Dwelling Houses in Residential Zones is referenced later in this table)	When calculated in accordance with Cl4.5 of the HLEP, the development results in an FSR as follows: Lot 1 FSR – 0.68:1 Lot 2 FSR – 0.17:1	Lot 1 – No see discussion below regarding Clause 6.5. Lot 2 - Yes
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl4.5 (b	The floor space of each dwelling has been calculated in accordance with Clause 4.5 and the “gross floor area” definition within the HLEP.	Yes
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development Standards	Clause 4.6 Variation to any of the development standards is required.	The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to, the Foreshore Building Line (Cl 6.4) and non-compliance with gross floor area of dwellings in residential zones (Cl 6.5) (54% over) in accordance with the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance.	No – see comments below
5.1 Bushfire	Bush fire hazard reduction work authorised by the Rural Fires Act 1997 may be carried out on any land without development consent.	The site is affected by bushfire prone land and is integrated development. A referral was sent to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) seeking general terms of approval.	Yes – draft conditions provided by RFS
6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils	The Clause states that development consent is required for works within land classified as being Class 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.	The proposal does not contain acid sulfate soils. The proposal therefore is not affected by the provisions of Clause 6.1.	Yes
6.2 – Riparian Land and watercourses	The objectives of this clause are to maintain water quality within watercourses, maintain the stability of the bed and banks of watercourses and their aquatic and riparian habitats.	The southern portion of the site is designated as Riparian Land and watercourse. (see Figure 6). The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2 is 29m from the MHWM. The proposed works to Lot 2 are not within the mapped Riparian Land.	Yes
6.3 – Limited development on the Foreshore Area	The objective of this Clause is to “ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area”. Development is to be restricted within the foreshore area. A foreshore building line of 140m is applicable to the subject site. Development needs to be setback a minimum of 140m from the foreshore.	The site is located within a Foreshore Area and is affected by the Foreshore Building Line (FBL). Approximately 40% of the proposed dwelling on proposed Lot 1 is forward of the FBL (see Figure 7 below). The proposal satisfies the objectives and intention of the clause in that the dwelling is stepped down the site respecting the landform. However, the bulk and scale of the dwelling is considered excessive and has a non-compliant GFA, approximately 54% variation above the control.	No Yes
6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA)	The objectives of clause are to protect significant views to and from the Georges River and reinforce the dominance of the landscape over built form.	Dwelling 2 - is an existing structure and is contained forward of the FBL. The proposed two car garage is also forward of the FBL Approximately 40% of proposed Dwelling 1 is located forward of the FBL.	No – see discussion below regards Clause 4.6
6.5 – Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones	The gross floor area calculation site -1000x.2+457.5	Dwelling 1 – 1058-1000x0.2+457.50 = 469.12sqm Proposed – 724.15sqm Dwelling 2 – 1006.2-1000x.2+457.5 = 458.74sqm Proposed - 168.3sqm	No – see discussion below regarding Clause 4.6. Yes
6.7 – Essential Services	Development consent must not be granted to development unless services that are essential for the development are available	Essential services are currently available to the site and can be extended to service the development; conditions could be imposed if the application was to be supported.	Yes

Figure 6: Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

55. The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliances of the development standards relating to floor space and the foreshore building line. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line breach, as 40% of the dwelling 1 and the garage of dwelling 2 is forward of the FBL; and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, dwelling 1 is 54% over the Gross Floor Area. These are contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

Figure 7: Foreshore Building Line Map

56. The proposed massing and built form will be visibly dominant when viewed from Georges River. The proposal exceeds the floor space control and is considered an overdevelopment of the site and is not supported in its current form.

HURSTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 1

57. The proposal needs to address and satisfy the provision of Section 3 – General Planning Considerations and Section 4 Specific Controls for Residential Development. These provisions are addressed in detail below.

Compliance Table

Applicable DCP Controls

DCP Provisions

Development Provisions

Complies

Neighbourhood character

DS1.1 The development application is supported by a Statement of Environmental Effects that:

a. includes a satisfactory neighbourhood and site description, including the identification of the key features of the neighbourhood and site

b. shows how the siting and design response derives from and responds to the key features identified in the neighbourhood and site description

c. demonstrates that the residential development proposal respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and satisfies objectives of the zone in the LEP

The proposal is supported by an SEE and addresses the key features of neighbourhood character and demonstrates how the siting and design responds to the site.

The proposal fails to address the non-compliances with the objectives of the HLEP with regards to, construction within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area.

Building Height

DS2.1. Maximum building height is in accordance with the LEP

DS2.2. Maximum ceiling height is 7.2m above the existing ground level vertically below that point. Note: maximum ceiling height is measured at the intersection of the upper most ceiling with the internal face of any external wall

DS2.3. For flat roofed dwellings, maximum height to the top of the parapet of the building is: a. 7.8m above the existing ground level vertically below that point.

DS2.4. For steep or sloping sites, the building is sited and designed to be staggered or stepped into the natural slope of the land

The maximum building height is 9m.

A small portion of dwelling 1 has a maximum ceiling height is 8.8m above the skylight located over the foyer/entrance of the dwelling.

The proposal complies with building height outlined in the HLEP and this prevails over the HDCP.

Yes

No – see discussion below.

Setbacks

DS3.1. The minimum front setback to a primary street is:

a. 5.5m to the main face of the dwelling or

b. 4.5m to the main face of the dwelling where located on a corner site and 5.5m to the garage

DS3.2. For properties greater than 15m in width, the minimum setback to a secondary street boundary is 2.0m to the wall of the dwelling

DS3.3. For properties 15m or less in width, the minimum setback to a secondary street boundary is in accordance with the side boundary setback requirements.

DS3.5. The minimum side setback inside the FSPA is 900mm (ground floor) and 1.5m (first floor).

DS3.6. Minimum rear boundary setbacks are:

a 3m for any basement and ground floor level solid wall

b. 6m for first floor level solid walls

c. where a first floor balcony is proposed at the rear, 6m from the balustrade

DS3.7. For battle-axe lots, minimum side boundary setbacks apply to all boundaries.

N/A the site is a battle-axe block and proposed dwelling 1 is not visible from Woodlands Avenue.

N/A

N/A – the site is within an FSPA.

Dwelling 1

Lower ground floor – 1.5m (east), 1.5 (west)

Ground floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

Upper ground floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

First floor - 1.5m (east), 1.5m (west)

Dwelling 2 (existing)

varied – 0.6m to 1.5m (west), 1.06m to 1.6m (east

Dwelling 2 - garage

varied 0.25m to 0.76m (west), varied 3.6m to 4.1m (east)

Dwelling 1: varied 22m to 33m

Dwelling 2 (existing) – 62.9m

Dwelling 1

varied 44.74m to 47.3m

Dwelling 1

varied 56.4m to 58.2m

Minimum side setback (1.5m) achieved for all setbacks except for garage setback – 0.25m to 0.76m.

N/A

Yes

No – however existing structure.

No – see discussion below.

Yes

Facades

DS4.1. The dwelling house has a front door or window to a habitable room facing the primary street frontage.

DS4.2. The dwelling house incorporates at least two of the following building elements facing any street frontage:

a. entry feature or portico

b. awnings or other features over windows

c. eaves and sun shading

d. window planter box treatment

e. bay windows or similar features f. wall offsets, balconies, verandas, pergolas or the like

DS4.3. Garage doors are not wider than 6m

The site is a battle-axe allotment; the dwelling is not visible from the primary street frontage being Woodlands Avenue.

Garage doors are not visible from the primary street as both proposed lots are seeking vehicle access via the private road known as Coachwood Place.

N/A

Solar Access

DS6.1. Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 June.

DS6.2. Development complies with the Energy Efficiency section in Appendix 1 of this DCP and BASIX requirements.

DS6.3. Buildings are encouraged to incorporate window shading devices where necessary to minimise exposure to direct summer sun. Alternatively, windows may be shaded by the planting of large trees, including deciduous species.

Adjoining properties will continue to receive greater than 3 hours during mid-winter.

The proposal is BASIX compliant.

Yes

Visual Privacy

DS7.1. Windows of proposed dwelling must be offset from neighbouring windows by 1m, especially windows of high-use rooms.

DS7.2. Windows for primary living rooms must be designed so that they maintain privacy of adjoining site’s principal private open space.

DS7.3. Development applications are accompanied by a survey plan or site analysis plan (to AHD) of the proposed dwelling showing the location of adjoining property windows, floors levels, window sill levels and ridge and gutter line levels.

Windows are offset from adjoining properties. A majority of windows are oriented south with views of the Georges River.

The windows for primary living areas are to the south of the adjoining properties private open space.

The application includes survey plan and architectural plans indicating the adjoining properties, and window sill levels.

Yes

Noise

DS8.1. Noise generators such as plant and machinery including air conditioning units and pool pumps are located away from windows or other openings of habitable rooms, screened to reduce noise or acoustically enclosed.

DS8.2. For sites in proximity to a busy road or railway line, development is to comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and the NSW Government’s Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline

The location of pool pump and air condition units are not indicated on the plans.

N/A

Condition could be applied to for noise attenuation measures if the proposal was to be supported.

N/A

Vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring

DS9.1. Car parking is provided on site in accordance with the following minimum rates:

a. for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, 1 car parking space

b. for 3 or more bedroom dwellings, 2 car parking spaces

DS9.2. For all new dwellings, at least 1 car space must be located behind the front building setback

DS9.3. Enclosed or roofed car accommodation, including garages and carports, are located at least 1m behind the main setback. Note: Carports forward of the front setback may be considered where no vehicular access behind the front building alignment is available.

DS9.4. The maximum width of a garage opening is 6m.

DS9.9. Driveway gradients must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1(2004).

Dwelling 1 – provision of four (4) car parking spaces within a basement garage and workshop.

Dwelling 2 – two (2) car garage

N/A

Dwelling 2 – garage is located at the front of the dwelling. However the site is a battle-axe allotment, the garage is not visible from the public domain.

Dwelling 1 – 3.6m opening

Dwelling 2 – 6.5m

N/A

The proposed vehicle crossing is 3.9m in width and is located on the west boundary approximately half way down the site. The access relies on the private road known as Coachwood Place. No owners consent has been provided for the extension and use of this private road

Yes – the additional car spaces and workshop are included in the GFA for dwelling 1.

Yes

No – the garage is not visible from the street and is acceptable.

Complies

No as insufficient detail has been provided to undertake a complete assessment.

Landscaped areas and private open space

DS10.1. Where located outside the FSPA, a minimum of 20% of site area is landscaped open space.

DS10.2. Where located in the FSPA, a minimum of 25% of the site area is landscaped open space.

DS10.3. The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m in any direction.

DS10.4. A minimum of 15m2 of the landscaped open space is provided between the front setback and the street boundary in the form of a front yard.

DS10.5. An area of Principal Private Open Space is to be provided which:

a. has a minimum area of 30m2

b. has a minimum dimension of 5m

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

d. is directly accessible from a main living area

N/A

Dwelling 1 – 38%

Dwelling 2 – 70%

Complies – minimum width is 9m

N/A – the site is a battle-axe allotment with no street frontage.

Dwelling 2 – POS is approximately 82sqm andis located at ground level and accessible from main living area.

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Stormwater

DS11.1. Diversion of flows from one drainage sub-catchment to another is not encouraged.

DS11.2. Stormwater drainage is to occur by:

a. drainage by gravity to the adjacent road kerb and Council’s drainage system or

DS11.3. Where drainage by gravity is involved this must not cause ponding/backwater effects on upstream properties.

DS11.5. On-site retention of roof run-off using rainwater tanks or detention tanks for storage and re-use are encouraged. Overflow from storage facilities must be connected to an appropriate stormwater system as detailed in DS11.2.

DS11.7. Development is not to concentrate overland flow of stormwater onto an adjoining property.

N/A

Council’s Development Engineers and Drainage Engineers have provided comments and raised no objection in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions relating to this development if the proposal was able to be supported.

There are no buildings proposed to be built over, on or within the easement.

Councils Development Engineers and Drainage Engineers have provided comments and raised no objection in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions relating to this development if the proposal was to be supported.

Yes

Balconies

DS14.1. Access to balconies and terraces is direct from a habitable room at the same floor level. Note: a level difference of one step may be considered for the purpose of rain water protection.

DS14.2. Balconies and terraces include fixed planter boxes and / or privacy screens.

DS14.3. Fixed planter boxes are at least 1m wide.

DS14.4. Privacy screens are between 1.5m and 1.8 m high

DS14.5. Terraces are not visible from the street.

DS14.6. Roof top terraces are not provided.

DS14.7. Development applications for terraces and balconies must provide sight line diagrams that demonstrate how privacy issues to neighbouring properties are proposed to be addressed.

The balcony on the first floor off the master bedroom is 7.1m.

A second balcony is located on the upper ground floor with depth of 12.5m and a 3m balcony on the ground floor accessed via bedroom 2 and 3.

The ground floor balcony has 1600mm privacy screens while the remaining balconies have 600mm screens on the east and west facades.

No planter boxes are proposed.

Privacy screens are 1.6m

The balconies are on the southern elevation and are not visible from the street.

N/A

Site diagrams have been submitted.

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

3.2 Subdivision

PC1: Lot size and shape

DS1.1 Residential allotment sizes are to confirm to Table 1 – Lot size and shape

R2 Low Density Residential in the FSPA – 550sqm

DS1.2 The width or the area of any existing or proposed access handle is to be exclude when determining the area or width of each allotment.

DS1.6 New allotments for dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy development are to have a minimum width of 15m for the entire allotment.

Lot 1 – 1,058.16sqm

Lot 2 – 1,006.2sqm

The area of the handle is excluded from Lot 1.

The site has a maximum width of 11.93m with the handle of 4.27m at the street. Both proposed lots exceed the minimum site area.

Yes

No – see discussion below.

Swimming Pools
PC1 Pool siting and noise control	DS1.10. The swimming pool edge must be at least 1.5 metres from side and rear property boundaries.		Dwelling 1 - 19.8m from the rear boundary. 2.5m from the east and 4.7m from the west boundary.	Yes Yes
	DS1.11. The position of the swimming pool in relation to neighbours and other residents must be considered to reduce noise associated with activities carried out in the swimming pool or from associated the swimming pool equipment, such as cleaning equipment.		The pool decking is at RL44.66 with the adjoining property on west boundary front balcony at RL43.9. Privacy screen/pool fences of 1600mm are proposed on the east and west boundary. The setback from the west boundary is 2.5m and 4.7m to the east boundary and complies to minimise any privacy impacts.	No – The privacy screens/pool fences could be increase to 1.8m to further reduce privacy/overlook impacts to adjoining properties.
Outbuilding (Pool and Change Room)
PC2. Building height	DS2.1. Maximum height is 3m.	3m		Yes
PC3. Setbacks:	DS3.4. Minimum setbacks for garages, gyms, cabanas and sheds = 0.9m.	37.5m (rear) 1.5 (side)		Yes
	DS4.1. The amount of landscaped open space on the site is in accordance with that specified for the relevant predominant land use type on the site under this DCP.	Landscape provided complies with the DCP requirement.		Yes
Subdivision	DS10.1. Where Torrens Title subdivision of an attached dual occupancy dwellings is proposed, the dividing wall between dwellings must be of masonry construction and at least 200mm thick. DS10.2. For a battle-axe lot, an access handle or right of carriageway to the street with a minimum 3m width must be provided for the rear lot. DS10.3. For a battle-axe allotment, all vehicles must be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.	N/A The vehicular access for both proposed lots is via the creation of a carriageway 112m from the front of the property on the western boundary. This access traverses adjoining allotments to access a right of way known as Coachwood Place. Owners consent to traverse the adjoining properties has not been provided and owners consent has not been provided for the use of the carriageway either. In addition the access to proposed lot 2 will require easements across proposed Lot 1.		N/A No - The proposed subdivision and means of access to proposed lot 1 and 2 can’t be determined without adjoining landowners consent.

Ceiling height

58. A small portion of dwelling 1 has a maximum ceiling height is 8.8m above the skylight located over the foyer/entrance of the dwelling. If the application was approved a design modification would be required to reduce the maximum ceiling height.

Minimum width

59. The site has a maximum width of 11.93m with the handle of 4.27m at the street and does not meet the minimum required width of 15m for new allotments for dwelling houses. Both the proposed lots exceed the minimum site area, proposed Lot 1 is 1,058.16sqm and Lot 2 is 1.006.2sqm. The reduced site width is acceptable given that the site is a battle-axe allotment with limited street frontage. A compliant built form can be constructed on both the allotments.

Side setback

60. Dwelling 2 proposed garage side setback on the western boundary is varied - 0.25m to 0.76m and does not comply with the minimum 900mm setback at ground level. The reduced western boundary setback is not supported.

61. An assessment of the proposal has been carried out against the provisions of the Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020. The controls the development has been assessed in accordance with in the DCP table above remain relevant in the Interim Policy.

Developer Contributions

62. The proposed development if approved would require the payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is increasing the density of the locality by the construction of one additional 5 bedroom dwelling. If the development was to be approved a condition outlining the required contributions would be imposed.

Impacts

Natural Environment

63. The proposed tree removal has been assessed by Council’s Consultant Arborist and is not supported as “the trees proposed to be removed are a contributing continuous community of Australian native remnants…in addition the impacts on trees to be retained will decline due to the changes in soil biota, nutrient and hydrologic changes to the immediate location.”

64. The ecology report submitted notes that “in respect to the timing of the survey and survey effort employed, a considerable continuum of fauna and flora species and assessment of the ecological process that are likely to be imposed on the study site, have been derived through desktop searches, and background and literature searches. Therefore, a full inventory of flora and fauna and the ecological processes likely to occur on the study site and surroundings cannot be fully provided in this report.”

65. The information submitted does not allow for a detailed assessment of the site. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

Built Environment

66. The proposal for dwelling 1 exceeds the FSR development standard of HLEP by 54%. A Clause 4.6 Objection was not submitted in support of the non-compliance.

67. Notwithstanding the clause 4.6, the bulk and scale of the dwelling resulting from the exceedance of this standard is unreasonable and unacceptable in the site’s context and the neighbourhood’s character. The bulk and scale of the building would result in an unacceptable outcome for the site and is thus recommended for refusal.

Social Impact

68. No adverse social impacts have been identified as part of the assessment. However, the built form is not an appropriate outcome for the site.

Economic Impact

69. The proposed development has no apparent adverse economic impact. There may be a small positive economic impact as a result of the construction of the development.

Suitability of the site

70. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible land use within the zone, subject to development consent.

71. The subject site does not meet the minimum site width control for subdivision. Extensive tree removal is proposed and the development has not been sensitively designed to respond to the constraints of the site and has not been designed to satisfy the floor space ratio permitted for the site or observed the foreshore building line.

SUBMISSIONS AND PUBLIC INTEREST

72. The application was neighbour notified in accordance with Hurstville DCP No. 1 on two (2) occasions for 14 days each notification period. Fourteen (14) submissions were received. In summary the following issues and concerns were raised.

· Incomplete Development Application as owners consent not sought from 3 Coachwood Place to traverse their property to permit access to Coachwood Place

Officer Comment: The application was requested to provide landowners consent to traverse the properties to permit access to Coachwood Place. Legal advice was submitted requesting the imposition of a deferred commencement condition with the satisfactory resolution of adjoining landowners consent. This option was not accepted by Council Officers and contributes to the application being recommended for refusal.

· Access by the proposed development via Coachwood Place will increase traffic by 50% to a private road, and will need consent to access this right of way from all properties who use right of way

Officer Comment: The proposal did not provide landowners consent to access the right of way from affect landowners. The proposal is for two dwellings to access Coachwood Place. It is estimated that this would equate to an additional one vehicle every 30 minutes during the peak morning and evening. However, given consent to access Coachwood Place this is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

· Excessive car parking spaces proposed

Officer Comment: Proposed dwelling 1 includes a garage to accommodate four car parking spaces and substantially workshop. The HDCP 1 requires a minimum of 2 car spaces for three or more bedroom dwelling. There is no maximum for car spaces. The additional car spaces are included in the Gross Floor Area. It is acknowledged the floor space ratio for the site has also been exceeded.

· Destruction of native fauna and flora

Officer Comment: This issue has been addressed in detail earlier in this report. The information submitted does not allow for a detailed assessment of the site with respect to the tree removal. This is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

· Overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining properties

Officer Comment: If the proposal was approved, conditions would be applied to provide privacy screens to balconies to reduce potential overlooking to adjoining properties.

· Overshadowing to adjoining properties

Officer Comment: This issue has been addressed in detail earlier in this report. The proposal complies with the minimum solar access provisions of the HDCP1.

· Traffic Impact Assessment misrepresents the impact of additional traffic to Coachwood Place

Officer Comment: The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer for comment and they did not object to the proposed development. Traffic generation is estimated using the Roads and Maritime Services’ “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” an industry standard. It is estimated that this would equate to an additional one vehicle every 30 minutes during the peak morning and evening.

· Proposal exceeds the permissible GFA

Officer Comment: Proposed dwelling 1 is 54% over the GFA. The proposal does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HLEP to justify and support the non-compliance of clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones. This is a contributing factor for the recommendation for refusal of the application.

· Proposed Lot 2 does not provide indicative building envelope

Officer Comment: Proposed Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling which is to be retained. This dwelling is annotated on the plans indicating the existing building footprint and the proposed two car garage.

· No Waste Management Plan provided for residential rubbish collection

Officer Comment: The proposal is not required to provide the method of residential rubbish collection for a dwelling house. A bin storage area has been nominated for Lot 1 and 2. The bins will need to be taken kerbside (Woodlands Avenue) for collection.

· Concern for access to Coachwood Place during the construction phase, and issue of liability to Coachwood Place during construction

Officer Comment: If the application was approved standard conditions would require a Construction Management Plan to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and this document would include access during the construction phase to ensure that the dwelling accessed via Coachwood Place would remain available.

· Limited visitor car parking on Coachwood Place

Officer Comment: The proposal is not required to provide visitor car parking spaces. There is sufficient space on both proposed Lot 1 and 2 to accommodate visitors to the site.

· Safety for children playing on Coachwood Place

Officer Comment: If the application was approved standard conditions would require a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and this document would practices to ensure pedestrian safety during the construction phase. When the development was complete the same safety provisions would apply to the other residents using Coachwood Place.

· No architectural plans that indicate the proposed floor area

Officer Comment: The architectural plans include the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) includes the floor area of proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling as well as the proposed garage for proposed Lot 2.

· SEE does not reference plans submitted with the DA

Officer Comment: The SEE refers to the architectural plans in the Introduction. The documents submitted meet Council requirements as outlined in Development Application Guide.

· Arborist recommendations regarding Tree 13 is not adhered to in the proposed development of proposed Lot 1

Officer Comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site …is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush. The twelve trees in question are considered in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

· Geotechnical Report – no assessment of the possible interference with groundwater on the site and likely impact of proposed significant excavation on the capacity to retain trees on site or possible impact on trees on adjacent sites or downhill of the proposed excavation

Officer Comment: If the proposal was approved the Geotechnical Report would be assessed by the PCA prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The adequacy of the report is outside the scope of this assessment.

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

Development Engineer

73. The application was referred to Council’s Engineers for comment. No objection was raised in respect to the design of the proposed stormwater/drainage plan.

Consultant Arborist

74. There are twelve (12) trees existing on site that will be affected by the development. The application was accompanied by a Predevelopment Tree Assessment Report prepared by Nada Kbar (consulting Arboriculturalist). The report notes the twelve (12) trees identified for removal are rated as Low to Very Low significance with one tree rated as of high significance.

75. Council’s Landscape Officer has carried out a site inspection and does not agree with the assessment of the applicant and acknowledged the site …is heavily forested and wooded with Angophora species, several Eucalyptus pilularis trees and other Australian native trees that form a small community of remnant bush. The twelve trees in question are considered in good condition and Council does not support the removal of these trees.

76. Further an Ecologist report was submitted and reviewed. 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 assess the impact of vegetation/tree removal on the site.

External Referrals

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

77. The application was referred to the RFS in accordance with Section 4.14 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A formal response was provided and concurrence was obtained subject to the imposition of conditions.

Ausgrid

78. The application was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with Clause 45 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. No formal response was provided in the prescribed time.

CONCLUSION

79. The proposal has been assessed using the maters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to undertake works on Lots associated with Coachwood Place to facilitate vehicular access to the site from this private road known as Coachwood Place for the proposed development. The plans also show that a retaining wall and fence is proposed in the area where the vehicular access is proposed. The plans are inconsistent.

80. The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of floor space control standards and does not provide a Clause 4.6 statement to address variation to the provision of the HELP to justify and support the non-compliance. The application does not address clause 6.4 Foreshore Building Line, and clause 6.5 Gross Floor Area of Dwellings in residential zones, and therefore fails to satisfy the provision and requirements of Clause 4.6 of the HLEP.

81. 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.

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

82. The reasons for this recommendation area:

· 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 HLEP. The additional bulk and scale of the building will adversely affect the character of the area and will be inconsistent with surrounding approved development;

· 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; and

· The proposal fails to provide landowners consent to traverse and undertake works on Lots that are within Coachwood Place by the proposed access arrangements.

In consideration of the above reasons, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

Determination

83. THAT pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel refuse development consent to Development Application 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 the existing dwelling and construction of a garage on proposed Lot 2 and access to the site via an extension of the private road known as Coachwood Place at Lot 24 in DP205787 and known as 47 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno, 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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1

Site Plan and Elevations - 47 Woodlands Ave Lugarno

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

Page 293

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

LPP Report No	LPP048-19	Development Application No	DA2018/0381
Site Address & Ward Locality	723 -729 Princes Highway Blakehurst Blakehurst Ward
Proposed Development	Demolition of existing structures, site consolidation and the 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 (as amended)
Owners	Natalie Filkorn, Grahame Sayburn, Andrew and Elena Antoniou and Nicholas and Anna Kaperonis and Smiths Oysters
Applicant	AGM Studio
Planner/Architect	Mersonn Pty Ltd
Date Of Lodgement	14/09/2018
Submissions	Three (3) submissions received in response to the amended plans
Cost of Works	$9,842,627
Local Planning Panel Criteria	The application relates to development to which the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies.
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land, Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Statement of Environmental Effects Architectural Plans Clause 4.6 Variation Statements Landscape Plans
Report prepared by	Senior Development Assessment Planner

Recommendation

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

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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 two (2) Clause 4.6 statements submitted.

Non-compliance with Clause 4.3 (Building Height Control) and Clause 6.4 (Foreshore Building Line) KLEP 2012.

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable.

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, standard conditions have been attached with some design changes which can be reviewed when the report is published.

Site Plan

Site outlined in blue

Site outlined in blue and showing the structures that exist outside the development site

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application (DA) was lodged on 17 September 2018 and originally sought consent for the demolition of all existing structures on the subject site, and the construction of a part seven (7) storey, part eight (8) storey residential flat building comprising twenty one (21) residential apartments (3 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom), two levels of basement car parking containing fifty eight (58) car spaces, landscaping and site works at 723-729 Princes Highway, Blakehurst.

2. The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services as the Princes Highway is a classified road and also concurrence was sought from the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) the former Department of Industries as the property is within 40m of a watercourse. Both authorities provided “in principle” consent and formal concurrence subject to the implementation of conditions if consent is to be granted.

Figure 1: Photomontage of the originally proposed front elevation, Revision A (courtesy AGM studio, September 2018)

Figure 2: Photomontage of the amended front elevation, Revision C (courtesy AGM studio, July 2019)

3. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) on two occasions (1 November 2018 and 9 May 2019). At both meetings the DRP raised a series of concerns with the design mainly in relation to the bulk, scale and form and the proposed massing. After meeting with Council Officers on several occasions the proposal was amended on 15 July 2019 (Revision C Plans) to address these concerns. The density and height of the RFB has been reduced and further design changes have been implemented to create a more complementary building and one which should have a more positive impact on the foreshore and relate to its immediate environment and context.

4. This report relates to the most recent set of plans dated 15 July 2019 noted as Revision C (with amended basement parking details provided as Revision E). In summary the modified design comprises a part six (6), part seven (7) storey building containing a total of seventeen (17) apartments and basement car parking for a total of thirty seven (37) vehicles. The latest amendments were not referred back to the DRP as the changes were considered to be substantial in nature and generally addressed the initial design concerns.

Site and Locality

5. This application applies to land known as 723-729 Princes Highway, Blakehurst (refer to Figure 3 below). The site has a legal description and is known as Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 DP 6944 and comprises of four (4) independent residential and commercial allotments. Combined the sites have an area of 1,009sqm.

6. The site is located on the corner of Blake Avenue and Princes Highway with Dover Park located to the north and a series of dwelling houses located immediately to the south comprising of 731, 733-735 and 737 Princes Highway. Other commercial premises are located further south including the popular Bayblu Seafood Restaurant and Shipwrights on the Marina. These adjoin the Blakehurst Marina. Further to the south is Tom Ugly’s Bridge.

7. Immediately to the north of the site is public land adjoining the foreshore. This land is vegetated and includes some on-street public parking and public access and is separated by the Princes Highway. To the south-east are some larger private residential properties in the form of detached dwelling houses (446-454 Princes Highway).

8. Immediately to the west is the Georges River foreshore (Shipwrights Bay) and the rear of the existing subject properties includes a series of jetties and boat sheds which are ancillary structures however have been built outside the existing boundaries. Although the application proposes to retain some of these ancillary structures a condition will require the provision of a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) which will outline the demolition, construction/connection and future maintenance of these structures along the foreshore. The boatsheds and associated fencing shall be removed and the piers remain. Parts of these structures are located on public land and extend beyond the site boundaries. It is unclear with the documentation provided how the piers will be retained and accessed if construction of the residential flat building occurs. A public works plan will be required to show how these structures are to be maintained and accessed.

9. This application is “integrated” development in accordance with the provisions of the Water Management Act as the development is located within 40m of a waterway and is classified as “waterfront” land. The application was referred to the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) (former Department of Primary Industries) for concurrence. On 15 May 2019 NRAR provided formal consent for the proposed works which it classified as a controlled activity and provided General Terms of Approval (GTA) if consent is to be granted.

10. The GTA’s are standard conditions relating to the provision of sediment and erosion control plans and restricting the clearing of any vegetation on the waterfront. These conditions are included if consent is to be issued.

Zoning and Permissibility

11. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). The proposed residential flat building (RFB) is a permissible use with consent.

Figure 3: Extract of the survey plan of all four (4) properties (courtesy daw and walton)

Submissions

12. The application was notified to neighbours on two occasions in accordance with the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP2013). The most recent notification was for the final amended plans (Revision C) which were renotified from 25 July 2019 until 8 August 2019.

13. A total of three (3) submissions were received for the amended proposal. In summary the concerns raised by the submitters are:

· Increase in traffic congestion and safety concerns.

· Insufficient off street parking.

· Adverse impact on the existing character of the area and inappropriate form of development for the locality.

· Visually dominating and unattractive building.

· The amended design locates some units below ground (subterranean).

· The proposal exceeds the 21m height limit and the scale and form of the building is inappropriate in respect to the adjoining small scale dwelling houses to the south.

· Unacceptable level of overshadowing.

· Crown Land permission required for any works to structures on the waterfront and the seawall.

· No indication where mechanical plant and equipment will be located.

· The deep soil area adjoining 731 Princes Highway may affect the structural stability of the dwelling and undermine and affect the waterproofing to that home.

· The relocation of the public parking spaces along Blake Street may adversely affect vehicular movements to and from this roadway.

14. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report.

Reason for Referral to the Local Planning Panel

15. This application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination, as the proposal is a Residential Flat Building (RFB) which is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development in accordance with Section 9.1 (EP&A Act) Ministerial Direction dated 23 February 2018.

Planning and Design Issues

16. The building encroaches on the 7.6m Foreshore Building Line (FBL) at the rear. The building wall has been located to be compliant with the Foreshore Building Line (FBL) with the encroachments involving the balconies and ground floor courtyards and in part the basement car parking levels. The sites are irregular in their shape and along the northern side; the width of the site is 21.41m. Given the narrow width of the site it is difficult to achieve a suitable building depth by also achieving the 7.6m FBL and a front setback minimum of 5m. These restrictions severely reduce the potential building footprint that could be achieved on the site and the overall massing will be affected by the resultant compliant built form which will be narrow, adversely affecting the building depth and internal amenity as well as external visual impact.

17. The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement to justify the non-compliance with the FBL and in this case the variation is considered to be acceptable given the site constraints and the nature and character of existing built forms located along this waterway to the south as well as there are currently a series of ancillary structures (boatsheds and the like) with a nil setback to the water. If consent is to be issued some further design changes are required to reduce the bulk and scale of structures at the rear by reducing the size of the ground floor courtyards and the width of the upper level balconies. The aim is to reduce the bulk and scale of structures adjoining the foreshore.

18. The height of the building has been modified and reduced by one whole level. Originally the building comprised of a part seven (7) part eight (8) storey building which has been reduced to a part six (6), part seven (7) storeys. In direct comparison the original parapet height was RL27.4 and this has been reduced to RL24.75, the original lift overrun sat at RL28.8 and is now at RL28.565. The amended plans have included a rooftop terrace area and associated pergola, however the only exceedance in the height is the lift overrun. The height of the building at the highest point is 22.07m which is 1.07m over the control. This exceedance is for a very small proportion of the building and amounts to a 5% variation. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted which seeks to justify the extent of the variation. Given the minor nature of the non-compliance and that it affects ancillary, non-habitable structures that are not extensive in their scale and form, the variation is considered acceptable and the Clause 4.6 statement well founded in this case.

19. The other areas of non-compliance relate to the northern side setback of the building at every level which requires a minimum separation distance of between 6-9m in accordance with the provisions of the ADG. The front setback of the building which is setback 4m with the staircase structure setback 2.5m which does not comply with the Kogarah Development Control Plan (KDCP) requiring a minimum front setback of 5.5m with 25% of the frontage of the building being setback 7m. The areas of communal open space and deep soil landscaped area also fail to meet the ADG minimum requirements.

20. In relation to the northern side of the building given that the site adjoins a public roadway and a reserve, the 9m side setback required at the upper levels (5 and 6) is not considered imperative as there will be adequate separation distances created by the existing topography and nature of the street and adjoining uses. In terms of the front setback, currently there is no consistent front building alignment as the commercial properties which form part of the development site, 727 and 729 Princes Highway are built to the front boundary with a nil setback and include awnings which extend over the public footpath. 723 Princes Highway is setback between 4-5m and 725 Princes Highway is currently setback between 2-3m. 733 and 735 Princes Highway and the properties further to the south have structures located directly on the front boundary. Given there is no coherent and consistent front setback and the buildings front alignments are staggered the development will create a more defined and consistent setback. The proposed average of 4m is considered to be an acceptable and reasonable design response for this site, given the shallow depth of the allotments.

21. Council’s Traffic Engineer has also raised concerns regarding the width of the ramp accessing the basement parking levels. The ramp is wide enough to accommodate a B85 vehicle but quite tight in its arrangement and Council’s Traffic Engineers would like the ramp to be able to accommodate a B99 vehicle. This can be addressed by way of a condition as the ramp can be widened by relocating visitor spaces and bike racks. Manoeuvring into and out of car parking spaces is considered satisfactory as a B85 vehicle can be accommodated.

22. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) on two occasions, both Panels criticised the overall built form and design and felt the building was an overdevelopment of the site. The current, final design changes were not referred back to the DRP as the Applicant has made some significant changes which address many of the issues raised by the Panel. A detailed discussion of the DRP comments and assessment are included later in this report.

Conclusion

23. The application has been assessed having regard to the Matters for Consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans. The amended proposal is now a more suitable urban design solution and a reasonable planning response given the Sites context and constraints, as a result the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Report in Full

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

24. The original DA sought consent for the demolition of all existing structures on the subject sites, and the construction of a part seven storey, part eight storey residential flat building (RFB) comprising of twenty one (21) residential apartments (3 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom, 7 x 3 bedroom apartments), two (2) levels of basement car parking containing spaces for fifty eight (58) car parking spaces.

25. The proposal was amended on two occasions. The first set of amended plans dated 21 March 2019 (Revision B) included a series of minor changes however the most significant change is that the building was setback further from the southern side to comply with the preferred separation distances in accordance with the ADG. Level 5, 6 and 7 have been setback 9m from the common boundary. This is an improvement as the adjoining residential dwelling house that has been recently constructed is a two to three storeys in scale.

26. The final set of amended plans, the subject of this assessment, dated 15 July 2019 (Revision C) has included more substantial changes to the built form. In summary the following changes have been included;

· The height has been reduced by one level from a part seven, part eight storey RFB to a part six to part seven storey RFB.

· The density of the development has been reduced from 21 dwellings to 17 dwellings on site.

· The design of the front façade has been remodelled and the balconies facing Princes highway removed and replaced with a variety of off-centred windows which is a practical design solution given the noisy and busy nature of the roadway reducing the number of habitable areas facing the street.

· The treatment of the northern elevation has been broken up and the extent of the screening has been reduced and window openings have been better expressed.

· An integrated new communal roof terrace has been introduced.

· The overall height of the building has been reduced with the only variation to the height limit being the lift overrun structure.

· The front setback is proposed at 4m at all levels apart from the staircase which is setback some 2.5m from the front boundary. Originally there were balconies located along the front façade which were setback up to 1m from the Princes Highway.

· The amount of deep soil area has been increased and the area of communal open space relocated from the southern side (ground floor) to be catered for within the roof level and this area becomes a private courtyard for Unit 1.

· The basement car parking design has been redesigned by plans lodged in October 2019 just for this element (Revision D and E).

Demolition

The proposal involves the demolition of all existing structures. The existing structures to be demolished include detached dwelling houses and commercial premises and ancillary structures in the form of boatsheds, storage sheds and the like. Council raised concern regarding the removal of some ancillary structures that are partially located on public land. In response, the Applicant submitted a preliminary Construction Management Plan. The survey plan shows a series of existing, historic structures (boatsheds, storage sheds and some sections of the dwelling houses) which have been constructed beyond the common boundary at the rear. The proposal will require these ancillary structures to be removed. Conditions will require the retention of the jetties and a plan to show how access to these structures will be maintained and how the foreshore areas will be revitalised with landscaping or the like in lieu of the structures.

The main structures relate to a boatshed and concrete ramp which is adjacent to 723 Princes Highway. The removal of these will open up the waterway and there will be less obstruction as the boat shed is located outside the site boundary.

There is no significant vegetation existing on any site. The layout of the building is detailed below:

Basement 3 Plan

- 21 car parking spaces most in a tandem configuration; comprising of 3 accessible spaces and 18 standard resident spaces

- 5 bicycle spaces

- Waiting Bay and traffic signals to reduce potential for conflicts

- Two (2) Tandem swapping bays

Basement 2 Plan

- 14 car parking spaces including 12 in tandem configuration, 2 visitor spaces

- 1 tandem swapping bays and a waiting bay for cars going up and down the ramps to avoid conflicts.

Basement 1 Plan

- 2 visitor spaces, one with a carwash

- 5 bicycle spaces

- 17 independent storage spaces

- Living spaces and courtyards for Units 1, 2 and 3.

Ground Floor

- Upper levels (bedrooms and amenities) for Units 1, 2 and 3.

- 2 x 2 bedroom units (No. 2 and 3)

- 2 x 3 bedroom unit (No. 1 and 4).

- Main entry, lift and stair access

- Balconies and ground floor courtyards.

Level 1

- 2 x 2 bedroom units (No. 6 and 7) with associated west facing balconies

- 1 x 3 bedroom unit (No. 5) with a west facing balcony

- Stair and lift access.

Level 2

- 2 x 2 bedroom units (No. 9 and 10) with associated west facing balconies

- 1 x 3 bedroom unit (No. 8) with a west facing balcony

- Stair and lift access

Level 3

- 2 x 2 bedroom units (No. 12 and 13) with associated west facing balconies

- 1 x 3 bedroom unit (No. 11) with a west facing balcony

- Main lobby and stair and lift access

Level 4

- 2 x 3 bedroom units (No. 14 and 15) with associated west facing balconies

- Main lobby, stairs and lift

Level 5

- 2 x 3 bedroom units (No. 16 and 17) with west facing balconies

- Internal amenities

- Main lobby, stairs and lift.

Roof Level

- Roof top communal open space having an area of some 287sqm with perimeter planting.

- Lift and stair access with a pergola over.

Figure 4: Photomontage of the north and western (rear) elevation as originally proposed, Revision A (courtesy AGM studio, September 2018)

Figure 5: Photomontage of the northern and western (rear) elevation as amended, Revision C (courtesy AGM studio, July 2019)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

27. The subject site comprises of four (4) allotments with the following legal descriptions;

· Lot 22 in DP6944 (723 Princes Highway)

· Lot 23 in DP6944 (725 Princes Highway)

· Lot 24 in DP6944 (727 Princes Highway)

· Lot 25 in DP6944 (729 Princes Highway)

Each site is described in greater detail below.

28. 723 Princes Highway comprises of a two storey detached brick dwelling house located on a corner allotment. The site has a frontage of 10.225m to Princes Highway and irregular side boundaries of 21.41m and 23.545m. The site has a total site area of 224.1sqm and includes a boatshed at the rear which is located on the foreshore and outside the site boundaries. There is a timber jetty at the rear.

29. 725 Princes Highway has a frontage of 10.06m to Princes Highway varying depths of 23.545m and 25.645m. It is an irregular shaped allotment and existing on site is a two storey detached dwelling house with a boatshed at the rear. The total site area is 241.2sqm.

30. 727 Princes Highway is a single storey commercial property which has a nil setback to Princes highway. The building accommodates Smiths Seafood a famous local fresh and take-away seafood establishment. The site has a frontage of 10.06m to Princes Highway and varying depths with a total site area of 261.7sqm. This property includes a brick boatshed at the rear and has access to a dilapidated timber jetty at the rear.

31. 729 Princes Highway is similar to 727 Princes Highway and is a commercial single storey property which is known as “Sultans” a take-away food premises. The building is built to the front boundary and has a frontage of 10.06m to Princes Highway, varying depths of 27.735m and 29.82m with a total site area of 282.2sqm.

32. There is no significant vegetation on any of the sites apart from a 4-5m high tree at the front of 725 Princes Highway. This plant is not considered to be a species of high retention value. The development as referenced in the proposed landscape design will improve the amount and type of vegetation on the site and will provide larger trees and plants around the periphery of the site.

33. The proposed development relies on the amalgamation of the four (4) sites and the combined area and dimensions of the subject site are as follows:

Total Site Area	1,009.2sqm
Frontage to Princes Highway	40.405m
Rear boundary (to the foreshore)	43.06m
Side boundaries South North	29.82m 21.41m

34. The development site is located on the western side of Princes Highway between Blake Avenue to the north and Tom Ugly’s Bridge to the south. The Site has a substantial fall from the street frontage to the rear (foreshore), of some 6m. There is a slight cross-fall of some 500mm from the south towards the north.

35. Blake Avenue a cul-de-sac which provides off street access to 723 Princes Highway and includes three (3) designated on street public parking spaces. On the northern side of Blake Avenue is a public car park accommodating some ten (10) vehicles which adjoins Dover Park West a small reserve and local pocket park. This Park provides direct access to the foreshore and Shipwrights Bay. Further to the north are the rear yards of properties facing Townson Street and comprise largely of medium density developments and RFB’s.

36. Further to the south are a mix of commercial and residential properties including a new part two, part three storey dwelling house that has been recently completed at 731 Princes Highway and further south is the Bayblu Seafood Restaurant, Shipwrights on the Marina and Blakehurst Marina. Further south is Tom Ugly’s Bridge which is a designated local heritage item. The sites are not considered to be within the visual catchment of this item.

37. To the east on the opposite side of the Prices Highway is a heavily vegetated area that adjoins the Georges River foreshore. To the west is Shipwrights Bay as the subject properties have direct water access at the rear.

38. The site is within close proximity to the following amenities, Carss Park, Blakehurst High School and Southgate Shopping Centre in Sylvania.

Photo 1: North elevation of the subject site as existing (No.723 Princes Highway)

Photo 2: The rear of the subject sites and their relationship to the waterway

Photo 3: The front of the sites as viewed from Princes Highway looking north

Photo 4: Public reserve immediately to the north of the site

Photo 5: The adjoining residential dwelling house currently under construction to the south (731 Princes Highway)

State Environmental Planning Policies

39. Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is summarised in the table, and discussed in more detail below.

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development	Yes

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment

The main aims and objectives of this plan are (not limited to);

40. The current properties drain to Shipwrights Bay and the system and method of stormwater disposal proposed will be consistent with the existing situation albeit updated and controlled. The application is accompanied by concept stormwater plans prepared by Alpha Consulting Engineers. Stormwater is proposed to be drained by gravity to Shipwrights Bay. The basement will include a pump out tank adjoining the entry to the basement. As the property falls from the south to north and front (east) to rear (west) the proposed system relies on a series of pits that will dispose of stormwater to the basin on the north western corner of the site adjoining the driveway and connecting to the existing stormwater drain.

41. This method of stormwater detention has been referred to Council’s Engineering Section. No objection has been raised in respect of the management and disposal of stormwater subject to the imposition of conditions, if consent is granted. All stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with Council’s Water Management Policy and will satisfy the relevant provisions of the Deemed State Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment.

42. One element that requires more detail and improvement is the stormwater drain outlet which is proposed to be located outside the boundary towards the north-western corner of the site. A condition will require this element to be redesigned and to be sympathetically treated so that it will harmonise with the landscaped area in which it will be located and will be appropriately vegetated and screened.

43. The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the waterway and the Georges River catchment. The proposal aims to protect the existing water quality and use and functionality of the catchment and is not considered to be inconsistent with the aims, objectives and purpose of the Regional Plan.

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

44. A BASIX Certificate was prepared and issued for the development No.959108M which confirms the development meets the provisions and minimum requirements of BASIX in terms of water, thermal comfort and Energy efficiency.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

46. Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. The consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether or not the land is contaminated.

47. A review of the site history indicates that the site has been vacant or used for residential and commercial purposes for extended periods of time, and such uses and/or development are not typically associated with activities that would result in the contamination of the site.

48. The application is accompanied by a Stage 1 Environmental Investigation prepared by Dirt Doctors (DD) and dated 25 August 2018. The preliminary site investigation did not include any laboratory testing due to the historical low impact uses of the Site. In conclusion the investigation stated that;

“The site can be made suitable for the proposed development in its current state, subject to the following recommendations.

· Site investigation by DD post demolition, to identify and potential areas of contamination;

· Preparation of a clearance certificate is asbestos is identified;

· Contamination sampling to confirm the absence of contamination following demolition of structures and excavation of driveway areas;

· Undertake council, work cover searches and address data gaps including council searches.

It should be noted that any soils requiring removal from the site must initially be classified in accordance with the NSW waste classification guidelines.”

49. If the application is granted approval a condition will ensure that the recommendations of the preliminary investigation are implemented post demolition and prior to excavation occurring. A condition is also included to ensure that if during the demolition, excavation and construction process any unexpected finds are uncovered they are appropriately considered.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

50. The aim of the Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State.

51. Subdivision 2 of the Infrastructure SEPP relates to Development that is in or adjacent to road corridors and road reservations. Princes Highway is a Classified Road and in accordance with Clause 101 (development with frontage to a Classified Road) concurrence from the Roads and Maritime Services Authority (RMS) is required. Direct access to the site is not proposed off Princes Highway but via the secondary roadway, Blake Avenue.

52. A formal response from RMS was provided on 18 October 2018. RMS did not object to the proposed access arrangement subject to the imposition of fourteen (14) standard conditions if consent for the development is granted. These conditions are include in the recommended conditions.

53. In terms of the acoustic impacts, Clause 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP establishes minimum acoustic requirements for new residential uses which are affected by busy arterial roads. Clause 102 of the SEPP states that;

(3) If the development is for the purposes of a building for residential use, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the building – 35 dB (A) at any time between 10.00pm and 7.00am

(b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) – 40 dB(A) at any time.

54. Section B3 of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP) also establishes objectives and minimum provisions to satisfy in terms of regulating acoustic impacts however reverts back to the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP (Clause 102 provisions). Also the Department of Planning has also established guidelines for “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines” (2008). These guidelines require noise levels not to exceed 35dB internally to bedrooms between 10pm to 7am daily and for other habitable areas (excluding garages, kitchens, bathrooms and hallways) to achieve maximum noise levels of 40dB at any time. These guidelines also allow for a 10dBA allowance for windows and doors to be open to allow for natural ventilation and to satisfy cross ventilation requirements. If the noise impacts will be greater than the 10db then mechanical ventilation to these spaces will need to be considered.

55. The Acoustic report prepared by Day Design and dated 7 September 2018 considered all the provisions within all the relevant policies and controls and recommended that the acceptable noise criteria for this development to be as follows;

With windows closed

· 35dBA inside bedrooms at night (10pm to 7am)

· 40dBA inside other habitable rooms during the day (7am to 10pm)

With windows open

· 45dBA inside bedrooms at night (10pm to 7am)

· 50dBA inside other habitable rooms during the day (7am to 10pm)

56. A noise monitor was placed at the shopfront at 729 Princes Highway as shown in Figure 6 below. The noise levels recorded were 79dBA (daytime) and 76dBA (night time). The noise levels therefore will exceed the minimum requirements and a number of measures will need to be adopted to ensure internal areas will be acoustically treated through the implementation of a series of construction methods ie double glazed windows, minimum thickness of walls, doors and flooring finishes. In addition spaces facing Princes Highway will need to be mechanically ventilated.

57. A condition will require the Acoustic report to be updated as it considered the original building design (refer to Figure 1). This design included a series of balconies facing Princes Highway. The currently modified design has improved the front façade treatment and removed balconies replacing them with window openings and has also reduced where possible habitable spaces opening onto the roadway. Some bedrooms are located to face Princes Highway but secondary spaces such as ensuites, bathrooms and hallways are integrated along this side to reduce acoustic impacts. The design is focused on key living spaces being orientated west and north. This design change will improve acoustic impacts and will remove the balconies which are unlikely to be functional as they would adjoin the highway. Given that the Acoustic report has not been amended to reflect these changes a condition will require this information to be updated. It is likely that similar results are predicted and similar building and construction methods will need to be implemented to improve internal amenity of spaces and ensure they are compliant with the expected residential uses adjoining busy roadways.

Figure 6: Location of noise logger (courtesy: Day Design 2018)

58. The amended design of the development is considered to be acceptable and a better design outcome when considering the location of the site adjoining the highway and the anticipated noise outcomes.

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

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

61. Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land. The Draft SEPP will not alter or affect the findings in respect to contamination of the Site. Appropriate conditions are included in respect to any potential asbestos removal and an expected finds condition will ensure that if any traces of contamination are found appropriate measures in accordance with EPA requirements are implemented.

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

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

63. The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

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

65. The proposed development involves the removal of several trees at the front of 725 Princes Highway and along the Blake Avenue frontage and located on the public footway. These trees are not significant or important species and in general the sites combined do not include any valuable or substantial vegetation. Figure 7 below shows the location of trees to be removed. The following is a summary of each tree;

Tree 1 Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus) 6m high located at the front of 725 Princes Highway considered to be surpressed by walls and building structures.

Tree 2 Second Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus) 4m high located at the front of No.725 Princes Highway considered to be surpressed by garden walls and building structures.

Tree 3 Paperbark Tree (Melaleuca quinqunervia) 6m high located on the Council verge corner of the Highway and Blake Avenue, assessed to have minor root decay.

Tree 4 Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) 2m high, Council street tree located on Blake Avenue and has been lopped.

Tree 5 Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) 2m high, Council street tree located on Blake Avenue and has been lopped.

Tree 6 Crimson Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) 2m high, Council street tree located on Blake Avenue and has been lopped.

Tree 7 Crimson Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) 2m high, Council street tree located on Blake Avenue and has been lopped.

Figure 7: Location of the existing trees to be removed as part of the proposed site works (courtesy: Arboricultural Impact Assessment, 2018)

66. The trees to be removed are not considered important or significant species however Tree 3 on Council’s nature strip located on the north eastern side of the site is requested to be retained. Council’s Landscape Officer believes this tree is in a good condition and should be maintained. Most other trees are suppressed or have been lopped including some located along Blake Street.

67. The Landscape Plan prepared by Aspect Landscape Designers and dated July 2019 provides for a number of large trees to be integrated as part of the design including three (3) large Sydney Red Gum trees to be planted along the southern side where there is a 2.7m wide deep soil area which will be able to accommodate these species. In addition three (3) Tuckeroos are proposed along the front. These trees grow to 8m high and have a 5m wide canopy spread. The proposed landscape design will improve the amount of trees and planting that is accommodated within the site. It also provides for an integrated and more formal landscaping arrangement.

68. The Plan does not provide or cater for any street planting. A condition will require the provision of a minimum of two (2) new Banksia Integrifolia to be planted along Blake Avenue. No street trees are proposed along Princes Highway as they could affect sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting Blake Avenue.

69. The proposed landscaping arrangement and design for the site is considered acceptable.

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

70. The Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 was formally implemented to conserve and protect biodiversity values and systems across the State. The legislation lists threatened species and ecological communities (EEC’s) and outlines processes and procedures in the assessment of these valuable and sensitive environmental species and communities.

71. Council’s mapping system does not identify any part of the subject sites having any significant vegetation or species classified as EEC or part of the biodiversity offset scheme.

72. The removal of the trees on site will not alter or adversely affect the vegetation in or adjoining the Site. The proposed development will substantially improve the number of trees and vegetation and the proposed compensatory planting and quality of landscaping proposed will be an improvement to the existing situation and will be in the public interest. The aims and objectives and intentions of the SEPP have been considered.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

73. SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 updates and consolidates three previous SEPPs (SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands, SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests, SEPP 71 Coastal Protection) into one integrated Policy and is a matter for consideration for the current DA.

74. Under SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018, the subject site is mapped as a Coastal Environment area and a Coastal Use area. These have the following management objectives under the SEPP:

(b) to reduce threats to and improve the resilience of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, including in response to climate change,

(c) to maintain and improve water quality and estuary health,

(d) to support the social and cultural values of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons,

(e) to maintain the presence of beaches, dunes and the natural features of foreshores, taking into account the beach system operating at the relevant place,

(f) to maintain and, where practicable, improve public access, amenity and use of beaches, foreshores, headlands and rock platforms.

75. The following is an assessment of the matters for consideration listed under the SEPP as applicable to the Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area.

SEPP Control	Proposal	Complies
13. Development on land within the coastal environment area
(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:
(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,	Surface water runoff is to be managed in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan and relevant conditions imposed. The proposal is generally satisfactory subject to conditions.	Yes
(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,	The existing sites are used for residential and commercial purposes. The proposed development is a purely residential use and will not unreasonably impact the coastal environmental values and there is no direct impact on coastal processes.	Yes
(c) the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,	The water quality of Shipwrights Bay will not be affected by the proposal. The site is not located on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1.	Yes
(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,	There will be no unreasonable impact upon the foreshore features. The site will be landscaped in accordance with the submitted landscape plan and it is intended to embellish existing vegetation along the foreshore. There are no works proposed that are likely to threaten fish or marine habitats.	Yes
(e) existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,	The subject site is privately owned, however public access to the foreshore can currently be directly gained from the public reserve. The sites do not allow or permit any form of public access as the rear boundary to the foreshore is the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM). The public can walk along the foreshore if the tide is low. There is no direct access to this area; the application does designate a “potential future link” by way of a series of stairs. A condition will require a more detailed arrangement in terms of landscaping, drainage design (for the proposed outlet pit) and the provision of access and retention of the two piers. These details when submitted (prior to the issuing of the CC) will allow Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services to review and provide any necessary input. Given the siting of the existing lots along this side of the Highway most of which are private dwelling houses there is no real potential to provide for a consistent public accessway along the foreshore. The fact that the public reserve has direct access to the water this is considered to provide the public with direct access and satisfies this purpose. If there was a foreshore link or connection then continuing this would be important and required but connection is unlikely to be obtained or created unlike the recently approved development at 468 Princes Highway which dedicated a public accessway along the foreshore which connects two reserves and connects to existing public space and a small walking track along the foreshore.	Yes
(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,	The allotment is not known as a place of Aboriginal significance. There is no impact in terms of Aboriginal heritage.	Yes
(g) the use of the surf zone.	The development is not located near the surf zone.	NA
(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or	The proposal is generally satisfactory in terms of impact as discussed throughout this report.	Yes
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or	The proposal is generally satisfactory and has been designed to reduce impacts. Conditions will be included to ensure that impacts on the waterway and its natural processes are mitigated ie especially through the construction process in that stockpiling of construction materials and waste materials are located towards the front of the site, not at the rear.	Yes
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact	The proposal is generally satisfactory and has been designed to minimise impacts.	Yes
14 Development on land within the coastal use area
(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority:
(a) has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:
(i) existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,	The development will not limit or restrict access to the foreshore and is consistent with the existing situation.	Yes
(ii) overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,	The public park to the north will not be overshadowed by the development given its orientation.	Yes
(iii) the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,	The building has been designed to improve the permeability of the Site and adjoining area and aims to improve the visual quality of the foreshore. Currently the existing buildings are built right to the MHWM with boat sheds and retaining walls directly onto the foreshore. The development has been designed to step up the site to create a softer transition between the built form and the rear waterway by the provision of landscaping at the rear which is stepped and tapered and the use of sandstone and more appropriate materials should soften its overall appearance and transition to the rear.	Yes
(iv) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,	The property is not a known site of Aboriginal heritage.	Yes
(v) cultural and built environment heritage, and	The site does not contain or adjoin any heritage item; Tom Ugly’s Bridge however is located to the south this heritage item is not within the visual catchment of the site.	Yes
(b) is satisfied that:
(i) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or	Proposal is generally satisfactory in terms of impact as discussed throughout this report.	Yes
(ii) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or	The development does not result in any unreasonable visual impact.	Yes
(iii) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and	The development does not result in any unreasonable impacts.	Yes
(c) has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.	Development is generally satisfactory in terms of the built form controls in Kogarah LEP 2012 and DCP 2013. The development form and scale is not inconsistent with the anticipated built form and scale in this immediate precinct. The proposed development has been modified on two occasions and is considered to be a better urban design response for the site with the final design that is proposed.	Yes

76. Generally, the proposed development is consistent with the management objectives of the SEPP.

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

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

78. 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.

79. In addition to satisfying the nine (9) design principles, the proposal generally satisfies the Apartment Design Guidelines in respect to the design quality of the building and its apartments apart from a few areas of non-compliance which are detailed in this report. The Tables below provide a comprehensive assessment against the principles, objectives and controls of SEPP 65 and the ADG.

Table 1: Application of SEPP 65

Clause	Standard	Proposal	Complies
3 - Definitions	Complies with definition of “Residential Apartment Development” (RAD)	The proposal complies with the definition.	Yes
4 - Application of Policy	Development involves the erection of a new RFB, substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of a RFB or conversion of an existing building into a RFB. The definition of an RFB in the SEPP includes mixed use developments.	Construction of a Residential Flat Building which satisfies the SEPP’s definition of this residential land use.	Yes
50 – Development Applications	Design verification statement provided by qualified designer Registered Architect Name and Registration No.	Design Verification Statement provided by Registered Architect Mr Alan Mhanna (Registration No.7755)	Yes

80. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel on two occasions being 1 November 2018 (to consider the original design) and on 9 May 2019 (to consider the first set of amended plans (Issue B)). After a meeting with the Applicant to discuss the urban design issues and areas of non-compliance the final amended plans (Issue C) which form the basis of this assessment were considered to address the majority of the DRP and Council’s concerns and these plans were not re-referred to the Panel as Council maintain that many of the Panels concerns have been addressed. Table 2 below summarises the Panels comments (in italic for the initial comments and in bold for the first set of amended plans (Revision B)).

81. Table 2: Part 2 Design Quality Principles under the SEPP

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

DRP Comment

Amended Design

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 which has been recently re-zoned R3 to a higher density and height of 21m. It adjoins a Council car park and public reserve to the north. It fronts Princes Highway to the east and Georges River to the west. The subject site and most of the nearby properties fronting the river have narrow jetties giving waterfront access for boats and onsite boat storage.

The park to the north has significant trees along the waterfront, although all the waterfront planting has been removed in the past from the subject site and other nearby properties. The site immediately adjoining to the south at 731 Princes Highway is currently under construction for a three (3)/ four (4) storey residential development, and it appears inevitable that with the rezoning other properties in the R3 zone to the south will also be redeveloped, potentially to the permissible 21m height.

The proponent’s documentation showed no context information which made it extremely difficult to assess.

Access for vehicles from Blake Avenue appears to eliminate existing Council parking and destroy some existing planting.

While additional context information has been provided it does not appear that the designer of the proposal has seriously addressed issues of:

· Bulk and scale

· Interface with the water

· Deep soil requirements and capacity for large trees

· Setback compliance

· Impacts on public space including the adjacent park and public car parking

Appropriate landscape interface to both the arterial road or the waterfront

The proposal relocates the public parking spaces along Blake Avenue. This has been referred to Council’s Traffic Consultant who didn’t raise any initial traffic or parking concerns given that one space is currently designated as a Loading Dock for the commercial properties. Given the commercial properties will no longer exist; the loading dock will not be required.

A condition is included if consent is to be issued to ensure there will be street planting along Blake Avenue.

The scale of the development has been reduced from 7 storeys to 6 storeys when viewed from the highway. This in turn has reduced the visual bulk of the development. The density has also decreased.

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.

There are a number of serious concerns:-

· The parking levels occupy the full site, boundary to boundary, leaving no opportunity for deep soil planting

· There is a two (2) storey semi basement wall built along the entire waterfront boundary. This is extremely dominant and fails to optimise the waterfront access opportunity. In terms of its visual impact it would set a totally unacceptable precedent.

· There is no indication of response to the waterfront context or provision of planting which would be sympathetic to or relate to the planting to the immediate north.

· There is no attempt to activate or engage with the waterfront

· The Panel is surprised that there seems to no foreshore setback

· The setback to the southern boundary does not comply with the 9m recommended by the ADG, being only 6m.

· The height of the proposal is close to compliance with the LEP control but would result in a development that would be extremely assertive in this environment. Any exceedance on the height control in this prominent location cannot be supported.

While the applicant has made very minor changes to the B2 car park to provide what is described as deep soil this does not comply with the ADG minimum dimensions for deep soil. This solution is inappropriate for a development of this scale and a continuous consolidated area of deep soil of a minimum width of 3m should be provided to the front and rear setbacks.

The proposed communal open space and associated landscape is adjacent to the basement car parking, abuts the waterfront boundary and appears to be 4m high in some locations. There is an insufficient resolution of water front access and the visual impact is still a serious concern.

Providing communal open space with primary access via the adjacent car park is extremely poor. This would discourage use by the residents.

The Panel believes that foreshore setback and access is critical particularly adjacent to the public park. The Council should clarify what foreshore setback is required.

The 2.9m floor to floor dimensions provided are inadequate. The ADG advises that 3.1m floor to floor is required to guarantee 2.7m high ceilings. Therefore the seventh level of the proposal is unachievable.

Other items of concern include:

· Response to traffic noise

· Inadequately size lift

· Potential conflict with parked cars, sight lines and driveway access

· Front setback on Princes Highway should be 4m minimum at all levels

· Stacked parking will exacerbate circulation issues at basement levels

· Inadequate disabled access to the communal open space

· Access to units is via two (2) lobbies, one (1) of which does not receive natural light

· Poorly located waste room

· Excessively high retaining walls adjacent to waterfront

· Inadequate vertical modulation of built form

· Visual and acoustic privacy issues to the southern property

· Constructability of poorly drawn curved elements

The design has been modified and the latest scheme removes the initially proposed high retaining wall to the two basement car parking levels and reduces the retaining structures along the foreshore.

Given the very steep slope of the site it is difficult to have no structures along the edge to the foreshore however the current proposal provides a stepped and more tapered built form which is considered to have a better transition and relationship to the rear.

The development has created landscaped areas, courtyards and balconies at the rear addressing the foreshore which is a substantial improvement as originally the basement car parking levels protruded above ground and were dominating structures at the rear.

The building wall has been setback 7.6m to comply with the Foreshore Building Line however there are encroachments in the form of balconies etc. These are discussed in greater detail later in this report as a Clause 4.6 Statement was required to be submitted to justify the non-compliance.

The height has been substantially reduced and no habitable areas exceed the height control of 21m. A whole storey has been deleted as part of the final amendments.

Access from the basement to the rear area has been modified and there is provision for access to the small area of landscaping along the south-western side of the site with access stairs from the rear of B2. Given that a communal area of open space has been provided on the roof a functional area at the rear, whilst desirable isn’t necessary.

The final amended design has resolved this issue to a large degree and has located the rear apartments 1, 2 and 3 partially below ground however will be stepped down to the rear foreshore and the proposed retaining structures have been reduced stepping up from RL0.6 to RL2.0 then to the living areas of the units which are at RL3.4. These apartments are also two storeys in form and will have good levels of internal amenity. Although there will still be structures on the foreshore these have been designed to be stepped and tapered and include courtyards and fencing structures rather than large enclosed walls.

A condition will require details on the proposed fencing to ensure materials are largely transparent to reduce their visual dominance. Much of the spaces at the rear will also be landscaped whilst the current sites have limited landscaping and contain several larger structures that abut the foreshore i.e. boatsheds. Currently there is no transition from the water up to the interface with the buildings.

In terms of clarifying the foreshore setback the established Foreshore Building Line (FBL) is 7.6m and all structures should be setback 7.6m from the MHWM. In this case the building wall is setback 7.6m however balconies and courtyards at the rear encroach and the basements also encroach on the FBL. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted to justify the non-compliance and this is discussed in more detail later in this report.

The height of the building has been reduced and the floor to floor levels have been increased to 3.05m at all levels allowing for a slab width of 350mm which is reasonable and will still achieve an internal floor to ceiling height of 2.7m.

The basement carpark has been reconfigured to address potential conflicts and a deferred commencement will require some changes to the layout and internal arrangement to improve accessibility, manoeuvrability and accessibility throughout the parking levels. Waiting bays have been introduced and two (2) swapping bays have been introduced at each basement level.

The waste room is well located as it provides direct access to Blake Avenue for bins to be collected.

The front setback of the building has been increased and the building wall has been setback 4m with the staircase structure encroaching, being setback 2m. This feature is an architectural element and articulates the front façade, this element is supported.

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.

The proponents claim to comply with the FSR control.

Applicant still claims that the development complies with the FSR controls however the proposal does not comply with the LEP height requirements and contains numerous amenity and built form issues.

The final amended plans reduce the density of the development from twenty-one (21) apartments as originally proposed to seventeen (17) apartments. With this has also come with a reduction in the gross floor area (GFA).

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR. The modified floor space creates an FSR of 1.99:1

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.

A complete absence of deep soil planting provides permeability and drainage issues, as well as being environmentally unacceptable.

There is opportunity for a development of very high standard on this large amalgamated site, which would establish a precedent for regeneration of other sites.

Refer comments above under ‘Built Form’. As there was no detailed landscape plan for review the Panel was unable to comment on the proposed tree or landscape planting.

The proposal currently does not meet the standards required for this highly constrained and environmental sensitive site in a prominent location as viewed from the Highway and the Georges River.

The amended design has improved the proposed landscape treatment around the perimeter of the site by increasing the number of pockets of deep soil areas where larger trees and plants can be accommodated.

A condition will require the inclusion of a rainwater tank which can be accommodated along the southern side of the site.

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.

The landscape planning creates a number of issues as follows:

· The landscape plan is extremely primitive and provides no indication of any level of amenity or delight on the site

· Lack of deep soil means inability to grow large trees anywhere on the site

· Permeable paving allows drainage through to concrete slab only and is thus of no practical use

· Critical issue is the lack of consultation with Council or RMS in relation to planting either along Princes Highway or along the waterfront. Both frontages are extremely important in relation to the public domain.

· The communal open space is positioned along the southern boundary in substantial shade and appears to be accessed only from the street. It will provide negligible amenity to the residents.

It is suggested that roof garden communal areas be examined as an alternative to this location

No revised landscape plan was submitted therefore the applicant’s response to items above cannot be verified. It is noted however that the applicant’s architectural representative attending the meeting was unable to clarify the proposed tree planting as shown on plan DA01.17. In this highly prominent sensitive site a well-considered landscape plan is critical.

A quality landscape is a product of a carefully and well resolved integration with the architectural scheme, not landscaping to fill peripheral spaces. The current proposal has significant short comings.

The landscape design has been substantially modified and improved.

An area of communal open space has been integrated onto the roof space and this area is below the height limit (apart from elements providing access to this space, lift overrun and stairs). This creates a private area of some 287sqm of communal area.

This allows for more substantive planting around the periphery of the site to create a buffer and soften the development when viewed from the south and north.

The Issue B plans that the Panel were privy to did not include an updated set of Landscape Plans. The final set of amended plans (Issue C) includes an updated set of Landscaping Plans which improves the landscape treatment across the site and provides for more significant boundary planting along the edges and periphery of the site. The landscaping arrangement is considered to be a reasonable design outcome which will provide screening along the southern and south western side of the site with larger Sydney Red Gums being planted in this area. Subject to conditions requiring the provision of additional street trees along the highway and Blake Street frontage the landscaping arrangement and design is considered to be satisfactory.

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 amenity issues are of concern:

· Main entrance is narrow, provides no internal foyer space, and is not acceptable

· Direct access from ground floor units directly from the street would be desirable

· The balconies are extremely exposed to strong winds with no indication of protection by way of screening, and have glass balustrades which create a privacy issue

· For a residential building of this size provision of only a single lift is of concern in the event of out of service times

Subject to these concerns the amenity of units themselves should generally be of good standard.

While the entry has been widened the lift is still undersized and clearances provided are lacking in amenity.

Some spandrel has been provided however the balconies still appear to be exposed to strong wind and unprotected.

One (1) lift only is provided which is inadequate and too small.

Other amenity issues include:

· Poor access to communal open space

· Lack of landscape and substantial trees to Princes Highway

· Poorly resolved interface with very high walls to the foreshore

· Negative impact on adjacent public parking

· Vehicular access potentially dangerous due to relocated public parking interfering with sight lines

· Potential conflict in basement due to stacked parking

· Narrow courtyards and balconies to Princes Highway

· Unit 3 and above have unnecessarily complicated windows which result in poor internal amenity

· Visual and acoustic privacy issues to southern property

· Long corridors in southern units

The internal amenity and external appearance of the building has been improved.

The hallway has been reduced.

Balconies along the eastern side have been removed and the western balconies will be conditioned to include some larger sliding screens which will offer the potential to screen and protect these west facing spaces. The screens will also break up the form and scale of the building when viewed from the foreshore.

The density has been reduced to 17 units and a single lift core is considered acceptable as no floor contains more than 4 units.

Corridor lengths have been reduced and consolidated.

Sliding privacy screens could be included along the balconies and this would provide additional protection from the elements and would break up the horizontal massing of the building when viewed from the rear. The balconies would be broken up further and this would introduce more verticality to the rear façade.

The introduction of the rooftop area of communal open space has provided equitable opportunity and access for all future occupants to use the communal area on the roof.

The high walls and structures along the foreshore have been reduced and the basement levels contained solely below ground. Habitable areas address the foreshore and although there still remain some retaining walls and structures (fences) these elements are stepped and reduced in height so as not to be overly dominating or prominent. A condition will require that structures adjoining the foreshore be well designed and transparent and light, open style structures where possible (ie fencing).

In terms of preserving privacy to the south most window openings they are secondary areas and non-habitable. Where there are windows to habitable areas (living spaces to Units 6, 8 and 11 and to the bedrooms of Units 14 and 16) these are setback in accordance with the ADG requirements and can be conditioned to include obscure glazing or be highlight windows to reduce the potential for overlooking.

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.

No comment at this stage

See comments above regarding vehicular access.

The development has been designed to include appropriate security measures and will be a safe environment for occupants and visitors.

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.

The absence of any functional communal space is unacceptable. The option of providing roof top space should be explored.

Poorly designed communal open space with primary access via basement car park will not facilitate successful social interaction and is potentially dangerous.

The provision of a communal area of open space on the roof, which is large in area, offers passive and active recreational spaces (ie BBQs) which satisfies the Panels initial concerns.

This property is well located as it is across the road from a small and attractive park/reserve (Dover Park) which will allow families to use this area for fishing or outdoor recreation.

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.

The proposal raises a number of concerns including:

· The double waterfront sub basements which completely fail to engage with the waterfront in any way and provide a bleak two (2) storey blank wall with ventilation vents

· The horizontal expression of the building would be potentially very assertive and creates concerns particularly in relation to its sensitive and prominent waterfront context.

Stronger articulation and more subdued colours and tones in relation to external finishes would seem desirable in order to minimise the assertiveness and provide an opportunity for context sensitive design.

The foreshore interface remains unresolved.

The proposal does not create any setback at upper levels or any relief from its horizontal expression.

As noted above the proposal does not sensitively integrate with context.

The original two storey retaining wall with vents to the basement has been removed and the design amended so that apartments front the foreshore and associated balconies and courtyards are the main focal points.

The removal of the large front balconies eliminates some of the strong horizontal elements of the design and creates more verticality in the form. The western elevation remains quite horizontal due to the balconies but this is a unique and ideal location and waterfront orientation.

The foreshore interface has been improved by the reduction of the tall structures adjoining the foreshore.

The suggestion by the Panel to recess the upper levels would definitely improve the overall appearance of the building however the Applicant has reduced the overall height and scale of the development which is now achieving the desired future built form outcome for this upzoned precinct.

82. Clause 28 of SEPP65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration the provisions of the ADG. The Table below assesses the proposal against these provisions.

Table 3: Part 3 and Part 4 (SEPP 65) – Consideration of the Apartment Design Guide Controls

Clause	Standard	Proposal	Complies
3D - Communal open space	1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% (252sqm) of the site. -Where it cannot be provided on ground level it should be provided on a podium or roof -Where developments are unable to achieve the design criteria, such as on small lots, sites within business zones, or in a dense urban area, they should: • provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room • provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments • demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space 2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)	The proposal has been amended to provide an area of communal open space at the roof level. On the roof top an area of 287sqm is dedicated, largely capturing the whole building footprint. This amounts to 28% of the site and complies with the numerical requirement. The site is located across the road to a small pocket park and public reserve that can be utilised for passive and active recreational purposes. It is convenient and provides for direct public access to the water and foreshore. As such the provision of communal areas at the ground floor is not able to be accommodated given the site constraints. The whole area of the rooftop communal open space will receive excellent solar access throughout the day due to its northern, eastern and western orientation.	Yes
3E – Deep Soil zones	1. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements: Where the site area is 650sqm - 1,500sqm = 3m min dimension Min deep soil area of 7% (70.63sqm).	The applicant claims that the total area of deep soil provided is 87.5sqm which amounts to over 8%. The only areas of deep soil that are counted are where they achieve a minimum width of 3m and are not located on podiums. This has been confirmed to be correct and does not include backfilled areas which “technically” could also be included as “deep soil” areas. The location of the basement levels restricts the ability to provide deep soil areas and the fact the sites are not deep limits the potential to provide areas of deep soil at the front and rear of the site. The inclusion of additional sites will not resolve the issue of depth. Given this, the development provides for three (3) pockets of deep soil area and these areas will allow for the provision of larger scaled trees.	Yes
3F- Visual Privacy	Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: Up to 12m (4 storeys) Habitable - 6m Non-habitable – 3m Up to 25m (5-8 storeys) Habitable – 9m Non-habitable – 4.5m Up to 25m (9+ storeys) Habitable – 12m Non-habitable – 6m	Southern side Ground to Level 3 – building setback 6m Level 4, 5 and 6 – building setback 9m Northern side Ground to Level 6 – 4m	Yes No but acceptable (see discussion below)
Discussion regarding Visual Separation Distances The building complies with the required separation distances in accordance with the provisions of the ADG along the southern side as the building abuts a smaller, newly completed three (3) storey dwelling house. A 4m setback is proposed along the northern side which fails to comply with the respective 6m and 9m setback requirements. Given the site adjoins a roadway and will look onto a roadway and public reserve the non-compliance in this case is considered to be acceptable as there will be no overlooking to any habitable areas as there are no residential developments adjoining this side. A 4m setback is considered to be acceptable to this secondary roadway (Blake Avenue) and is generally consistent with the proposed front setback of 4m. Visually and contextually the built from will be acceptable and there is not overlooking or adverse amenity impacts with respect to overshadowing.
3G – Pedestrian Access and entries	Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain Multiple entries (including communal building entries and individual ground floor entries) should be provided to activate the street edge.	The development provides one entry lobby. Given the density of the development being seventeen (17) units one (1) common lobby/entry is considered to be acceptable.	Yes
3H-Vehicle Access	Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes	The proposed new driveway entry is located towards the northern most part of the site. The benefit of this location is that it is located further away from the intersection with the Princes Highway and this is the lowest point of the site. The provision of access along this side effects the location of some existing public parking spaces. The Applicant has requested that these spaces be relocated further to the east along Blake Avenue. Council’s Traffic Engineers do not in principle object to the relocation of these spaces, however formal approval will be required in accordance with the Roads Act with any redesign to be assessed and approved by the Local Traffic Committee. Council’s Engineers suggested that this can occur after a determination has been made. Currently there are three (3) on street public parking spaces; the Engineers have advised one of these spaces is a designated loading bay servicing the commercial properties that currently operate from lots that form the subject development site. The proposed relocation plan has the eastern most space close to the intersection with Princes Highway, concern is raised that there could be conflicts. Given this is a loading bay and would no longer be required if this development is approved, the loading dock would technically not be required as the commercial uses would no longer be operating. Ideally retaining this space would be beneficial to the RFB and its occupants when people are moving or when larger bulky items of furniture or the like are being delivered. However there should be some space found on the street as Blake Avenue is a cul-de-sac and there is designated public parking also adjoining the public reserve. This issue however can be resolved at a later stage and at this point Council’s traffic engineers do not raise any concerns with the proposed relocation.	Yes
3J-Bicycle and car parking	For development in the following locations: - On sites that are within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or - On land zoned and sites within 400m of land zoned B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant Council, whichever is less	These provisions are not applicable as the proposal is not within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop. There is a bus stop located within 400m of the site near Blake Avenue. The provisions of the ADG (which rely on the RMS requirements for Traffic Generating Developments) are not relevant in this case and the development will need to satisfy the provisions of the KDCP.	Discussed in detail in the DCP table.
4A- Solar and daylight access	Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter	The Applicant has provided calculations and states that 100% (all units) receive a minimum of 2hours of sunlight. The measurement requires “living areas” to satisfy the requirements and the calculations include bedrooms of units which face east which should not be considered. When reconsidering the proposal all units have their key living spaces facing west and from 1pm until 3pm most apartments receive solar access however when assessing against the view from the sun diagrams it indicates that Units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 would technically receive 1.5 hours of sunlight as at 1pm sunlight is not quite filtering through to the living spaces but rather on the balconies. This would mean that only 7 units (mainly north facing units) achieve 100% which is 41% of the development with the remaining 10 units (58%) receiving a minimum of 1.5 hours just short of the 2 hour minimum. Although the control limits the calculation to 3pm the 10 units will receive sunlight well until 5pm (even in daylight savings) as their orientation is due west and they will be unobstructed as they are located immediately on the foreshore. The development satisfies the design principle.	No but acceptable
4B- Natural Ventilation	At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line The building should include dual aspect apartments, cross through units and corner units and limit unit depths	As this development faces Princes Highway the acoustic report requires more stringent construction measures to be implemented to reduce acoustic impacts. All units have been designed to be cross ventilated apart from the centrally located apartments (Units 2, 6, 9 and 12) which only have single aspect. This amounts to 24% of the development. The remaining 13 units have a triple aspect meaning they have a north, south, east, west orientation. So even if the window openings to bedrooms and spaces facing the highway are to be closed and mechanically ventilated to mitigate noise, they still have two aspects and would therefore satisfy the cross ventilation requirements. So 13 out of the 17 units will be cross ventilated which amounts to 76%.	Yes
4C-Ceiling Heights	Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are: Habitable rooms = 2.7m Non-habitable rooms = 2.4m	The minimum floor to ceiling height at all levels is 2.7m (3.050m from floor to floor including slabs is provided) Floor to floor heights of 3.1m are usually required to achieve a floor to ceiling height, however this proposal allows for a slab of 350mm to be constructed and this can cater for most services and ducting and would still allow for floor to ceiling heights of 2.7m.	Yes
4D- Apartment size and layout	Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas: 1 bedroom = 50sqm 2 bedroom = 70sqm 3 bedroom = 90sqm The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5sqm each. Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms	Every unit complies with the minimum internal area requirements. Two (2) bedroom units have minimum internal areas of 86.5sqm Three (3) bedroom units have minimum internal areas of 127.7sqm. The units are much larger and spacious than the minimum ADG area requirements. The design seeks to cater for people in the area keen to downsize from their homes and buy in an exclusive waterfront location. Most internal spaces and rooms have natural ventilation via windows. Some ensuites and WC’s will require mechanical ventilation.	Yes
4D-2 Apartment size and layout	Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window	Generally compliant and addressed as part of the design. Furniture layouts are provided. There are some kitchens that are located further than 8m from a window this is considered acceptable in this case as the open plan arrangement allows for very large and spacious living and dining areas. Having larger living spaces is advantageous in this location.	Yes
	Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm and other bedrooms 9sqm (excluding wardrobe space) Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space) 3. Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of: -3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom - 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom units The width of cross-over or cross-through units are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow unit layouts	Complies with minimum room sizes. Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm whilst all other rooms have areas of 9.6sqm. Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m - complies No cross-over or cross-through units are proposed.	Yes
4E- Private Open space and balconies	All units are required to have primary balconies as follows: Two (2) bedroom = 10sqm/2m depth Three (3)+ bedroom = 12sqm/2.4m The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15sqm and a minimum depth of 3m	All balcony areas comply with the minimum requirements of the ADG. Many exceed the minimum requirements. 2 bedroom units have balconies with a minimum area of 20.1sqm with a minimum depth of 3m 3 bedroom units have balconies with a minimum area of 21.3sqm with a minimum depth of 3m The ground floor areas of private open space at the rear of over 36sqm, 47sqm and 78sqm respectively of courtyard area have been provided (Units 1, 2 and 3). The ground floor courtyard spaces are quite large and it is recommended that planter boxes be introduced to the edges of these to provide more greenery and an additional point of transition. The balconies on the upper levels are substantial in size and quite dominating. It is recommended that they be reduced in width to a maximum of 2.2m so that their visual prominence is reduced and the balconies on Levels 5 and 6 are to be reduced in depth to 2m. This will recess the upper levels so that the balconies are setback further, providing further recessing. By reducing the balcony depth this will also allow for more solar access into living spaces as the balcony protrusions restrict solar access and also set the building encroachments back further from the foreshore.	Yes
4F- Common circulation areas	The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight	Four (4) units access the corridor on the ground floor and three (3) units access the lobby on Levels 1 - 4 and two (2) units access the Lobby on Levels 5 and 6.	Yes
4G- Storage	In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided: 1 bedroom = 6m³ 2 bedroom – 8m³ 3 bedroom – 10m³ At least 50% of storage is to be located within the apartment.	Due to the generous size of units there is ample internal space provided for storage but also in the basement (B1 car park) there are specific designated storage cages/spaces for each unit. Storerooms for Unit 14 and 15 are located further eastward. It is requested that these rooms be deleted and that one room adjoining the storeroom to Unit 2 be provided that it in line with the staircase and align with the other storerooms to the south. This will allow for a greater amount of deep backfilled soil and it is also recommended that the WC adjoining the entry to Unit 2 on the ground floor be amended to become a small storeroom in lieu of the one being removed in B1.	Yes
4H- Acoustic Privacy	Adequate building separation is provided within the development and from neighbouring buildings/adjacent uses. Window and door openings are generally orientated away from noise sources Noisy areas within buildings including building entries and corridors should be located next to or above each other and quieter areas next to or above quieter areas Storage, circulation areas and non-habitable rooms should be located to buffer noise from external sources	The building separation distances from the southern boundary are compliant with the preferred distances required by the ADG. The provision of more dense buffer planting along this boundary will to some additional degree combat some of the noise impacts and soften the appearance of the building when travelling north along the Highway. The living areas have been orientated away from the main noise sources and located towards the west, fronting the foreshore. The acoustic report which accompanies the application recommends the implementation of a series of construction measures i.e. double glazing and the like to reduce the transfer of noise internally.	Yes
4J – Noise and Pollution	To minimise impacts the following design solutions may be used: • physical separation between buildings and the noise or pollution source • residential uses are located perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses • buildings should respond to both solar access and noise. Where solar access is away from the noise source, non-habitable rooms can provide a buffer • landscape design reduces the perception of noise and acts as a filter for air pollution generated by traffic and industry	The building has been designed to orientate towards the water rather than the highway. Openings to the road (main noise source) have been amended (from the original scheme), minimised and limited. The amended design is considered to create a more respectful and simplified façade to the highway which is interesting and juxtaposed with the more residential façade at the rear which is dominated by balconies. The eastern elevation has been designed to reduce the reliance on the need to face this roadway although spaces at the higher levels will obtain water views from the east and west. Windows to bedrooms and secondary non-habitable spaces are orientated along this side. The findings and recommendations of the acoustic report have been addressed earlier in this report and will be conditioned to ensure they are implemented during the construction stage.	Yes
4K – Apartment Mix	A range of unit types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future The unit mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building	The development comprises of the following mix of units; 8 x 2 bedroom = 47% 9 x 3 bedroom = 53% Although the mix of unit sizes is limited to 2 and 3 bedroom units only there are only 17 units proposed which is not considered to be a large scale development. This site is also direct waterfront land and the reality is that the apartments will be expensive and unlikely to cater for investors or younger people entering the market. This is considered to be a more exclusive development that will generally cater for families downsizing or retired couples or professional couples and families.	No – but considered acceptable given the context and location of the site.
4L – Ground Floor Apartments	Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located. Design of ground floor apartments delivers amenity and safety for residents.	Ground floor apartments are focused towards the rear of the site. Unit 4 will include a private courtyard at the front whilst the south eastern area of open space at the front of the building will be landscaped but is not designated to any unit so will just form part of the development.	Yes
4M - Facades	Facades should be well resolved with an appropriate scale and proportion to the streetscape and human scale.	Originally the development included large balconies along the front and rear of the building. Council raised concerns regarding the building resolution as there were too many balconies especially at the front which will not be well utilised given the location of the busy highway. The design was amended so that the front façade is more conducive to the noise impacts. Bedrooms and non-habitable spaces and parts of the corridor are situated along this elevation and the balconies have been replaced with standard windows which is a better design outcome. The differing materials will break up the form and the proposed bands of rendered, painted finishes will break up and articulate the façade. The proposed windows are of differing sizes and offset from the windows on every level. The introduction of wooden panelling and the wooden detailing to the staircase also articulates and breaks up the length of the building. The rear elevation is more residential in the aesthetic as it includes large curved balconies. As previously discussed the sizes of the balconies are requested to be reduced by way of a condition and this should reduce their extent and visual dominance. The treatment of this façade is considered appropriate as this building faces the foreshore.	Yes
4N – roof design	Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Incorporates sustainability features.	The proposed flat roof is reflective of most contemporary RFB’s that integrate a communal rooftop area of open space. The integration of a communal area of open space at the roof is in accordance with the objectives of 4N of the ADG and will be a beneficial addition for future occupants.	Yes
4O – Landscape Design	Landscape design is viable and sustainable, contributes to the streetscape and amenity	An amended Landscape Design has been prepared which includes the proposed planting treatment of the rooftop area and around the perimeter of the site. The pot sizes of the trees to be planted are 75L and a condition will require these to be increased to a minimum 100L pot size so that trees will be largely mature and established on planting. Along the rear to the foreshore, at the basement level Coastal Rosemary is to be planted along the rear which will create a green wall. In the south west corner will be a Coastal Banksia and associated dense vegetation to provide a buffer to the adjoining residential dwelling. At the ground floor level there is potential for larger trees (3 x Sydney Red Gums) as there is an area of deep soil (between 2.8 - 3m in width) along the southern side. The provision of larger trees along this side is an appropriate solution which will soften the visual appearance of the development once constructed and the trees grow to maturity being 15m. At the front of the site the landscape plan includes two (2) Tuckeroo trees in the front area which will be backfilled with soil. These trees will assist with screening the lower levels of the building. One more Tuckeroo could be included at the front and a condition will be included requiring this tree to be incorporated. In general, the landscape plan is well considered and provides for appropriate native planting species that will improve the landscape treatment to the periphery of the site.	Yes
4P- Planting on Structures	Planting on structures – appropriate soil profiles are provided, plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance, contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces	The design has catered for planter boxes around the perimeter of the roof terrace. The treatment of planting on structures is considered to be satisfactory from a design perspective.	Yes
4Q – Universal Design	Universal design – design of apartments allow for flexible housing, adaptable designs, accommodate a range of lifestyle needs	Design of units allows for use by different lifestyles. Internal layouts vary and provide flexible layouts. Units 1, 2 and 3 are two storey Three (3) adaptable units are catered for within the development and comply with AS4299-1995 Adaptable Housing. Two (2) “Liveable” units are also included.	Yes
4R – Adaptive reuse	Adaptive reuse as apartment of existing buildings- new additions are contemporary and complementary, provide residential amenity while not precluding future adaptive reuse.	N/A	N/A
4U – Energy Efficiency.	Development incorporates passive environmental design, passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer, natural ventilation minimises need for mechanical ventilation	A compliant BASIX Certificate accompanies the application.	Yes
4V – Water management and conservation	Water management and conservation – potable water use is minimised, stormwater is treated on site before being discharged, flood management systems are integrated into the site design	The existing buildings drain to the rear (waterway). This arrangement will be incorporated into the new design, albeit in a modified form to control and discharge the water. Council’s Stormwater Engineers have considered the proposed stormwater design to be acceptable apart from the discharge point which will need to be redesigned; this can be undertaken via conditions. A condition will require the inclusion of a rainwater tank which can be included on the ground floor or within the basement.	Yes
4W – Waste Management	Waste management – storage facilities are appropriately designed, domestic waste is minimised by convenient source separation and recycling	The waste storage area is located along the northern side of the site with direct access to Blake Avenue for waste to be collected. The bin store includes a WC and it is requested that this WC be removed so that there is maximum space for bins and waste materials.	Yes
4X – Building Maintenance	Building design provides protection form weathering Enables ease of maintenance, material selection reduces ongoing maintenance cost	The design incorporates a mix of external finishes that aim to address the sensitive coastal location in which the site is located. Finishes intend to be marine grade so that they will not rust and reduce the weathering effects of this coastal environment. Colours selected are recessive, earthy tones and elements such as the timber privacy louvres and sandstone fencing and associated elements have been integrated in the design. These elements may weather a little more quickly but they are lighter and more natural features that will break up the bulk and scale of the building and create a more articulated and varied rear elevation.	Yes

Figure 8: View of the building from the Sun at 1pm (courtesy: AGM Studio, 2019)

Environmental Planning Instruments

The planning controls applying to the site were recently amended by the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Amendment No 2), also known as the New City Plan which was gazetted on 26 May 2017.

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zoning

83. The subject site is zoned Zone R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP2012). Refer to zoning map below. The proposed development is defined as a Residential Flat Building which is a permissible use in the zone.

84. The objectives of the zone are as follows:

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

· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

85. The proposal has been designed to satisfy the objectives of the zone.

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

Figure 8: Zoning map

Table 4: KLEP2012 Compliance Table

Clause	Standard	Proposed	Complies
2.2 Zone	R3 Medium Density Residential Zone	The proposal is defined as a Residential Flat Building (RFB) which is a permissible use within the zone.	Yes
2.3 Objectives	Objectives of the Zone	Consistent with zone objectives	Yes – see comments above
4.1A Minimum lot sizes for Residential Flat Buildings	Clause 4.1A requires a minimum site area of 1,000sqm for the purpose of RFB’s in the R3 zone.	The total site area is 1,009sqm	Yes
4.3 – Height of Buildings	21m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	The building from its original design has been amended and reduced by a whole storey. The building is generally within the height limit however the lift overrun and staircase to the communal open space exceed the height. The height of the lift overrun at the highest point is 22.07m. The 1.07m non-compliance amounts to a 5% variation. The encroachments are considered to be small scale and have been justified as part of the Clause 4.6 Statement. This issue is discussed in more detail below.	No – see discussion below regarding Clause 4.6 Statement which has been submitted.
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	2:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map Max GFA permissible 2,018sqm	The proposed FSR is 2:1 Total GFA = 2,016.9sqm	Yes
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	The GFA calculations provided by the Applicant have been verified and are considered satisfactory.	Yes
5.7 Development below mean high water mark	The objective of this clause is to ensure appropriate environmental assessment for development carried out on land covered by tidal waters.	The proposed development will not be located below the mean high water mark and will therefore satisfy the objectives of this control. There are also no works proposed beyond the rear boundary affecting the waterway. The proposal is located over 1.5m above the MHWM and when considering sea level changes the proposed RL at the top of the sandstone sea wall is estimated to cater for potential sea level rises until 2100. The finished floor level of the B1 car parking level which includes apartments 1, 2 and 3 which face the water. The floor levels of these apartments and their courtyards are located at RL3.4 which is over 2m above the MHWM. The landscaped area at the rear which will act as a further buffer between the water and land is located at RL2.0 and again this provides for a difference in height from the water. The stepping of the structures at the rear reduces the bulk and scale and creates a better interface and transition to the waterfront. The existing structures on site ie boat sheds are very tall structures that sit directly adjoining the waterway and there is no landscaping elements to create a buffer or transitional elements to break up the form and create a more sympathetic relationship between the land and water.	Yes
5.10 – Heritage Conservation	The objectives of this clause are; (i) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah, (ii) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views.	The site is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area. The closest Heritage Item is the Tom Ugly’s Bridge. This is an item of both State and Local significance noted as Item No.7 within the KLEP. Tom Ugly’s Bridge is composed of two bridges completed in 1929 and 1987 that cross the Georges River. The historic significance of the structure surrounds the 1929 Pratt Truss bridge which carries three lanes of north bound traffic. The 1929 bridge consists of nine steel truss spans forming a total length of 499m. The bridge was designed by Percy Allen and when opened the bridge was the longest in Australia. The proposed development is setback some distance from the bridge and will not adversely affect the appearance or interface of the item and is not considered to be within the immediate visual catchment of this item.	Yes
6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)	The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage	The site is located in a Class 5 ASS area. Clause 6.1 states that Class 5 works are “works within 100m of adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres AHD and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre AHD on adjacent Class 2, 3 or 4 land. An Acid Sulphate Soils assessment was prepared by Dirt Doctors and accompanies the application. The report states that “A map showing the areas identified as being affected by ASS has been prepared by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. This map identifies the probability of acid sulphate soils. From the map it is understood that the site, as identified in the ASS classification map, is located within a low probability of occurrence of acid sulfate soils. The majority of these landforms are expected to contain acid sulfate materials within 1m of surface level. Therefore, land management is generally affected by acid sulfate materials, however, highly localised occurrences may be found, especially near boundaries with a highly probable occurrence. Disturbance of these soil materials will result in an environmental risk that will vary with elevation and depth of disturbance. Any works below natural ground surface or affecting the water table has a risk of being contaminated with acid sulphate soils or is potential acid sulphate soils.” The assessment included soil sampling to a depth of 0.8m occurred with four (4) soil samples collected. Distinctly weathered sandstone bedrock was encountered and this was confirmed by laboratory testing. Laboratory analysis suggested that no acidic conditions are present in the soils and levels recorded are all within the adopted criteria. The report concluded that given the results of the testing “the preparation of an Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan is not required”.	Yes
6.2 Earthworks	To ensure that earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land	The proposed earthworks are considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of this clause as the works are not likely to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, or neighbouring properties. A condition will require that a detailed structural assessment be conducted on the new sea wall (boundary fence to the water) to ensure that any construction works ensure its integrity and stability for the future as any rear structures will act as a boundary/sea wall.	Yes
6.4 Limited development on the foreshore area	The objective of this clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.	The subject site is located within a designated foreshore area and the siting of the building is dictated by the established Foreshore Building Line (FBL) of 7.6m. The building wall has been designed to satisfy the 7.6m FBL however the rear balconies/courtyards and the basement car parking levels encroach on the FBL. The depth of the Site is limited and the depth of the building would be severely restricted if all the structures had to comply with the FBL. The building would be long and narrow which visually would not be a desirable outcome. A detailed assessment of the non-compliance with the FBL is discussed later in this report.	Partial non-compliance but considered acceptable – see detailed discussion below. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted to address the non-compliance with part of the building encroaching on the FBL.
6.5 Airspace Operations	The consent authority must not grant development consent to development that is a controlled activity within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996 of the Commonwealth unless the applicant has obtained approval for the controlled activity under regulations made for the purposes of that Division.	The height of the proposed development exceeds 15.4m (minimum Obstacle Surface Limitation) and therefore requires referral to Sydney Airports. The application was referred and formal concurrence has been obtained.	Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Detailed assessment of variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

87. The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to height (Clause 4.3). The LEP identifies a maximum height of 21m for the site (refer to Figure 9 below) and the proposed development will exceed the height by 1.07m (5% variation) at the extremity of the roof (parapet) and is generally centrally located. The area of non-compliance relates to the lift overrun and associated staircase to the communal open space area. A variation to the height can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the LEP.

88. Clause 4.6(1) outlines the objectives of the standard which are to “provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development” and “to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances”.

Figure 9: Height of Buildings map extract from the KLEP2012 (Map Extract 008)

89. The original and amended plans measured the building height against the “natural ground line” (NGL) which is not in accordance with the definition of height under the KLEP. The planning instrument defines Height as “the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building, or in relation to the RL of a building – the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building”. The final amended plans were altered to show the relative heights of the building against the existing ground levels; however, the existing ground floor lines as per the detailed survey have been confirmed.

90. The original design comprised of a seven (7) storey building with the parapet height at RL27.4 and the original lift overrun sitting at RL28.84. Using the existing ground line point that is in a central location of approximately RL6.49 when taken off the detailed survey. Due to concerns with the bulk and scale of the development, the building was reduced to comprise of a six (6) storey building with a new communal roof top area. This reduced the overall height of the building by having the new parapet height at RL24.750 (a reduction of 2.65m) and new lift overrun height of RL28.565 (a reduction of 275mm) however all the communal open space structures (seating, balustrades and planting features) are located below the 21m height limit.

91. The non-compliance exceeds the control by some 1.07m (5%) and relates to the lift overrun. The non-compliance is considered to be acceptable in this case as the area where the variation is located will not cause any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The site is unique and quite constrained due to the topography of the land and its significant fall to the rear, as such compliance with the control is difficult to achieve. The removal of the rooftop area of open space would achieve compliance as the lift overrun and staircase structure would be reduced, thereby achieving the height limit. However this would result in a poor planning and design outcome as the proposed rooftop area is a desirable feature in this location and will provide a private area of open space for future occupants to enjoy and utilise. The ADG encourages the provision of rooftop communal open space if it adds to the quality and functionality of communal areas of open space within the development, which in this case it will.

92. Clause 4.6(3) states that:

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

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

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

93. To support the non-compliance, the applicant has provided a request for a variation to Clause 4.3 in accordance with Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2012 for the original variation and amended variation, of which points have been extracted justify the reasons in supporting the variation. This Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed as follows:

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

94. Height of Buildings limitation under Clause 4.3 of the KLEP 2012 is a development standard.

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

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

(a) to establish the maximum height for buildings,

(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

(c) to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

96. The applicant has provided the following justification regarding the development’s consistency with the above objectives.

97. Applicant’s Comments: In accordance with the proposed development achieves the objectives of the standard notwithstanding non-compliance with the height of buildings control in the following ways.

98. “It is demonstrated in the plans that the proposal minimises any overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impacts for the neighbouring properties. The proposal does not create any adverse visual impacts from adjoining properties, the street, waterways and public reserves. The proposal promotes view sharing by retaining envisaged heights across the site.

99. The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the locality and provides an appropriate transition in height between the relevant parts of the new development providing an appropriate scale and intensity of development consistent with the height controls.

100. The proposal presents as a building predominantly within the maximum height of buildings as it presents to the street and steps down the slope of the site. The breach to the height control arises from the provision of equitable access and while the proposal is comfortably compliant with the control the overrun in the centre of the site means that a limited portion of the building breaches the control.

101. The proposal has preserved the environmental amenity of the neighbouring properties and public spaces by sensitively locating this portion of the building in a manner which preserves the environmental amenity in terms of solar access, privacy, daylight, visual impacts, outlook and views. That part of the building which breaches the height control does not give rise to any adverse impacts which would cause the environmental amenity of the neighbouring properties and public spaces not to be preserved.

102. It is demonstrated in the plans and accompanying documentation that height breaches in the proposal does not give rise to any overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual impacts or view loss for the neighbouring properties and public spaces which would not preserve the environmental amenity. The proposal preserves the environmental amenity of the neighbouring properties and public spaces through the siting of the building and open space, articulating its form and the provision of setbacks and stepping in the building.

103. The height of the proposal is considered to be compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the desired future character of the locality. The locality is in transition from a variety of large dwellings of varying designs responding to the topography by stepping down the slope on both sides of the street to residential flat buildings.”

104. Officers Assessment: Council has been consistent in its application of Clause 4.6 in respect to the Height Standard. Allowance and flexibility is generally given to an exceedance in the height control for a centrally located lift overrun and other smaller structures which are not habitable and appear on the roof space to assist in providing a functional and attractive area of communal open space.

Figure 10: Height plane 3D montage showing the area of non-compliance when viewed from the north eastern side of the site

105. Council has consistently applied the height control to all new developments in the area and it is important to retain the integrity of the control given that it is a new control as the area has been recently upzoned. In terms of satisfying the objectives of the height control the lift overrun is located closer to the eastern side but generally central to the building. That part of the lift overrun which exceeds the height control will not create any additional overshadowing to adjoining properties due to its orientation and will only overshadow the roof space of the subject development. The structure will not obstruct any views and will not adversely affect the visual appearance of the building. The actual staircase element has been designed to become an architectural/design feature which aims to break up and articulate the front façade when viewed from Princes Highway and immediate surrounds.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard [cl. 4.6(3)(b)] for the following reasons;

106. The Applicant has concluded that the variation is considered satisfactory in this case for the following reasons:

107. “The proposal is demonstrated not to give rise to any significant amenity impacts in terms of solar access, privacy, views or bulk and scale with regard to the breach and on balance this is considered to be an appropriate approach and it is considered that this is the type of situation for which Clause 4.6 expressly provides.

108. In the circumstances where there are sound environmental and site specific reasons for the breach to the height control and where the proposal would be consistent with the bulk and scale of desired future development in this locality it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to apply the control and consequently the exception to the height control standard under Clause 4.6 is considered acceptable.”

109. Clause 4.6(4) states that:

“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”

110. Officers Assessment: The written request adequately addresses the matters in subclause (3). Strict compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because the development is consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone and height of building standard as documented in detail below and in those elements of the building that exceed the control are considered to be acceptable in terms of its siting and impacts.

111. It is considered that sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that the non-compliance does not result in any adverse environmental impacts.

(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,

112. The objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone pursuant to the LEP 2012 are;

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

· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

113. Applicants comment: “The proposed development improves the provision of housing for the needs of the community by improving the amenity of the offering and increasing the vitality of the area. The proposal increases the variety of housing types. The proposal increases the concentration of housing to take advantage of its access transport, services and facilities. The proposal provides for a comfortable and sustainable living environment that also has regard to solar access, privacy, noise, views, vehicular access, parking and landscaping. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives for development in the zone”.

114. Officer’s comment: The proposed density of the development has been reduced from the 21 apartments that were originally proposed. The amended residential flat building comprises of 17 apartments of varying sizes and styles. The diversity in the proposed accommodation that is offered will cater to a variety of residents. The Blakehurst area is established and comprises of many larger detached homes and many residents in the area are downsizing and this development will cater to the needs of long established families or retirees that would like to maintain the waterfront lifestyle but have a lower maintenance lifestyle. The development has been designed to satisfy the objectives of the zone and will provide for a high quality and attractive development that will improve the appearance of the existing buildings on site and aims to create a high quality design outcome that will be in keeping with the desired future character for development in this immediate precinct.

115. Although the development is not providing for any additional land uses or facilities which will service the needs of the residents it is implied that this objective does not need to be met but could be met or “enabled” if it is possible.

116. In respect to amenity impacts from the development discussion earlier has confirmed that the degree and amount of overshadowing created by the development is considered acceptable and generally compliant and the additional overshadowing from the lift overrun on the roof of the subject development is considered to be minimal.

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

117. In accordance with clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, council may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards for applications made under clause 4.6 of the LEP. This was further confirmed by directions provided within Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018.

118. The recent Land and Environment Court decision (Initial Action v Woollahra Municipal Council the NSW Land and Environment Court established a “five part test” for consent authorities to consider when assessing a clause 4.6 request for variation. These are set out below, together with commentary in respect of the proposed development.

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

Comment: This has been addressed in the points above.

The proposed distribution of built form and massing of the building across the site is the result of a considered analysis of the site, the site constraints and the surrounding context.

Strict compliance with the development standard can be achieved by the removal of the roof top communal area of open space however this will create a poor urban design and planning outcome as this space provides for an additional area that is private to the development, functional and an attractive area that provides for passive recreational activity.

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

Comment: The proposal has been designed to satisfy the objectives of the zone and the development standard. The design of the lift overrun has been sensitively considered not too adversely impact on the amenity of any immediately adjoining properties could be considered as a design feature when viewed from Princes Highway. The underlying objectives in this case are relevant and will be satisfied through the design intent of the development.

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

Comment: The underlying object or purpose of the control will not be thwarted or defeated if compliance is achieved however the majority of the building is within the specified height control and the ancillary (non-habitable) element that exceeds the control is small in area and scope and as a variation is only 5% non-compliant. This is considered acceptable and a very reasonable degree of variation is being sought.

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting

consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

Comment: The height controls under KLEP 2012 have been recently adopted via the “New City Plan” which took effect in May 2017; this DA is one of the first proposals in the Blakehurst area to be assessed under the new controls. The recently approved development at 468-474 Princes Highway (DA2018/0393) exceeded the height control but like this proposal only the lift overrun and staircase feature exceeded the control.

Accordingly, there have been few if any developments proposed under the new controls.

The ancillary structures exceed this control and this is considered reasonable and a satisfactory planning outcome. In general the non-compliance is considered minor and it will not result in the abandonment of the control, given the uniqueness of the site constraints and the fact that a small proportion of the building will exceed the control.

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

Comment: The height and zoning of the site and the precinct has been established by Council and considered to be an acceptable outcome for these sites which face Princes Highway and are waterfront properties. Impacts are considered to be minimised due to their more isolated and unique locations as the sites don’t abut smaller scaled residential properties to the rear. It has always been a clear intention for the sites and adjoining sites to the south to be upzoned and allow for a more intensive scale of development given the location. The proposal is in line with the intention of the zoning and the objectives of the height control as mentioned in greater detail above.

119. The Clause 4.6 prepared by Mersonn has demonstrated there are significant environmental planning and urban design benefits associated with the contravention of the standard. The variation is also considered minor and will not create any detrimental environmental outcomes or direct adverse amenity impacts. The non-compliance is considered to be in the public interest as the non-compliance satisfies the objectives of the development standard (height of buildings) and zone objectives. In this case the Clause 4.6 Statement is considered to be well founded and the non-compliance is considered to be reasonable.

Request for Variation under Clause 4.6 Kogarah LEP 2012 - Clause 6.4 Foreshore Development

120. The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to Foreshore Development pursuant to Clause 6.4 of the KLEP. The LEP identifies a Foreshore Building Line (FBL) of 7.6m for the Site (refer to Figure 11 below). Parts of the proposed building encroach the 7.6m FBL. A variation to the Clause 6.4 (Limited Development on foreshore area) can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the LEP. The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement to support the non-compliance. An assessment of the statement and reasoning for the variation is discussed below.

121. The building wall at the rear has been designed to comply with the 7.6m setback that is stipulated by the KLEP. The balconies, ground floor courtyards and the semi-basement car parking areas all encroach on the FBL. The elements or encroachments vary and are considered to be light weight structures and not enclosed on the upper levels of the building and the solid elements that encroach (basement) are limited in their height and not considered to be dominating features that would affect the character and nature of the foreshore.

Figure 11: Extract from the KLEP (Foreshore Building Line Map_008)

Figure 12: The subject development site and the location of the foreshore building line.

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

122. “Limited development on foreshore area” standard under Clause 6.4 of the KLEP 2012 is a development standard.

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

123. The objectives of the standard under Clause 6.4 of KLEP 2012 is “to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area”.

124. Clause 4.6(1) outlines the objectives of the standard which are to “provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development” and “to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances”.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard [cl. 4.6(3)(b)] for the following reasons;

125. The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement to justify the non-compliance and provides the following arguments;

126. Applicants comments: “A consideration of the FBL overlayed on the survey of the existing site demonstrate how the existing buildings all extend through the FBL and for the most provide substantial above ground structures to the high water mark and beyond (refer to Figure 13 and 14 below). The proposal has taken advantage of the flatter parts of the land to locate massing fronting the Princes Highway so that the proposed building complies with the control with the exception of the western balconies and the below ground structures and entry which steps down the site following the slope.

127. The development has been designed to respect the character and nature of the foreshore and satisfy the FBL, however, parts of the western balconies and the below ground parking and basement entry encroaches on the 7.6m FBL. This is considered acceptable given the siting of the existing structures on site. The proposal will substantially improve the landscape and nature of the site as the concrete areas both above and below the MHWM will be removed and replaced with a landscaped treatment more appropriate to this interface and provide the opportunity for future public foreshore access across this frontage. The site currently contains four dwellings, terraces, boatsheds and ancillary areas all of which extend well forward of the FBL and beyond the MHWM (refer to Figure 13)

Figure 13: Existing buildings located within the FBL (courtesy Mersonn, 2019)

Figure 14: The proposed development superimposed to show where the encroachment on the FBL is compared to the existing structures on the site (courtesy Mersonn, 2019)

128. The proposed building itself will comply with the FBL and where the balconies extend 1.5m – 2.5m beyond the FBL (the balconies are curved and vary in their alignment over the levels of the building) these are a significant improvement to the existing building line. The proposal will improve the character and nature of the development on the foreshore removing extensive buildings and hard stand and landscaping this interface.

129. The proposal is demonstrated not to give rise to any significant amenity impacts in terms of solar access, privacy, views or bulk and scale with regard to the breach and on balance this is considered to be an appropriate approach and it is considered that this is the type of situation for which Clause 4.6 expressly provides.

130. The proposal has taken advantage of the flatter parts of the land to locate massing fronting the Princes Highway so that the proposed building complies with the control with the exception of the western balconies and the below ground structures and entry which steps down the site following the slope.

131. The development has been designed to respect the character and nature of the foreshore and satisfy the FBL, however, parts of the western balconies and the below ground parking and basement entry encroaches on the 7.6m FBL. This is considered acceptable given the siting of the existing structures on site. The proposal will substantially improve the landscape and nature of the site as the concrete areas both above and below the MHWM will be removed and replaced with a landscaped treatment more appropriate to this interface and provide the opportunity for future public foreshore access across this frontage.

132. Clause 4.6(4) states that:

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

(c) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

133. Officer’s comment: At the worst case, Basement 2 wall along the north western side encroaches on the FBL by some 5.6m and is only setback 2m and the height of this element will be RL2.0 which will be some 1.5m - 2m in overall height from the MHWM. Although this may seem tall it is a lower structure than the existing boatsheds and ancillary structures that currently exist and face the water. Also in most situations a sea wall exists which separates land and water areas and aims to prevent coastal erosion and other damage from wave action or storm surge. Existing buildings are much taller and have no direct relationship to the water other than providing storage or space for boats and other such watercraft. This area will be improved as it will be landscaped and the changes in levels will be tapered and stepped up the site. The ground floor courtyards are setback 2m and will be located at RL3.4. The fencing proposed to these courtyards is an open palisade style fence. The existing structures at the rear of properties have also been built beyond the existing rear boundary line as it is unclear where the boundary ends to the foreshore. To ensure that all new work is located within the rear boundary line it will be requested that an updated boundary survey be provided to ensure all new work on site is within the boundaries of the Site. Although the application outlines a conceptual construction process to be adopted to retain the structures west of the boundary it is requested that all ancillary structures to the west of the boundary be removed and disposed of and only the two (2) jetties and slip rails be retained and appropriately protected and access to them maintained. A plan and details of this will have to be provided as a deferred commencement condition.

134. The other elements that encroach are the upper level balconies. They encroach by some 2.5m. As the balconies are substantial in size at each level a condition will require these structures to be reduced to have a maximum width of 2m. This will set them back further from the rear. The basement car park entry is located above ground and this element is also within the FBL, however its height and scale has been reduced by the introduction of landscaping which will soften its appearance and create a more sympathetic transition to the water.

135. The development will provide for more open space along the foreshore as most of the existing structures encroach on this area. The freeing up of this space is of public benefit and will reduce the amount of build form.

136. The intention of the FBL is to create a transition between development and the foreshore. The LEP does not stipulate what elements are able to encroach or be located within the FBL but it is assumed that no buildings or structures sit in front of the FBL. The development has been designed to step up the site and the transition being treated through differing landscape elements. Given the sites are irregular in shape they are all quite narrow in width and along the northern side the length at the narrowest point is only 21.4m. Once a front setback is established and the rear setback/FBL is included, this limits the depth of the building and a very narrow building will look disproportionate with the anticipated massing for a regular six (6) storey RFB. Through the design the Applicant improved the relationship of the building to the waterfront.

137. It is considered that sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that the non-compliance does not result in any adverse environmental impacts.

(iv) 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,

138. The objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone pursuant to the LEP 2012 are;

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

· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

Figure 15: Subject sites showing the rear boundaries (courtesy Nearmaps)

139. Applicants comment: “The objectives of Clause 6.4 in LEP 2012 are;

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

140. It is demonstrated in the plans that the proposal minimises any impact on the natural foreshore processes and in fact significantly improves this relationship. Furthermore, the proposal satisfactorily addresses overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impacts for the neighbouring properties consistent with the desired future character for the locality.

141. The proposal does not create any adverse visual impacts from adjoining properties, the street, waterways and public reserves. The proposal promotes view sharing by retaining envisaged heights across the site. The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the locality and provides an appropriate transition in height between the relevant parts of the new development providing an appropriate scale and intensity of development consistent with the controls. The proposal presents as a building predominantly within the maximum height of buildings as it presents to the street and steps down the slope of the site setting back to the street frontages and to the neighbour the south.

142. When considering Clause 6.4 the following Clauses need to be taken into account:

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes:

(a) the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area,

(b) the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so,

(c) boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, works to enable pedestrian access to the waterway, swimming pools, fences, cycleways or walking trails.

(3) Development consent must not be granted under this clause unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located, and

(b) the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area, and

(c) the development will not cause environmental harm such as:

(i) pollution or siltation of the waterway, or (ii) an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, fauna and flora habitats, or

(iii) an adverse effect on drainage patterns, and

(d) the development will not cause congestion or generate conflict between people using open space areas or the waterway, and

(e) opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised, and

(f) any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained, and

(g) in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore, and

(h) sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been considered.

143. The proposal fits within the category of Clause 6.4(2)(b) being: the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so. The proposal seeks flexibility in the application of the standard where the breach to the FBL arises from a building, which is compatible in bulk and scale with the existing and desired future character. A compliant building would unnecessarily result in a tall and narrow building which could not reasonably accommodate the future occupants with adequate amenity as envisaged by the DCP and ADG on the narrow and steep site. The solution to push the balconies into the building envelope would reduce the achievable internal spaces by approximately 20% and significantly affect the amenity of the future occupants and the ability of the zoning to realise the objectives of achieving housing for the needs of the community in this medium density residential environment. It is considered that these levels, depth and exceptional site features make it appropriate to breach the FBL in the limited way proposed.

144. Officer’s comment: Despite the non-compliance with the FBL the proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 zone in that the development will be provide a variety of housing types within a medium density context. There are no adverse environmental impacts that are generated by the elements that encroach on the FBL and the design of the building will satisfy the objective of Clause 6.4 and the objective of the R3 zone. The development has been amended to improve the relationship between the new building and the waterfront and includes landscape elements that are currently non-existent and to remove boat sheds and ancillary structures that are currently solid, dominating, in a poor state of repair and visually unattractive. The general form and mass of the development is compliant and the rear of the development has been designed to achieve an improved planning and design outcome and relationship of the built form to the natural environment.

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

145. In accordance with clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, council may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards for applications made under clause 4.6 of the LEP. This was further confirmed by directions provided within Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018.

146. In a recent decision (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 118), the NSW Land and Environment Court has established a “five part test” for consent authorities to consider when assessing a DA proposing a clause 4.6 request for variation. These are set out below, together with commentary in respect of the proposed development.

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

Comment: Subclause (1) of Kogarah LEP 2012 states that: The objective of this clause “is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.”

As discussed in greater detail above the objective of the standard has been achieved as the building will not alter the natural/environmental processes of the waterway (tidal conditions etc.). The amenity of the area is intended on being improved through the provision of greater landscaping at the rear and the areas that encroach of the FBL will not adversely affect the significance of this prominent waterfront location.

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

Comment: When considering the objective of Clause 6.4, subclauses Clause 6.4(2) and 6.3(3) need to be taken into account as they have been constructed to assist in the interpretation of the Clause and aim to provide an indication of development that is considered to be acceptable along the foreshore. Clause 4.6(2) states that development consent must not be granted to development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes;

(a) the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area,

(b) the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so,

(c) boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharfs, slipways, jetties, works to enable pedestrian access to the waterway, swimming pools, fences, cycleways or walking trails.

In terms of compliance with Clause 6.4(2) the proposal complies as the proposal fits within the category of Clause 6.4(2)(a) as it is development that it involves “the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the Site make it appropriate to do so”.

Clause 6.4(3) requires a detailed assessment of the proposal against a series of provisions to ensure there are no detrimental impacts on the foreshore in terms of environmental, cultural, social and visual impacts.

The proposal is not considered to pose an adverse visual, aesthetic or environmental impact on the foreshore or immediately adjoining area. The underlying objective of the Clause is relevant in this case however it is seeking to ensure minimal affectation to the natural processes of these waterways and retain ecological systems and natural patterns. The scale and nature of the proposal will not affect the character of this waterway in fact structures will be setback further than the existing buildings which abut the water with no visual relief. The proposal aims to improve and soften this relationship.

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

Comment: The provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 require a degree of flexibility to be applied in assessment of development proposals. The breach of the foreshore building line only occurs as a result of minor portions of the building and is consistent with the general existing established building line (many buildings to the south include larger established structures which are sited right to the boundary edge). The existing ancillary buildings at the rear are in a poor state and have been haphazardly constructed and maintained. The proposed development will substantially improve the visual amenity and functionality of this space at the rear and create attractive areas that will be able to be enjoyed by the future residents.

The objective and purpose of Clause 4.6 is not defeated or thwarted by the non-compliance. The fact the FBL forms part of the mapping of the KLEP it is not directly tied to a development standard or Clause within the KLEP so the Clause that has the most applicability is Clause 6.4. The intention of a FBL is to restrict development on the foreshore and provide a suitable setback to reduce visual bulk and scale impacts when viewing the development from the waterway and foreshore and to maintain the natural landscape that abuts the waterway.

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

Comment: In general, Council strictly enforces compliance with the foreshore building line, and so it cannot be said that this control has been abandoned or destroyed. However, in keeping with the intent of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, variation to the foreshore building line is generally only supported to a minor extent in development proposals, where it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact. This is considered to be the case in this instance, where a small variation is warranted and the new building replaces a series of existing buildings which have ancillary structures at the rear. These structures are currently are in a poor condition and are located immediately on the water. The proposal will remove these outdated buildings and create a better natural environment and improve the foreshore interface.

Comment: The site is zoned for medium density residential purposes in a waterfront location.

Partial non-compliance with the standard will not affect the intention and objectives of the zone and the purpose of the standard.

The proposal complies with Clause 6.4(2)(b) which states that “Development consent must not be granted to development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes….the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so”.

Conclusion – Assessment of Clause 4.6 Request for Variation

147. Despite the non-compliance in terms of the FBL, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and satisfies the provisions of Clause 4.6. The encroachment into the FBL does not give rise to any significant issues regarding impacts on neighbouring properties, such as visual bulk or view loss. The proposal is considered to be acceptable response for the site, it satisfies the objectives of the zone and control, as such the development is considered to be in the public interest and will establish a positive precedent in the area, replace old, dilapidated and outdated buildings and improve the visual quality of the development when viewed from the street and the foreshore.

148. The Applicants Clause 4.6 Statement is considered to be well founded and in this case should be supported.

Development Control Plans

KOGARAH DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 2013 (KDCP)

Table 4: Compliance Table

Part B General Controls
Control		Standard	Proposed		Complies
B1 Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas		Ensure development protects and enhances the environmental and cultural heritage of Kogarah	The subject site is not a Heritage Item or located within a Heritage Conservation Area.		Yes
B2 – Tree Preservation and Greenweb		Development approval is required to ringbark, remove, cut down or destroy any tree that has a height greater than 3.5m or branch spread exceeding 3m in diameter. This locality is within the habitat reinforcement corridor area of the Green Web. In this regard, the provisions of Part B2 Section 2 apply.	The site is not located within a Green Web habitat. There are a few trees to be removed but these are small scale and are currently supressed by retaining walls and other structures. Discussion regarding tree removal was addressed earlier in this report. Although the DCP designates this site to be within the Green Web the subject sites do not include an area of bushland or include any remnant vegetation or mature, important plants/trees.		Yes
B3 – Developments near busy roads and rail corridors		Acoustic assessments for noise sensitive developments as defined in clauses 87 and 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP may be required if located in the vicinity of a rail corridor or busy roads.	As previously mentioned an Acoustic Assessment was prepared and accompanies the application. It considers the design and siting of the development against the provisions in Clauses 101 and 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP. The acoustic report recommends implementation of a series of acoustic construction measures that will improve noise attenuation within the apartments and includes (but not limited to) double glazing, better insulation and other construction methods that will buffer the development from the surrounds. These acoustic measures can be implemented but given the design has been modified the acoustic report will need to be updated to reflect the changes. It is likely similar acoustic measures will be requested to be implemented however the acoustic impacts have been improved through the design.		Yes
B4 – Parking and Traffic		1 bedroom unit = 1 space/unit 2 bedroom unit = 1.5 spaces/unit 3 bedroom unit = 2 spaces/unit 1 visitor space/5 units or part thereof, and 1 designated car wash bay which may also be a visitor space. Car wash bay A minimum of 1% of the total number of car parking spaces within the development are to be designated “accessible” spaces for people with mobility impairments. Bicycle parking 1 space per 3 dwellings plus 1 space per 10 for visitors Internal car park layouts, space dimensions, ramp grades, access driveways, internal circulation aisles and service vehicle areas shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set out in AS 2890.1 (2004) and AS 2890.2 (2002) for off street parking and commercial vehicles. No minimum requirements for loading/unloading for residential developments	Required Residential 8 x 2 bedroom units = 12 spaces 9 x 3 bedroom units = 18 spaces 17/5 visitor spaces = 4 spaces Total = 34 spaces required (30 resident and 4 visitor) Provided = 37 spaces (33 resident and 4 visitor) 1 x car wash = 1 separate car wash bay required. Three (3) accessible spaces provided 17/3 bicycle spaces = 7 spaces including visitor 1 motorcycle space is required. Ten (10) bicycle spaces are provided. The parking layout and arrangement satisfies Council’s requirements and Australian Standards apart from the internal ramp that at present can not accommodate a B99 vehicle. A condition will require the ramp to be widened to accommodate a B99 vehicle to access the development. The application was also referred to RMS and they are satisfied with the traffic generated by the development and access into and out of the site subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the ramp to be designed to enable a B99 vehicle to access.		Yes The parking layout and arrangement satisfies Council’s requirements and Australian Standards as the parking spaces can accommodate a B85 vehicle however the a condition will require the ramp to be enlarged to be able to accommodate a B99 vehicle. The application was also referred to RMS and they are satisfied with the traffic generated by the development subject to the imposition of conditions. No - No car wash bay is designated within the development however a condition will ensure this will be catered for within a visitor space. Yes A condition will require the provision of a motorbike parking space. Yes Yes
B5 – Waste Management		Submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP).	The application was accompanied by a WMP which was assessed by Council’s Coordinator of Environmental Sustainability. No objection was raised in respect to the design of the garbage and waste disposal area and arrangement subject to standard conditions. It is intended on placing the garbage bins outside Blake Avenue for collection. A condition will require the removal of the WC to provide some more space within the bin store for any bulky goods or larger items to be stored or disposed of.		Yes
B6 – Water Management		Detention storage is to be provided that is equal to or greater than the specified Site Storage Requirements (SSR). Rainwater tank installed to meet BASIX water conservation requirements will be given credit for SSR purpose. Drainage easements servicing stormwater pipes and/or overland runoff from catchments upstream of the development site are to be managed according with Council’s guidelines. Discharge of stormwater runoff from a development site is to be undertaken in accordance with the design practice note, Site Drainage and Flood Management regarding direct discharge to kerb, discharge to a Council owned stormwater conduit, discharge to natural areas, discharge through private property and discharge within the development site.	The subject site is not located within flood prone land. No rainwater tank is included and will be requested to be implemented. The application was referred to Council’s Stormwater Engineers who assessed the proposed stormwater and drainage arrangement and are generally satisfied with the layout as the development intends on draining to the rear of the site to Shipwrights Bay which is consistent with the current drainage from the sites. One issue of concern is the outlet pipe which is proposed on public land. Council’s Stormwater Engineers are not satisfied with the design and treatment of this outlet and a condition will require a more detailed design to ensure that the outlet is not visually dominant.		Yes No – but will be satisfied by way of a condition Generally satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions.
B7 – Environmental Management		Orient the building, as far as possible, so that the longest side is on the east-west axis. The main facades of a building should be orientated towards the north, preferably within a range of 30 degrees east and 20 degrees west of true north. Maximise the number of windows on the northern face of the building. The use of dark coloured roofing is discouraged unless solar cells are integrated into the roof. Minimise glazing on the southern and western sides of the building.	The application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate which confirms compliance with the minimum requirements of the SEPP (thermal comfort and water usage). The northern elevation of the development is a narrow width area, the majority of the openings face Shipwrights Bay which is the western side of the development. The northern façade is well articulated with window openings which address main habitable areas and face the pocket park land opposite. The proposed flat roof includes a roof terrace and the proposed finishes and colours are light and generally transparent. Balconies face west and north west however these elements include privacy screens which will be adjustable and can move across the elevation. Glazing has been minimized along the southern side.		Yes
Part C2 – Medium Density Housing
Site Isolation and amalgamation	A number of sites have been highlighted in the KDCP that will require amalgamation to avoid site isolation.		The subject site is not subject to the amalgamation plan. The proposal involves the consolidation of four (4) sites which is a desirable long term future outcome for this waterfront area and is necessary to achieve the required allotment size.		Yes
Precinct Controls	A number of sites have been highlighted as “precincts” within subsection 2 of the DCP.		The site is located within Foreshore Locality No.5 Blakehurst South (refer to Part C3 below and Figure 17 for mapping information)		Yes
Minimum site and density requirements	Stipulates a minimum frontage width of 20m and a minimum of 2.1sqm per sqm of per dwelling for RFB’s in designated precincts. The minimum site area requirements for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings are contained in Clause 4.1A of Kogarah LEP 2012.		The site has a frontage of 40.4m to Princes Highway. Complies with KLEP provisions which override KDCP in terms of density, scale and height. The site area exceeds the minimum 1,000sqm that is required pursuant to KLEP 2012.		Yes
Height and building envelope	Building envelopes have been established for development in the R3 zone. In respect to RFB’s the DCP stipulates an overall height of 14m (to the ridgeline) for 4 storeys and a maximum wall height of 12m. Min floor to ceiling height of 2.7m Rooftop terraces are prohibited unless they are directly linked to penthouse units.		The building exceeds the 14m overall height. This control is outdated as the DCP has not been amended to reflect the changes in the KLEP which permit a building of 21m. Complies, all levels have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m. Rooftop terraces are permitted and encouraged by SEPP 65 especially if it provides for communal open space. The space is centralised and communal in nature and will not adversely affect adjoining properties.		No however the KLEP controls override the KDCP controls Yes No - however ADG provisions encourage communal areas of open space on the roof top.
Building setbacks	Front setback - 75% of the width of the building must be setback a min 5m with the remaining 25% setback 7m Side and rear setbacks – 3m plus one-quarter the amount that the wall exceeds 3m.		This provision would require 30m of the frontage width of the building to be setback 7m with the remaining 10.4m setback at 5m from the front. The building has been setback 4m from the front with the staircase structure encroaching on the front setback. The staircase is considered to be an architectural element that has been designed to create increased articulation and break up the bulk when viewed from the frontage. There is no consistent front building alignment along this side of the street with the two existing commercial properties are sited directly on the front boundary. Given that the proposal is located on a busy main road, greater height to this frontage and lesser setback is considered acceptable as it will not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties. Refer to discussion below. This control requires a side setback of 7.5m based on the 21m height of the building. On the southern side the building is setback 6m up to the fourth level then setback 9m for the fifth and sixth levels. There is only a minimal non-compliance with the DCP provision at the first four levels however the proposal along this side satisfies the separation distances required by the ADG. Along the northern side the building is setback 4m. Although non-compliant with both the DCP and the ADG the siting of the building is considered satisfactory given it adjoins a secondary roadway and a local pocket park. The issue of side setbacks and minimum separation distances is addressed as part of the ADG assessment earlier in this report.		No but considered acceptable given the site constraints as discussed in the SEPP 65 assessment. See Setback discussion below
Site Coverage	RFB’s max 45% site coverage which amounts to 454sqm		Site coverage amounts to 457sqm which amounts to 45%		Yes
Open Space	Ground floor courtyards min 35sqm in area per dwelling with min dimension 3m Minimum width of 4m Maximum gradient of 1 in 10 Suitably landscaped and directly accessible from the dwelling at ground level; and Balconies with min area 12sqm and min dimension of 3m Common open space – 30sqm per dwelling which requires a total area of 510sqm of common open space		Rear private courtyards have areas of 36sqm, 47sqm and 78sqm. Minimum width of some courtyards is less than 4m but they are irregular in shape but have large, useable sections. Complies – level access. Deep soil and paved courtyards. Balcony sizes are substantial in area exceeding the DCP and ADG minimum area requirements. This is in accordance with the SEPP 65 provisions which override the DCP criterion. The development provides for some useable ground floor area that is common area which amounts to some 40sqm but given it is located fronting the Princes Highway it is unlikely to be highly useable. The total amount of common open space is 327sqm (ground floor area and roof top terrace). This amounts to 32% of the site which satisfies the ADG provisions.		Yes No but considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the ADG. No - but considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the ADG.
Car Parking	Numerical compliance in accordance with B4 of the DCP Minimise driveways off main roads Parking spaces to have min dimensions 2.6m by 5.5m Provision of a car wash bay		One point of access from the secondary roadway Blake Street. Car parking spaces and general arrangement and layout is compliant. One car wash bay is provided.		Yes
Solar Access	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 the winter solstice (21 June).		Proposal complies with the minimum requirements as all immediately neighbouring properties receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access throughout the day in midwinter. The main adjoining property which will be affected by the development is No.731 Princes Highway. This property is located to the south east of the subject site and is a newly constructed part two, part three storey dwelling house. The shadow diagrams indicate that this property and others located towards the south will be overshadowed by the development between 9am until 12pm. The rear of 731 Princes Highway will not be affected by any overshadowing from 11am onwards. Unfortunately due to the orientation of the adjoining site the front of the property will be overshadowed throughout mid-winter. The main living areas of this home are located to face the water and these will be unaffected.		Generally compliant.
Views and view sharing	Development shall provide for the reasonable sharing of views.		The proposal will not adversely affect or impact on any existing views or outlook from adjoining properties.		Yes
Adaptable and Accessible Housing	The minimum number of adaptable units designed in accordance with AS4299 - 1995 Adaptable Housing must be incorporated into the above developments: (i) 3-10 units – 1 adaptable unit (ii) 11-20 units – 2 adaptable units		A minimum of three (3) adaptable units are provided (units 5, 8 and 11) which exceeds the requirement.		Yes
C3 - Foreshore & Waterfront Controls
		Clause 6.4 of KLEP 2012 specifies provisions to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.		Limited works are proposed along the waterway interface, and include private structures that currently encroach on the waterway being the boat ramps and/or shed that exists is proposed to be removed which will reduce the potential for waterway use and activity by boats.	Yes
6.1 Foreshore & Waterfront Development		Council will not grant consent for residential waterfront structures to land which does not have frontage to the waterway. This includes allotments which only have a right of way to the waterway. Where an existing allotment has a water frontage of less than 9m, Council will not permit waterfront structures unless they are shared.		The subject site has a frontage much greater than 9m and is a large integrated development. The development is not proposing the construction of any new structures along the waterfront (i.e. jetties, boatsheds, slipways etc.) The existing structures are to be removed apart from the Jetties that are to be retained.	Yes
6.2 Jetty, ramp and pontoon structures		A fixed jetty is not to exceed a length of 9m from MHWM including any existing reclamations. The jetty may have a maximum width of 1500mm and a maximum height of 750mm above MHWM (1.29 AHD) (2) A ramp and pontoon extension to a jetty may be permitted provided that the total length of the ramp and jetty does not exceed 15m from MHWM (Figure 1).		No jetty, pontoon, ramp or associated structures are proposed as part of this application.	N/A
6.3 Stabilisation Piles		Council will generally only permit a maximum of two freestanding end piles to stabilise a jetty or a pontoon in areas subject to moderate to heavy wave exposure. The Foreshore Locality Controls specify the circumstances when stabilisation piles are permitted.		Not proposed as part of this application.	N/A
6.4 Sliprails		Sliprails are to be in the form of two parallel rails located as close as practical to the seabed and must be recessed into any seawall or reclamation to minimise the height of the sliprails.		Not proposed as part of this application.	N/A
6.5 Boatsheds		Boatsheds are to be single storey and will generally only be permitted at or above MHWM.		Not proposed as part of this application.	N/A
6.6 Swimming Pools/Spa Pools		Any swimming pool or spa pool is to be sited as close to natural or existing ground level as possible. In this regard, the coping level of swimming pools and spa pools is not to be elevated more than 500mm above natural or existing ground		No swimming pool or spa is proposed.	N/A
6.7 Seawalls		The construction of seawalls is not generally favoured as these detract from the natural appearance of the foreshore and will only be considered where justified on the basis of avoiding flooding or for necessary retention works.		There is currently no defined seawall along the rear of these properties. It is currently defined by the existing structures (boat sheds, jetties and smaller boundary fences) The proposal will provide for a more defined rear boundary sandstone wall that will act as a seawall.	Yes
6.8 Reclamation		Council will only consider reclamations where there are exceptional circumstances.		No reclamation of any land is proposed.	N/A
6.9 Inclinators and Stairs		Inclinators and stairs to enable pedestrian access to the waterfront are permitted between the FBL and MHWM.		No inclinator is proposed.	N/A
6.10 Landscaping		Natural features along the foreshore are to be retained and the removal of natural rock, trees and vegetation to enable the construction of landscaping will not be supported. Natural ground levels are to be retained with minimal use of retaining walls. Where retaining walls are constructed, materials and colours that blend into the character and landscape of the area shall be used. Endemic native species should be used in areas where native vegetation is present or has the potential to be regenerated. Existing mature trees should be retained where possible and incorporated into the design of new developments. Vegetation along ridgelines and on hillsides should be retained and supplemented with additional planting to provide a backdrop to the waterway. A landscape plan is to be submitted for any development between FBL and MHWM. The level of detail required will depend on the level of works being undertaken. Where a landscape plan is submitted it should indicate the existing and proposed changes in contours, existing trees/vegetation to be retained and removed, measures to protect vegetation during construction and proposed planting including species and common names.		The rear yards of the subject properties on the foreshore have been substantially altered and include a number of built forms. There are no natural features to be retained or landscaping elements. There are no natural rock outcrops, remnant vegetation or natural features that exist at the rear of the site. The new landscaping that is proposed for the site will include native species and aims to enhance the natural landscape by introducing new landscaping elements. There are no large, significant trees that exist on site. The proposed landscaping plan will introduce large trees to be planted along the front and southern side of the site where there are pockets of deep soil area. As previously mentioned there are no significant trees located at the rear of the site and the proposed replacement planting will comprise of native species that are endemic to the area. A condition will require the planting of new street trees along Blake Avenue and Prince Highway. The pot sizes referenced on the plan will also be conditioned to be increased in size to accommodate mature plant species.	Yes
6.11 Dredging		Council will generally not support dredging in the W2 Recreational Waterways zone unless a Public Authority is undertaking the work or there is a general public benefit to be gained by the work.		Not proposed as part of this development.	N/A

C4 Foreshore Locality Controls – Blakehurst South

5.3 Natural Environment

The Aquatic Lands Inventory Sheet (1991) indicates the following natural characteristics were present in this Locality:

• Seagrasses

• Mud/Sand Flats, Scattered Rock, Rocky Foreshore

• Tidal Public Foreshore Access

• Fish breeding/feeding ground

An ecological study may be required to be submitted with any application for development below MHWM.

No works are proposed below the MHWM

N/A

Locality 5(a)

5.7 Water and Land Interface Development

(between MHWM and FBL)

5.8 Water Based Development (development below MHWM)

5.9 Land Based Development

Development between MHWM and the FBL (1) The following table indicates the type of development “permitted”, “restricted” and “permitted, subject to specific controls” between Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) and the Foreshore Building Line (FBL):

Boatsheds (single storey) permitted

Fencing (open form) permitted

Inclinators – permissible

Jetties and ramps – permitted subject to specific conditions

Landscaping – subject to compliance with the requirements of the Green Web.

Sliprails, stairs, swimming pools and spa pools – permissible

Boatsheds, jetties, ramps, pontoons, stabilisation piles, swimming pools – not permissible

Buildings should be sited on the block to retain existing ridgeline vegetation, where possible. Siting buildings on existing building footprints or reducing building footprints to retain vegetation and the natural landform is highly recommended. In this regard, Council may consider variations to setback and height requirements to retain existing ridgeline vegetation, particularly where it provides a backdrop to the waterway, but only where it can be demonstrated that the variations:

i. do not increase the visual impact of the dwelling, when viewed from the water;

ii. still achieve a built form that is in scale and proportion with the site and adjoining development; and iii. the overall development complies with the floor space requirements as contained in Part C1 Section 1.2.1.

On sites where the slope exceeds 1:8 (12.5%), dwellings should not have the appearance from any elevation of being more than three levels from the water. Such designs should be stepped with the bulk of the development setback as far from the water as possible

The maximum number of storeys at any point is two (2). However, in certain circumstances, Council may permit a variation to this requirement where the design of the dwelling results in a reduced building footprint and site coverage and results in the following: (i) Preservation of topographic features of the site, including rock shelves and cliff faces;

(ii) Retention of significant trees and vegetation, particularly in areas where the loss of this vegetation would result in the visual scarring of the landscape, when viewed from the water; and

(iii) Minimised site disturbance through cutting and/or filling of the site

Facades and rooflines of dwellings facing the water are to be broken up into smaller elements with a balance of solid walls to glazed areas. Rectangular or boxy shaped dwellings with large expanses of glazing and reflective materials are not acceptable. In this regard, the maximum amount of glazed area to solid area for façades facing the foreshore is to be 50%-50%.

Colours that harmonise with and recede into the background landscape are to be used. In this regard, dark and earthy tones are recommended and white and light coloured roofs and walls are not permitted. To ensure that colours are appropriate, a schedule of proposed colours is to be submitted with the Development Application and will be enforced as a condition of consent.

Swimming pools and surrounds should be sited in an area that minimises the removal of trees and limits impact on the natural landform features (rock shelves and platforms).

On steeper slopes, preference is given to the use of stable rock ledges and escarpments, as opposed to retaining walls. In circumstances where it is appropriate, a landscape batter is preferable to retaining walls.

Adequate landscaping shall be provided to screen undercroft areas and reduce their impact when viewed from the water.

Where there is a strong design character in existing buildings, new dwellings must, when viewed from the waterway incorporate design elements (such as roof forms, textures, materials, the arrangement of windows, modulation, spatial separation, landscaping etc) that are compatible with that character.

Blank walls facing the waterfront shall not be permitted. In this regard, walls are to be articulated and should incorporate design features, such as:

(i) awnings or other features over windows; or

(ii) recessing or projecting architectural elements; or (iii) open, deep verandas.

No new boatsheds are proposed.

Design of fencing along the foreshore is an open style and consistent with the desired future character for fencing.

Not proposed

Satisfactory

Not proposed

None of these structures are proposed as part of this application.

These controls were developed prior to these sites being upzoned and relate specifically to new dwellings and alterations and additions. The DCP has not been amended to reflect the LEP changes.

The built form and overall design of the RFB has been amended to be a more sympathetic response to this sensitive waterfront location. It will be one of the first developments in this precinct however has been designed to comply with Council’s new height and FSR control and to satisfy the majority of the ADG controls.

The development proposed has a six (6) storey scale, and therefore does not satisfy the control however the development complies with the LEP planning controls in respect to height and FSR.

The development exceeds two (2) storeys in scale and as previously mentioned this DCP has not been updated to reflect the density and height changes that have been included in the LEP, which permits a height of 21m.

This clause permits a variation to the maximum two (2) storey scale if the characteristics of the foreshore and topographic features are maintained and preserved.

Although the development exceeds the scale and form that is anticipated under the DCP, the proposal seeks to improve the visual qualities of the foreshore and improve the interface between the water and new built form. The introduction of landscaping adjacent to the water and the reduction in the overall height of structures will improve the visual qualities of the water and transition of development to the foreshore.

The western façade which faces the water comprises of balconies as this is the best orientation for these elements as the eastern side of the site faces the busy highway.

The proposed colours, materials and finishes are contemporary in nature and aim to be sympathetic with the coastal characteristics present. The proposed colours and materials are considered to be consistent with and respect the character of the area and locality.

No swimming pools or spas are proposed.

The proposal includes some retaining walls which will act as a seawall to some degree. The basement car park level cannot be catered for solely below ground due to obtaining compliance with the gradients to enter the site.

There is no landscaping adjoining the foreshore and the development will improve this situation.

The building includes a series of elements and architectural features which intend on creating a strong architectural design form. The rear balconies are curvilinear and the inclusion of sliding privacy screens will not make this façade static.

There are no blank walls facing the water. The development includes deep verandas and balconies as anticipated by the DCP.

Yes

Figure 15: Extract from the KLEP showing the site located within Locality 5 (Blakehurst South)

Front Setback

149. The DCP control seeks to create a staggered front building alignment and provide diversity and variety in the built form. A standard 5m setback is required for 75% of the width of the site and the further 25% of the building requires a 7m setback.

150. The proposed building is setback between 2m to 4m which does not comply with this provision. The existing buildings on the four (4) allotments do not have a consistent front setback with the commercial buildings having a nil setback. Although small scale residential properties the front setback is staggered as each site is irregular in its area. 723 Princes Highway is setback between 5.2m down to 4m at the front. 725 Princes Highway is setback between 2.5m to 3.5m. The newly constructed dwelling house at 731 Princes Highway is setback between 4m to 5.7m from the front. Given the irregularity of the building alignments of properties along this side of the street, a consistent setback of 4m is considered to be an acceptable urban design response. A front setback of 5m is more appropriate however having a smaller setback to Princes Highway is more appropriate as it allows for a larger setback to the rear and given the narrowness of the site (particularly towards the north), a larger front setback would compromise the overall proportions of the building.

151. The building is located on a busy arterial road and having a larger scale and form facing this roadway is considered satisfactory as it will not create any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The front setback area will include some larger trees and this will screen the lower levels. The staircase is an architectural element which is located close to the front boundary and will improve the articulation of the built form and break up the visual bulk and scale presenting to the Princes Highway.

Foreshore Access Improvement Policy

152. Council is currently in the process of preparing a Foreshore Access Improvement Policy. The purpose of the Policy is to create an integrated policy informing developments along the waterfront. The policy is in its infancy and the scope of the brief is to examine public land only. The Consultant preparing the plan has stated that any recommended actions will not be included for private land.

153. On that basis, the Council is focusing on improving access along the foreshore for public land. It would be beneficial if some form of public access could be provided and introduced along the rear of the sites however currently there is no access at the rear and introducing a public accessway will be difficult as there is limited space and a small accessway will not be able to link up to an area of public open space or an existing established pathway. So in this case there will be limited if no public benefit from this.

154. Given that the site is opposite a public park to the north which provides direct access to the foreshore the issue of promoting public access to the foreshore is maintained in its current form. The removal of the existing structures at the rear will open up the space at the rear and provide for a more natural environment. The removal of the structures will also give some area back to the foreshore that has been used for private purposes for a long time. A condition will require a plan to revegetate the area at the rear of 723 Princes Highway which has been occupied by a boatshed however this structure has been located on public land. A condition will require a detailed plan to consider the treatment of the foreshore and how it can be revegetated once structures are removed. A condition has been imposed to ensure the existing Jetties are retained and access from the development to these structures provided.

Car Parking

155. The original car parking arrangement and design was complicated and convoluted. The layout and arrangement of parking spaces was tight and constrained. This was a result of the density and generation of car parking spaces but also due to the sites constraints. Unfortunately access to and from the site is restricted to Blake Avenue as access off the Princes Highway is discouraged. The existing driveway access off Blake Avenue to 723 Princes Highway is located on the high side of the street, near its intersection with the highway. The new entry to the development can only be provided at the lowest point to achieve compliant gradients and is proposed to be located towards the end of Blake Avenue towards the north-western side of the site.

156. Currently there are three (3) line-marked parallel public parking spaces located where the driveway entry is proposed. Council’s Traffic Engineers have confirmed that two (2) of those spaces are standard parking spaces with one space being a loading bay which has been created to cater for the two existing retail tenancies along the Princes Highway (Smiths Seafood and Sultans Grills). These spaces are proposed to be relocated further to the east to cater for the new driveway entry. The proposed on street parking arrangement is of some concern as these relocated spaces are sited within close proximity to the intersection with the Princes Highway and there could be an issue with safety and sight distances. Council’s Traffic Engineers have not raised concern with the proposed arrangement and have provided “in principle” approval subject to the decision of the Local Traffic Committee. Council’s Traffic Engineer is not concerned if the loading bay space is removed altogether as the existing retail uses will no longer be operating if approval of this development is granted. Also there is a designated public car parking area adjoining the park which caters for ten (10) public car parking spaces and a disabled space. Council’s Traffic Engineer has stated that the Applicant will need to lodge an application in accordance with the Roads Act for the relocation of these public car parking spaces after a determination of the application has been made.

157. In respect to the car parking spaces, their design and arrangement, the original basement plan was very tight and spaces constrained and manoeuvrability awkward. The reduction in the density from twenty one (21) units to seventeen (17) improved the layout and freed up space. In order to improve accessibility throughout the basement levels Revision E plans introduced a number of design methods which will allow for easier parking and reduce the potential for conflicts;

· As there is one single width circular ramp, waiting bays have been introduced at each level.

· The waiting bays work alongside an internalised signalised system which will assist with vehicles entering the site and those leaving and aims to reduce any conflicts and improve sight distances.

· Since the basement design includes tandem spaces, tandem swapping bays have been introduced which allow for vehicles to be able to more freely move within the basement.

· The ramp is conditioned to be designed to accommodate a B99 vehicle; this can be achieved by the re-working of parking spaces to accommodate the additional width of the ramp.

158. Council’s Traffic Engineers raised concerns regarding the layout of spaces and accessibility. These concerns were relayed to the Applicant and it was suggested that since the development had an excess amount of car spaces some of these should be removed so that other spaces were larger and there would be more space for manoeuvrability. The Applicant provided amended basement parking plans (Issue D) which reduced the number of parking spaces (still maintaining numerical compliance with the KDCP) but improving the overall layout and arrangement within the basement levels. Revision E plans submitted in October 2019 increased the width of the ramp by some 300mm however the width was still tight for access a B99 vehicle.

159. The Applicant was requested to provide swept path diagrams to show the start of journey of a vehicle through the basement levels and access to parking spaces. This was prepared in relation to the updated plans and indicated that every car space could be accessed by a B85 vehicle. This was considered acceptable to Council’s Traffic Engineer although they had concerns regarding the width of the access ramp as a B99 vehicle could access the ramp but it was very tight and likely to lead to scrapping which is an unacceptable outcome. Given that the development has an excess of three (3) car parking spaces it is proposed to redesign the basement levels to create a wider ramp with the following changes being implemented by way of a condition;

· Bike spaces within B1 Car Park are to be deleted to enable the width of the ramp to be enlarged.

· Visitor car space No.3 in B2 Car Park is to be removed and this visitor space is to be taken up by the car space designated as “Unit 8” in B3 Car Park. Visitor No.4 shall be increased in size and could accommodate a motor bike space next to this space. This is in order to enable the ramp to be increased.

· A minimum of two (2) bicycle spaces shall be deleted in B3 Car Park to enable the access ramp to be widened.

160. Council’s Traffic Engineers are satisfied with these changes being implemented as a condition.

Interim Policy – Georges River Development Control Plan 2020

161. Council at its Environment and Planning Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2019 resolved to adopt the Georges River Interim Policy DCP.

162. The Interim Policy is a public policy that is to be used as a guide to set a consistent approach for the assessment of residential development within the LGA. It is a supplementary document, meaning that current DCP controls will prevail if they are considered best practice. The Interim Policy has no statutory recognition in the assessment of DAs pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act).

163. An assessment of the proposal has been carried out against the provisions of the Interim Policy as set out in the following table.

Interim Policy – Georges River DCP 2020
Standard	Proposed	Complies
*Site Frontage*
20m	40.4m to Princes Highway	Yes
*Building Height*
The relevant LEP controls relating to building height will prevail over DCP controls that relate to height in storeys	Though the proposal is not compliant with the 21m KLEP 2012 height limit, this has been assessed using Clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012 and is acceptable in the circumstances as it will provide for a rooftop communal open space area.	Yes
*Private Open Space*
The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for private open space	The proposal is fully compliant with the ADG’s private open space requirements. Refer to “4E – Private Open Space and Balconies” within the ADG Compliance Table above.	Yes
*Communal Open Space (COS)*
The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for COS	The proposal is fully compliant with the requirements of the ADG with respect to COS. Refer to “3D – Communal Open Space” within the ADG Compliance Table above.	Yes
*Parking*
In accordance with 'A Plan for Growing Sydney' (Department of Planning and Environment): · If located in a strategic centre (i.e. Kogarah CBD and Hurstville CBD) and within 800m of a Railway, the “Metropolitan Regional Centre (CBD)” rates apply. · If located within 800m of a railway and outside the strategic centres the “Metropolitan Subregional Centre” rates apply. · If located outside of 800m of a Railway, the relevant DCP applies.	The site is not within an “accessible” location although it does have convenient access to a bus stop and public bus services. The amount of off street car parking provided complies with Council’s DCP provisions.	Yes
*Solar Access*
The ADG requirements prevail over the DCP controls for solar access	The proposal is fully compliant with the ADG Solar Access requirements as detailed within the ADG Compliance Table above. Refer to “4A – Solar and Daylight Access” within the ADG Compliance Table.	Yes

Section 7.12 Contributions

164. The proposed development would require payment of developer contributions under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. An appropriate condition is included in the recommended conditions. The following table indicates the contributions that are applicable and are imposed by way of a condition.

Table 5: Section 7.12 Contributions Breakdown Table

IMPACTS

Natural and Built Environment, Social and Economic Impacts

165. The proposed development is replacing some existing, outdated and unattractive buildings and structures on site with a larger scale modern contemporary residential flat building. Given the location of the site on the waterway and its frontage to a busy, noisy arterial road the building has been designed to respect the environmental conditions and site constraints (steep nature and topography) to create an articulated and interesting built form that aims to improve the visual quality of the streetscape.

166. The development should provide short term economic benefits through the construction process and should provide some environmental benefits by improving the visual quality of the waterway and its connection to the adjoining area of public open space and creating a more sympathetic transition between the water and built form.

167. The proposal is unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining developments and aims to have a positive impact on the streetscape and the waterway. The design of the building has been amended on several occasions to address concerns raised by Council and the DRP and it is now considered that the planning and design outcome is an appropriate response for the site as the development generally complies with the height and floor space controls in accordance with the provisions of the KLEP 2012.

Suitability of the site

168. The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential. The proposal is a permissible form of development in this zone. The proposal will not have an unreasonable impact on the adjoining properties and there will be no loss of views from the waterway. It is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography, vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

169. The DA was neighbour notified in accordance with Kogarah DCP 2013 for a period of 14 days on two occasions. A total of four (4) submissions were received in response to the original notification and three (3) submissions were received in response to the amended plans. The issues raised in all the submissions received are summarised below;

· The proposal fails to comply with the Foreshore Building Line (FBL) whilst the recently approved development at 462 - 474 Princes Highway had to comply with the FBL.

Comment:

170. The development site is irregular in shape and configuration and its odd shape makes it difficult to achieve a consistent 7.6m rear setback to comply with the FBL. Currently there are a series of large structures located within the FBL and the proposal will improve the existing relationship between the water and development on the land. The building has been designed so that the encroachments on the FBL comprise of parts of the basement levels however the podium structures although located within the FBL will be courtyards and generally comprise of landscaped area. The building wall has been setback 7.6m to comply with the FBL however the balconies along the western side encroach on the FBL. The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 Statement to justify the non-compliance and this statement has been assessed in detail and considered to be well founded and the variation in this case is considered to be satisfactory as it should result in a better planning and urban design outcome than what exists on site currently.

· The height, bulk and scale of the development is inconsistent with the small scale nature of adjoining residential properties.

Comment:

171. It is recognised and acknowledged that this proposal is the first within this streetscape and immediate precinct of this scale and form. The building will be much taller and larger than the immediately adjoining properties which are still small scale in nature (single to three storeys in scale). These properties have been upzoned to permit a larger scaled development and the proposal has been amended on several occasions to create a generally compliant built form with the height of the building largely complying with the 21m height limit (apart from some ancillary rooftop structures encroaching on the height limit). The floor space is also compliant.

172. Initially this development will establish a larger scaled built form precedent in the immediate area however the development is largely compliant with the key planning controls and as such reflects the desired built form for future development in this area. The recent development approval for 468-474 Princes Highway (DA2018/0393) reflects a similar built form outcome.

· Height is non-compliant

Comment

173. The building has been amended to be generally compliant with the height control apart from some ancillary roof top structures which encroach on the 21m height limit. The variation to the height is considered small scale and comprises of the lift overrun and staircase which provides access to the roof top. The Applicant has lodged a Clause 4.6 Statement to justify the non-compliance which is considered to be satisfactory in this case. No habitable areas encroach on the height limit and there will be no adverse amenity or environmental impacts generated by the variation. The statement justifying the non-compliance has been addressed in detail earlier in this report and is considered to be well founded and the variation is considered to be reasonable in this case.

· The basement car park which protrudes above ground is an overbearing and bulky structure.

Comment:

174. The scale, form and bulk of this basement structure has been modified and reduced. The final amended plans have reduced the structures at the rear. The building is essentially stepped from the rear. The wall at the rear steps up some 1.5m from the existing ground level then rises a further 1.4m to reach the courtyard levels. The basement levels cannot be lowered any further as internal gradients will not comply. The treatment of the rear of the building is substantially improved and with the stepped form this will create a more consistent transition from water to the built form and the provision of landscaping at the rear will also soften the appearance of these structures. The removal of existing ancillary buildings (boatsheds) located on the boundary and which currently encroach over the boundary will be removed and more waterfront land will be accessible, opened up and appropriately landscaped.

· Unacceptable shadowing impacts to the immediately adjoining property to the south.

Comment

175. It is inevitable that 731 Princes Highway will be impacted by any redevelopment at the subject site due to its southern orientation. The reduction in the height of the building will reduce the length of shadows cast. The shadow diagrams indicate that between 9am to 12pm the front and northern side of 731 Princes Highway will be overshadowed however the rear of the property will be free of any shadows cast by 11am onwards. Although the front of the property will not receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight during the day in mid-winter, the rear of the property is where the private area of open space is located and where the main living areas are orientated given that is where the water views are. Given that this is the main area for entertaining and where the main living areas are situated, this part of the property will receive ample solar access during mid-winter and will satisfy the KDCP provisions.

Figure 16: Proposed overshadowing at 9am, 12noon and 3pm (June)

· 731 Princes Highway could in the future be isolated and this will be a poor urban design and streetscape outcome.

Comment:

176. This precinct does not include a consolidation or site amalgamation plan however the KLEP does require a minimum site area of 1,000sqm and minimum site frontage width of 20m. The proposal satisfies these controls. Developers are encouraged to amalgamate sites even when there is no defined amalgamation plan as per the principles established in the court case Karavellas v’s Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC are to be considered in the assessment process which state that where a property will be isolated by a proposed development and that property cannot satisfy the minimum lot requirements then negotiations between the owners of the properties should commence at an early stage and prior to the lodgement of the development application.

177. Site isolation is not encouraged and will be considered when development applications are lodged and assessed.

· Adverse impact on property values

Comment:

178. This is not a consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· Privacy impacts from the rear balconies

Comment

179. A condition will be included to ensure there are privacy screens included along the southern sides of balconies to reduce the potential for overlooking to properties to the south.

· Increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the construction of the development

Comment:

180. Any Construction activity will increase traffic through the additional truck movements and builders on site. This is temporary in nature and standard conditions will require the Applicant to prepare a detailed Construction Management Plan that will regulate and stipulate construction methods/movements. In this case, no works zone will be permitted on the Princes Highway, so works will occur from the side street (Blake Avenue). This should reduce the impact on any adjoining developments to the south.

· Does the development satisfy Crown Lands Department in respect to the provision of works to the boundary/seawall.

Comment:

181. The development has been referred to the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR), which is the former Department of Industries as the site is located within 40m of a watercourse. This authority has provided their formal concurrence to the application subject to the imposition of General Terms of Approval if consent is to be granted. The authority did not raise any concerns with the proposed siting and design of the development and its relationship to the waterway.

· Relocation of the public parking spaces on Blake Street will be dangerous and their siting will reduce the turning circle into the street.

Comment

182. This issue has been addressed earlier in the report in the parking section. Council’s Traffic Engineers have not raised any concerns in regards to the relocation of the public parking spaces however agreement to the redesign of any public parking needs to be formally approved by the Local Traffic Committee and an application under the Roads Act will need to be submitted to Council if approval is granted where this issue will be assessed and considered.

· Deep soil zones along the southern boundary may have an adverse impact on existing infrastructure located at 731 Princes Highway.

Comment

183. The provision of the deep soil zones along the southern side allow for more significant trees and landscaping to be planted along this side of the site. This will soften the appearance of the development and screen the lower levels. The greenery will also reduce the potential for overlooking.

184. A standard condition will be imposed if consent is granted to ensure that a dilapidation report is prepared which seeks to protect the adjoining property from any potential structural damage.

· Council should confirm overall heights and floor space calculations are accurate.

Comment

185. These have been considered in accordance with the definitions of building height and gross floor area in accordance with the KLEP and are considered to be accurate.

· Inadequate details regarding the demolition of structures and plan of management for construction activity and vehicles.

Comment:

186. Sufficient plans and details have been provided in relation to the demolition of structures on site. What is lacking are the details of structures to be retained i.e. the jetties and how these are to be accessed and also the landscaping treatment of the area that will replace existing structures. A condition will require a detailed plan to be lodged prior to the determination of the Construction Certificate.

187. The standard height control for this part of Kogarah was modified as part of the Kogarah LEP 2012 (Amendment 2) from a 12m height limit to a 21m height limit.

188. Although the development exceeds the 21m height limit in parts the exceedance is not visible at the front of the building as the front façade to the Princes Highway is 5 storeys along the northern side and 6 storeys along the southern side. Based on a 21m height limit this allows for approximately 7 storeys (excluding the lift overrun as these elements often exceed the height as they access a rooftop communal area of open space. So the development as viewed from the front complies with the height limit.

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

Environmental Health and Building

189. The application was referred to Council’s Building Section for comment. The proposal was considered against the provisions of Clause 98 of the EP&A Act Regulation and with the Building Code of Australia. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the implementation of conditions if approval is granted.

Development Engineer

190. The application was referred to Council’s Engineers for comments. No objection was raised in respect to the design of the proposed stormwater/drainage subject to the imposition of conditions.

191. Of relevance, Council’s Engineer was not satisfied with the design and treatment of the proposed stormwater drain outlet/pit to be located along the north-western side of the site. A condition is included to ensure this issue is adequately addressed.

Traffic Engineer

192. The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment. Council’s Traffic Engineer raised a series of design issues regarding the car parking layout and arrangement.

193. The basement design was amended on three (3) occasions and the current plan (Issue E) has improved the configuration of the basement levels. The design is considered to be satisfactory subject to the imposition of standard conditions to ensure compliance with AS2890 is achieved. As discussed earlier in this report a condition will be imposed to ensure the access ramp is widened to accommodate a B99 vehicle more comfortably however the reconfiguration of the car parking spaces are considered to be satisfactory as most can be accessed by a B85 vehicle.

Strategic Planning comments

194. The original application was referred to Council’s Strategic Planning section for general urban design comments given this is one of the first multi-unit development proposals within this precinct in accordance with the amendments to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Amendment No.2) also known as the New City Plan which was gazetted on 26 May 2017.

195. Under the New City Plan amendment, this area of Princes Highway, known as ‘Blakehurst Waterfront’ was rezoned from E4 Environmental Living to R3 Medium Density Residential with a building height of 21m and FSR of 2:1 and a minimum lot size of 850sqm.

196. The former Kogarah Council at its Extraordinary Council meeting held on 4 April 2016 resolved that the New City Plan should be amended to respond to the submissions received during the public exhibition, including the following amendments pertaining to the subject site which is located within the “Blakehurst Precinct – Blakehurst Waterfront”:

“Amend the Proposed Height for No.’s 424-436, No.’s 448-454, No.’s 468-474 and No.’s 723 - 741 Princes Highway from 21m to a split height of 12m along the Princes Highway frontage increasing to 15m along the rear of the blocks and amend the Proposed FSR from 2:1 to 1:5:1.”

197. The intent of the reduction was to scale back the bulk and density of the buildings in this area along the waterfront. However, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) advised that the post-exhibition changes made by the former Kogarah Council at its extraordinary meeting were not included in the gazetted KLEP 2012 Amendment No.2 because the amendments were not publicly re-exhibited. As such, the gazetted KLEP 2012 reflects the exhibited development standards for the subject site, which is a maximum building height of 21m and FSR of 2:1.

198. There was also an absence of a specific provision relating to the creation of foreshore public access in the gazetted KLEP 2012. However, there is an existing subclause 6.4(3)(e) which relates to opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway:

6.4 Limited development on foreshore area

(3) Development consent must not be granted under this clause unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(e) opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised,

199. Council’s Strategic Planning comments stated that “Provision of a publicly accessible walkway is recommended along the western foreshore boundary of the site to provide for a future continuous link along the foreshore from Dover Park east to Dover Park west.” The issue of access along the foreshore has been addressed in more detail earlier in this report. There is currently no public access provided along the western side of the sites which front Shipwrights Bay. This development will open up the foreshore and will remove all old dilapidated structures which have been constructed across common boundaries. It will also create more space for the public to appreciate the foreshore and the intention of the consent is to ensure that the development allows for accessibility along the foreshore and to provide some form of access to the existing piers.

200. Additional strategic comments included the following “The Kogarah DCP 2013 has yet to be updated to reflect the future desired character under the New City Plan for the Blakehurst Waterfront area. However, the existing objectives and performance criteria, particularly those related to building design, façade treatment and materials are considered relevant when assessing waterfront development, particularly when viewed from within Shipwright’s Bay.

201. Any development should have consideration for the Foreshore and Waterfront controls and Foreshore Locality Controls contained within the Kogarah DCP 2013 (Part C3 and C4 respectively).

External finishes and material

202. The site is within Locality 5 – Blakehurst South ‘Shipwrights Bay to Pleasant Way”. The objectives for this foreshore locality controls include:

(c) Minimise the level of reflectivity for facades facing the foreshore

(d) Colours and materials of dwellings should be sympathetic with their surrounds and blend into the natural landscape.

(f) Minimise the visual impact of retaining walls, when viewed from the water.

203. With consideration to the above objectives and the relevant controls in this section, the proposed white/ light coloured render should be avoided and it is recommended that an alternative darker recessive colour be incorporated into the colour schedule. Further, light coloured roofs are not permitted and similarly a recessive colour is recommended.

204. The use of sandstone is acceptable in this location and the use of real stone veneer is recommended over artificial sandstone cladding for overall aesthetic and the durability.

205. Excessive glazing is to be minimised. The DCP requires a maximum amount of glazed area to solid area for façades facing the foreshore to be 50%-50%. (Note: the calculation of glazing has not been undertaken for this referral).

206. The DCP requires adequate landscaping to be provided to screen undercroft areas and reduce their impact when viewed from the water. The design and location of the carpark podium and its interface and presentation to the waterfront is considered undesirable, and whilst the proposed landscaping provides some visual relief, it is recommended that the design include terracing or other design elements to soften the height of the wall when viewed from the water.

Open Space

207. The proposed location of the communal open space on the southern side of building is considered inappropriate, as it will be shaded for most of the year. An accessible roof top garden with communal open space should be incorporated into the design. “

208. The design of the development has been modified to improve the relationship of the built form to the waterway by stepping the building up from the foreshore and reducing the height of retaining walls and fencing and removing the originally, large and dominating podium structures to the basement garage level.

209. The proposed materials and colours are considered to be acceptable and aim to engage with the immediately adjoining environment. The proposed colours, materials and finishes are sympathetic with the character of the area and will fit in with the characteristics of the foreshore ie sandstone finish, rendered elements, timber panelling and privacy screens and darker palisade fencing details.

External Referrals

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

210. The application was referred to RMS in accordance with Clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993 as the Princes Highway is a classified State Road.

211. RMS reviewed the proposal and provided formal concurrence and an “in principle” approval subject to the imposition of a series of conditions if consent is to be granted.

Department of Primary Industries – Water

212. The development is located within 40m of a waterway and is within “waterfront” land therefore the provisions of the Water Management Act 2000 need to be considered. The proposal was referred to the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR), former Department of Industries for concurrence. On 15 May 2019 NRAR provided a formal response and raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the implementation of General Terms of Approval (GTA) which requires a Controlled Activity approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act).

213. These GTAs are included as conditions if consent is issued.

Sydney Airports

214. The application was referred to Sydney Airports for comment as the building height exceeds the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) Level of 15.24m. No objection is raised in respect to the proposed development as the height of the prescribed airspace at this location is 156m (AHD). An application for Approval of crane operation will be required prior to the Construction Certificate being issued. A condition is included to ensure this occurs.

CONCLUSION

215. The proposal has been assessed using the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory and recommended for approval subject to conditions, as discussed throughout this report.

216. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the KLEP 2012 and KDCP 2013 and the proposal is generally compliant with the main statutory controls apart from the building partially exceeding the height limit. A Clause 4.6 Statement has been submitted with the application justifying the variation in this case.

217. A detailed assessment of the Clause 4.6 Statement in respect to height has been conducted and given the unique nature of the site, its topographical constraints the fact the exceedance maintains compliance with the objectives of both the height control and the zone objectives, the proposed variation is considered to be well founded in this case and the Clause 4.6 Statement should be supported.

218. The applicant has also lodged a Clause 4.6 Statement in respect to the non-compliance with the Foreshore Building Line (FBL) whereby part of the building encroaches on the 7.6m FBL. The statement justifies that the encroachment is considered to be satisfactory and despite the variation the design satisfies the objectives of the zone and the development standard (Clause 6.4 of the KLEP). In this case the Clause 4.6 statement is considered to be well founded and should be supported.

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

Statement of Reasons

219. The reasons for this recommendation are:

· The proposed development complies with the requirements and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan except in respect to the height of the development which is considered acceptable having regard to the justification provided in the report above.

· The applicant has amended the proposal from that originally submitted to address issues raised by the Design Review Panel and Council officers to provide a better design outcome when viewed from the Princes Highway and the waterway and to improve the internal functionality of the building.

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

· The proposal aims to create a positive contribution to the streetscape through its design, use of materials and finishes and siting of the building.

· The design aims to improve the relationship and interface of the building to the water and create a sensitive and sympathetic transition from water to land.

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

Determination

A. THAT Georges River Local Planning Panel support the request for variation under Clause 4.6 of Kogarah LEP 2012, in relation to the Foreshore Building Line control (Clause 6.4).

B. THAT Georges River Local Planning Panel support the request for variation under Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah LEP 2012, in relation to the building height control (Clause 4.3).

C. THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) the Georges River Local Planning Panel grant development consent to Development Application DA2018/0381 for the demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building comprising of seventeen (17) residential apartments, two levels of basement car parking containing thirty seven (37) car spaces, roof top communal open space and associated landscaping at Lot 22, 23, 24 and 25 in DP6944, and known as 723-729 Princes Highway, Blakehurst, in accordance with the following conditions.

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

Description	Reference No.	Date	Revision
Plans prepared by AGM Studio
3D Render 1	DA 01.1	15/7/19	C
3D Render 2	DA 01.2	15/7/19	C
3D Render 3	DA 01.3	15/7/19	C
3D Render 4	DA 01.4	15/7/19	C
3D Render 5	DA 01.5	15/7/19	C
3D Render 6	DA 01.6	15/7/19	C
Site Analysis	DA 01.10	15/7/19	C
Site Plan	DA 01.13	15/7/19	C
B3 Carpark	DA 01.14	28/10/19	E
B2 Carpark	DA 01.15	28/10/19	E
B1 Carpark	DA 01.16	28/10/19	E
Ground floor	DA 01.17	15/7/19	C
Level 1 floor plan	DA 01.18	15/7/19	C
Level 2 floor plan	DA 01.19	15/7/19	C
Level 3 floor plan	DA 01.20	15/7/19	C
Level 4 floor plan	DA 01.21	15/7/19	C
Level 5 floor plan	DA 01.22	15/7/19	C
Roof Plan	DA 01.23	15/7/19	C
Streetscape Elevation	DA 01.25	15/7/19	C
Elevations 1	DA 01.27	15/7/19	C
Elevations 2	DA 01.28	15/7/19	C
Section A-01	DA 01.29	15/7/19	C
Section A-02	DA 01.30	15/7/19	C
Sections B-01, B-02	DA 01.31	15/7/19	C
Section C-01	DA 01.32	15/7/19	C
Driveway Profile	DA 01.33	15/7/19	C
Ramp profile	DA 01.34	15/7/19	C
Schedule of Finishes 1/2	DA 01.35	15/7/19	C
Schedule of Finishes 2/2	DA 01.36	15/7/19	C
Survey Plan prepared by Daw and Walton Sheet 1/3 Sheet 2/3 Sheet 3/3	Job No. 4049-17	10/01/18	N/A
Landscape Plans	L/01’A’, L/02’D, L/03’A’	11/7/19	N/A

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

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

Separate approval is required under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath) listed below. An application is required to be lodged and approved prior to the commencement of any of the following works or activities:

Placing or storing materials or equipment;

a) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

b) Erecting a structure or carrying out work;

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

d) Pumping concrete from a public road;

e) Pumping water from the site into the public road;

f) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

g) Establishing a “works zone”;

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

i) Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve;

j) Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land.

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

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the approval provided to the Certifier 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.

3. Below ground anchors - Information to be submitted with S68 Application under LGA 1993 and S138 Application under Roads Act 1993 - 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 must 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.

The following details must be submitted:

k) That cable anchors will be stressed released when the building extends above ground level to the satisfaction of Council;

l) 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.

m) Documentary evidence of such insurance cover to the value of $20 million;

n) The applicant must register a non-terminating bank guarantee in favour of Council. An amount will be determined when the application is lodged;

o) 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.

p) 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.

4. Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council 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.

Requirements of Other Government Authorities

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

6. Notice of Requirements for a Section 73 Certificate - A Notice of Requirements of what will eventually be required when issuing a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. Please refer to the ‘Plumbing, building and developing’ section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to ‘Providers’ under ‘Developing’ or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

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

The Notice of requirements must be submitted prior to the commencement of work. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate will be required at the completion of development in accordance with further conditions.

7. Electricity Supply - An application is required to be made to Ausgrid for a network connection. This may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. Evidence of this application being lodged with Ausgrid is required to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. For further details, you are advised to contact Ausgrid on 13 13 65 or www.ausgrid.com.au (Business and Commercial Services).

8. Application for Approval of Crane Operation - Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed development and consequently, may not be approved under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations. Sydney Airport advises that approval to operate construction equipment (ie cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct.

9. Natural Resources Access Regulator – The following general terms of approval will need to be satisfied prior to the commencement of any work or activity;

(i) Before commencing any proposed controlled activity on waterfront land, an application must be submitted to Natural Resources Access Regulator, and obtained, for a controlled activity approval under the Water Management Act 2000.

(ii) The following plan(s): - Erosion and Sediment Controls Plan must be:

A. prepared in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, Volume 1 (Landcom, 2004), as amended or replaced from time to time, and

B. submitted with an application for a controlled activity approval.

(iii) The consent holder must ensure that any proposed materials or cleared vegetation, which may:

i. obstruct water flow, or

ii. wash into the water body, or

iii. cause damage to river banks, are not stored on waterfront land, unless in accordance with a plan held by Natural Resources Access Regulator as part of a controlled activity approval.

When the carrying out of the controlled activity has been completed, surplus materials must be removed from waterfront land.

(iv) The proposed erosion and sediment control works must be inspected and maintained throughout the construction period of the controlled activity and must not be removed until the site is fully stabilised.

(v) This General Terms of Approval (GTA) only applies to the proposed controlled activity(s) described in the plans and associated documents relating to Development Application as provided by Council to Natural Resources Access Regulator. B. Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activity(s) may render the GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activity is amended or modified, Natural Resources Access Regulator, Parramatta Office, must be notified in writing to determine if any variations to the GTA will be required.

(vi) Rehabilitation and maintenance Vegetation clearance associated with the proposed controlled activity must be limited to where the controlled activity is to be carried out, as shown on the approved plan(s).

10. Natural Resources Access Regulator - The development consent holder must apply to NRAR for a Controlled Activity approval after consent has been issued by Council and before the commencement of any work or activity.

A completed application form must be submitted to NRAR together with any required plans, documents, application fee and proof of Council’s development consent. Finalisation of an approval can take up to eight (8) weeks from the date the application and all required supporting documentation is received.

Application forms are available from the NRAR website at: https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/water/licensing-trade/approvals/controlled-activities

11. Roads and Maritime - The following RMS requirements are to be met;

a. All buildings and structures (other than pedestrian footpath awnings), together with any improvements integral to the future use of the site are wholly within the freehold property (unlimited in height or depth), along the Princes Highway boundary.

b. The redundant driveways on Princes Highway shall be removed and replaced with kerb and gutter to match existing. The design and construction of the kerb and gutter on Princes Highway shall be in accordance with Roads and Maritime requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from Roads and Maritime Services, Manager Developer Works, Statewide Delivery, Parramatta (telephone 9598 7798).

Detailed design plans of the proposed kerb and gutter are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and commencement of any road works.

A plan checking fee (amount to be advised) and lodgement of a performance bond may be required from the applicant prior to the release of the approved road design plans by Roads and Maritime.

c. The developer is to submit design drawings and documents relating to the excavation of the site and support structures to Roads and Maritime for assessment, in accordance with Technical Direction GTD2012/001.

The developer is to submit all documentation at least six (6) weeks prior to commencement of construction and is to meet the full cost of the assessment by Roads and Maritime.

The report and any enquiries should be forwarded to: Suppiah.Thillai@rms.nsw.gov.au

If it is necessary to excavate below the level of the base of the footings of the adjoining roadways, the person acting on the consent shall ensure that the owner/s of the roadway is/are given at least seven (7) days notice of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice is to include complete details of the work.

d. Detailed design plans and hydraulic calculations of any changes to the Roads and Maritime’s stormwater drainage system are to be submitted to Roads and Maritime for approval, prior to the commencement of any works.

Details should be forwarded to: Suppiah.Thillai@rms.nsw.gov.au

A plan checking fee will be payable and a performance bond may be required before Roads and Maritime approval is issued. With regard to the Civil Works requirement please contact the Roads and Maritime Project Engineer, External Works: Suppiah.Thillai@rms.nsw.gov.au

e. The developer shall be responsible for all public utility adjustment/relocation works, necessitated by the above work and as required by the various public utility authorities and/or their agents.

f. All vehicular access onto the site including construction access should be provided from Blake Avenue. Direct access via Princes Highway is prohibited.

g. A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

h. All demolition and construction vehicles are to be contained wholly within the site and vehicles must enter the site before stopping. A construction zone will not be permitted on Princes Highway.

i. A Road Occupancy Licence should be obtained from Transport Management Centre for any works that may impact on traffic flows on Princes Highway during construction activities.

j. Any proposed landscaping and/or fencing must not restrict sight distance to pedestrians and cyclist travelling along the footpath.

k. All vehicles are to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

l. All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to Roads and Maritime.

m. The swept path of the longest vehicle (including garbage trucks, building maintenance vehicles and removalists) entering and exiting the subject site, as well as manoeuvrability through the site, shall be in accordance with AUSTROADS. In this regard, a plan shall be submitted to Council for approval, which shows that the proposed development complies with this requirement.

12. NSW Roads and Maritime Services - The site stormwater outlet pipe works shall be designed and constructed out in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Road and Maritime Services (if required).

PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

13. 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 No.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 balconies along the western side on the ground floor and Levels 1, 2 and 3 shall be reduced to a maximum width of 2.2m. The purpose of this condition is to reduce the size and scale of the balconies.

(c) The balconies along the western side on Levels 4 and 5 shall be reduced in width to a maximum of 2m. The purpose of this condition is to reduce the size and scale of balconies and recess them further from the foreshore and to reduce their visual dominance.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

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

(g) 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.

(h) 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.

(i) 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.

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

(k) 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 carpark level.

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

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

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

(o) 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)

(p) 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.

(q) 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.

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

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

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

(u) 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.

(v) 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.

14. Parking and access – The following design changes are to be provided to improve the car parking and access arrangement within the building;

(i) Bike spaces within B1 Car Park are to be deleted to enable the width of the ramp to be enlarged.

(ii) Visitor car space No.3 in B2 Car Park is to be removed and this visitor space is to be taken up by the car space designated as “Unit 8” in B3 Car Park. Visitor No.4 shall be increased in size and could accommodate a motor bike space next to this space. This is in order to enable the ramp to be increased.

(iii) A minimum of two (2) bicycle spaces shall be deleted in B3 Car park to enable the access ramp to be widened.

(iv) Details of the operation of the traffic signalling system in association with the waiting bays and tandem parking spaces shall be provided to Council and once approved this system is to be included in the Contract for the sale of the apartments so that potential purchasers understand the operation.

(v) One (1) motorbike parking space shall be accommodated in the basement level/s.

(vi) A minimum seven (7) bicycle parking spaces shall be accommodated within the basement level/s.

(vii) The aisle width to the south of the “tandem swapping bay No.3” in B2 Car Park shall be increased by 500mm to the west to allow for a wider aisle width to improve access to car spaces.

Amended plans shall be provided to show compliance and shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager of Building and Planning including the swept paths to show that a B99 vehicle can access the ramp in accordance with the AS2890.1:2004 (minimum roadway width requirements).

15. Stormwater design changes - Referring to Stormwater Concept Plans dated 29 August 2018 and prepared by Australian Consulting Engineers design changes are required to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Building and Planning prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

(i) The site drainage out let pipe cross sectional details shall be shown on the Stormwater Plans including pipe invert level, ground level, Shipwrights Bay bed level and astronomical highest spring tide levels. This is to ensure the site drainage is not affected by the sea water intrusions from Shipwrights Bay. The design treatment of the outlet pipe shall also be included to ensure the pipe is screened by landscaping and is a safe and well designed feature.

16. Landscaping - The Landscape Plan prepared by Aspect shall be updated and shall include the following features and details to the Satisfaction of the Manager of Development and Building;

(i) The following details need to be provided and the Landscape Plan updated in relation to the ground floor areas of open space;

· Proposed trees shall be planted in the designated deep soil areas.

· Trees shall have a minimum 100L pot size.

· The proposed species shall be included and shall be endemic to the area.

· Planting above the vehicular driveway shall including coastal creepers that are able to cascade down the driveway wall along the western side. Details of the type of species and an elevational plan of the driveway shall be submitted.

· The main entry into the building on the ground floor shall be designed of permeable materials and include tiles or paving materials that permit landscaping elements within these.

· Two (2) x Tuckeroos shall be planted along the backfilled section of the site at the ground floor south of the main entry and one (1) x Tuckeroo shall be planted at the northern side of the entry.

(ii) The following details need to be provided and the Landscape Plan updated in relation to the rooftop communal area of open space;

· The roof top area is to be totally dedicated as a communal area.

· A 1m wide by 1m high planter boxes shall be installed around the perimeter of the site and shall be setback 2m from the edge of the roof parapet.

· Landscaping on the rooftop shall include a variety of plants and comprise of deep and wide planter boxes that allow and encourage the planting of larger trees and shrubs.

· The roof top shall include a variety of finishes such as timber decking, real or artificial grass to create different spaces and areas. Planter boxes can be used to delineate spaces and shall include seating.

· The roof shall include a WC located next to the lift located adjoining the lift access stair with a max area of 1.2m by 2m.

The Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a Qualified Landscape Architect and should include species that are native and endemic to the area.

17. Public Domain Plan - A public domain plan is to be submitted to Council and prepared by a Qualified Landscape Architect on behalf of Council.

The plan is to address the design criteria, including but not limited to:

· Location and the tree to be retained along Blake Avenue (new trees shall be planted in pots with a minimum pot size of 100L),

· Expanded soil volumes in verges for maximum root space.

· Planting of additional street trees, the proposed species and location (new trees shall be established and have a minimum pot size of 100L).

· The extinguishing and removal of all existing driveway crossings.

· New Public Footpath, its design and access to and around the site and the upgrade of any damaged footpaths along Princes Highway.

· The treatment of all immediately adjoining public spaces that are no longer taken up by structures and how these spaces will be revegetated. The main space is the area that is no longer taken up by the boatshed which adjoins No.723 Princes Highway. The treatment and revegetation of this space and its relationship and access to the public reserve to the north shall be detailed.

· Plants to be considered need to be endemic to this waterfront location and consistent with the character of the area.

· The design treatment of the proposed drainage outlet pipe and associated vegetation.

The cost of the works will be borne by the Applicant and will need to be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager of Building and Development prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

18. Fencing - Details of the fencing shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate and the following details shall be included;

· The proposed planter boxes at the site shall have a maximum height of 1m and shall be constructed of a sandstone finish.

· The height of front fencing to the Princes Highway and Blake Avenue shall have a maximum height of 1.5m at any point.

· The rear fencing to the private courtyards and communal area of open space shall be designed to be an open style dark palisade fence so that it will offer security whilst also be transparent for safety. The height of the fence shall not exceed 1.5m

19. Seawall – A detailed structural and building/construction report shall be prepared that outlines the proposed construction method for all structures along the rear boundary (retaining walls and the like) and the method to be adopted ensures the structural adequacy, stability and integrity of all new rear fencing and associated walls which will act as a sea wall is provided for the future longevity of the development. The construction approach will aim to protect and strengthen the retaining structures for the future.

A Qualified Structural Engineer will be engaged to prepare this report and findings shall be included as part of the Construction Certificate.

20. 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 20 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.

21. Materials and finishes - The proposed materials and finishes selected shall be non-reflective and shall be of the highest quality and take into consideration the provision of marine grade quality materials to avoid rusting and the harsh coastal conditions.

A detailed finishes and materials board shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning and Building prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate. The board shall highlight all the proposed colours, materials and finishes and provide physical samples of these materials.

22. Demolition - Prior to the demolition of the structures on site and prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by Dirt Doctors and dated 25 August 2018 shall be adopted as part of the design and included in the construction management plan for the site.

23. Demolition/excavation - Should the site soils require excavation and disposal from the site then these soils should be classified in accordance with the EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines and disposed to an approved landfill facility. Any soils to be imported onto the site for the purpose of back-filling excavated areas will also require validation testing to confirm their suitability for the proposed residential land use.

24. Construction Management Plan - A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority and shall include details about stockpiling of materials and how waste and excavated materials shall be disposed of.

Stockpiling of Waste and building materials shall be setback from the rear and shall not affect the waterway or be located on the waterway. A hoarding shall be provided along the rear boundary protecting the waterway from disposal of any waste products or rubbish.

25. Road Noise attenuation - The site is affected by noise from the Princes Highway. The construction certificate plans shall show that the development has been designed in accordance with the measures of acoustic attenuation to meet the internal noise levels specified in Clause 102 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. The Acoustic Report prepared by Day Design and dated 7 September 2018 shall be updated to reflect the amended plans (Revision C). A copy of the updated Acoustic report shall be submitted to Council and the findings and recommendations of this report shall be implemented as part of the Construction Certificate plans.

26. Geotechnical works - Prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Dirt Doctors and dated 25 August 2018 shall be implemented.

27. Disabled access – The development must be designed and constructed to comply with: AS 1428.1 – 1993 Design for Access and Mobility Part 1 and AS 1428 – 1993 Design for Access and Mobility Part 2 Enhanced and Additional Requirements – Buildings and Facilities.

28. 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 either Council or a PCA. Such list must also specify the minimum standard of performance for each essential fire safety measure included in the list. The Council or PCA will then issue a Fire Safety Schedule for the building.

29. Building - Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the applicant may be required, under Clause 144 of 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.

30. Stormwater Plans – The Stormwater plans prepared by Alpha Engineers and Development, drawing no. A8278 – cover, A8278 – SW01, A8278 – SW02, A8278 – SW03, A8278 – SW04, A8278 – SW05 are concept plans only.

31. 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;

(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 must be kept on site and is to be made available upon request.

32. Street Tree Removal / Replacement by Council - Two (2) mature street trees (Banksia integrifolia) with a minimum pot size of 100 litres, must be provided in the road reserve fronting the site (Blake Avenue). The existing Melaleuca quinquernvia located on the corner of Blake Avenue and Princes Highway shall be retained and protected to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscape Officer, Details of the proposed protection measures shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

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.

33. Provision of a Car Wash Bay – The designated car wash bay must:

(i) have clearly visible signs which indicate that no degreasing or mechanical work is to be undertaken in the bay;

(ii) have a fixed basket trap for floor waste; and

(iii) includes a 1000 litre general purpose pit.

Details of the disposal of trade waste water are to be indicated on the Construction Certificate drawings. Three options exist for the disposal of trade wastewater from residential car wash bays. They are:

(i) removal off-site by an authorised liquid waste disposal contractor;

(ii) reuse of treated wastewater for car washing or irrigation on landscaped areas. An appropriate method should be used to treat grease, oil and silt before reuse or irrigation; or

(iii) discharge to the sewer via appropriate pre-treatment. If the car wash bay discharges into the sewer, a Permission to Discharge Trade Wastewater issued by Sydney Water must be obtained prior to approval of the development.

(iv) If the carwash bay is not discharged into the sewer, applicants must provide Council with details and evidence of how wastewater will be removed (eg removal by an authorised liquid waste disposal contractor).

(v) Plans and specifications of the car washing system which has been approved by Sydney Water must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

(vi) All car washing bays shall 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.

(vii) If alternative water management and disposal options are proposed (i.e. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Fee Type	Fee
GENERAL FEES
Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service Corporation. See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/
Inspection Fee for refund of Damage Deposit ($371 per inspection)	$742.00 (2 inspections)
Builders Damage Deposit (footpaths and roadworks) (Blake Avenue frontage – 21.4m x $1,236.00) (Princes Highway frontage – 40m x $1,236.00)	$26,450.40 $49,440.00
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.1 - Roads and Traffic Management - Residential	$332.81
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.5 - Open Space 2007	$153,922.95
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Buildings	$3854.09
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Books	$2,747.92

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

The Section 7.11 contribution is imposed to ensure that the development makes adequate provision for the demand it generates for public amenities and public services within the area.

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 must be paid and receipted by Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Further Information

A copy of the all current Development Contributions Plans may be inspected or a copy purchased at Council’s offices (Georges River Civic Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville and Kogarah Library and Service Centre, Kogarah Town Square, Belgrave Street, Kogarah) or viewed on Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

35. 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.

(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.

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

i. 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: $26,450.40 (works on Blake Avenue) and $49,440.00 for Princes Highway.

ii. Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a non-refundable inspection fee (for two inspections) to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $742.00 (based on two (2) inspections at $371.00 per inspection).

37. Tree Protection and Retention - The following trees shall be retained and protected:

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

Fencing distance from trunk

T3 – Melaleuca quinquernvia

Councils street tree

2.4 metres

Details of the trees to be retained must be included on the Construction Certificate plans.

- The client shall engage a qualified Arborist who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current financial member of Arboriculture Australia – AA and or Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists – IACA to oversee and validate all works.

- A certificate of compliance for tree protection measures shall be completed and forwarded to the Certifying Authority, before works, during works and once all building works have been completed, that tree protection measures have been installed and maintained during the building process.

- Details of the trees to be retained must be included on the Construction Certificate plans.

General Tree Protection Measures - All trees to be retained shall be protected before and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site.

(a) The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970 -2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

(b) Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist who holds an AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture and who is a current financial member of Arboriculture Australia – AA and or Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists – IACA.

(c) The Project Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of excavation, demolition and construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone of each tree.

(d) Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, a protective fence consisting of 2.4 x 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence shall be used. The distance of the fence from the base of each tree is to be in accordance with the TPZ listed in the table above. A layer of organic mulch 100 millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and no soil or fill should be placed within the protection area.

(e) The Tree Protection Zone of each tree, to be protected, shall be watered thoroughly and regularly to minimise the effects of construction works.

(f) No building products/ materials or services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree/s unless approved by Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone – DO NOT ENTER’ attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist.

Excavation – Excavation and earthworks near trees to be retained shall comply with the following measures;

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

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

38. Tree Pruning and Removal - 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 qualified Arborist in accordance with AS4373 -2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and Amenity Tree Industry, Code of Practice (SafeWork NSW August 1998).

General Tree Removal Requirements – the following requirements need to be satisfied;

(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.

39. Compliance with submitted Arborist Report - The recommendations outlined in the Arborist’s Report titled Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by The Tree Guardian and dated 10 September 2018 must be implemented throughout the relevant stages of construction apart from the retention of Tree No.3.

Details of tree protection measures to be implemented must be detailed and lodged with the Construction Certificate application for approval and shall be in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS 4970-2009: Protection of trees on development sites.

40. Traffic, Parking and Driveways - All shared zone area marked for disabled parking need to have the bollards installed as per the AS2890.6. The proposed car wash bay shall be appropriately signposted.

41. Disabled access - Access for persons with disabilities. Access for persons with disabilities must be provided direct to the site, including to the foyer, car park, required sanitary and kitchen 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.

In regards to the above, pedestrian access throughout basement levels shall be highlighted and sign posted to safeguard egress.

In the event that full compliance cannot be achieved the services of an accredited access consultant is to be obtained to determine alternative methods of compliance, such a report must be submitted to and endorsed by the Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

42. 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 excavation works and the designated Waste Management Facility must be submitted to the Certifier prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

43. Construction Traffic Management Plan - A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted detailing the following:

(i) construction vehicle routes;

(ii) anticipated number of trucks per day;

(ii) hours of construction;

(iii) access arrangements

(iv) proposed traffic measures to minimise impacts of construction vehicles must be submitted for the approval of Council’s Engineers.

(v) Compliance with AS2890

(vi) Council’s Engineers must specify in writing that they are satisfied with the Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

44. Slip Resistance - All pedestrian surfaces in areas such as foyers, public corridors, common areas, stairs and ramps as well as floor surfaces in the wet rooms in any residential units must 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, must comply with AS/NZS4586:2004 - Slip Resistance Classifications of New Pedestrian Materials and must be detailed on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

45. 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 shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

46. Design Quality Excellence (Major Development) – In order to ensure the design quality excellence of the development is maintained the following procedures need to be implemented:

i. The design architect, Alan Mhanna (Registration No.7755) is to have direct involvement in the design documentation, contract documentation and construct stages of the project;

ii. The design architect is to have full access to the site and is to be authorised by the applicant to respond directly to the consent authority where information or clarification is required in the resolution of the design issues throughout the life of the project;

iii. The design architect is to ensure that the approved materials, colours and finishes are to be integrated into the finished building.

iv. Evidence of the design architect’s commission is to be provided to the Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

v. The design architect of the project is not to be changed without prior notice and approval of the Council.

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

47. 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.

48. Development Engineering - Driveway Construction Plan Details - Engineer's details shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application regarding the proposed construction of the driveway. An Application for Driveway Crossing & Associated Works on Council Road Reserve’ will need to be applied for.

These plans shall show longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, swept paths, type of construction materials and shall be designed in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

The driveway shall be designed with a surface that shall be non-slip and in accordance with Council’s requirements for driveways.

49. 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.

50. Building - Structural Engineers 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 must be submitted.

51. 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, must be erected along that portion of the footway/road reserve, where the building is within 3.0 metres of the street boundary. An application for this work under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 must be submitted for approval to Council.

The following information is to be submitted with a Hoarding Application under s68 of the Local Government Act and s138 of the Roads Act 1993:

(a) A site and location plan of the hoarding with detailed elevation, dimensions, setbacks, heights, entry and exit points to/from the site, vehicle access points, location of public utilities, electrical overhead wire protection, site management plan and builders sheds location; and

(b) Hoarding plan and details that are certified by an appropriately qualified engineer; and

(c) The payment to Council of a footpath occupancy fee based on the area of footpath to be occupied and Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges (available on our website) before the commencement of work; and

(d) A Public Risk Insurance Policy with a minimum cover of $10 million in relation to the occupation of and works within Council's road reserve, for the full duration of the proposed works, must be obtained a copy provided to Council. The Policy is to note Council as an interested party; and

(e) The application must be endorsement by the Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) as the hoarding is located within 100m of an intersection with traffic lights. For assistance you should contact the DA unit at RMS and speak to Hans on 88492076. Or email hans.pilly.mootanah@rms.nsw.gov.au to obtain concurrence for the hoarding structure.

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. Dilapidation Report on Public Land - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a dilapidation report must be prepared for the Council infrastructure adjoining the development site. The report must include the following:

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

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

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

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

(v) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

(vi) The full name and signature of the structural engineer.

The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer. The report must 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.

Note: Council will use this report to determine whether to refund the damage deposit after the completion of works.

54. Dilapidation Report on Private Land - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a dilapidation report must be prepared for the properties adjoining the development site being No.731 Princes Highway. The report must include the following:

Photographs showing the existing condition of the dwelling and all associated ancillary structure (i.e dividing fences, retaining walls, garages, swimming pools etc) as well as an internal inspection of the property.

The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer. The report must 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.

55. Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report – Private Land – A professional engineer specialising in structural or geotechnical engineering shall prepare a Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report detailing the current structural condition of adjoining premises that shall be affected by the excavation as determined by the consulting engineer. The report shall be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. A copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report is to be provided to the adjoining properties (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 PCA. Should the owners of properties (or their agents) refuse access to carry out inspections, after being given reasonable written notice, this shall 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.

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

For demolition work which involves the removal of asbestos, the asbestos removal work must be carried out by a licensed asbestos removalist who is licensed to carry out the work in accordance with the NSW Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011 unless specified in the Act and/or Regulation that a license is not required.

All demolition work including the removal of asbestos, shall be undertaken in accordance with the Demolition Code of Practice (NSW Work Cover July 2015).

Note: Copies of the Act, Regulation and Code of Practice can be downloaded free of charge from the SafeWork NSW website: www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au.

57. Demolition Notification Requirements - The developer /builder must 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.

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.

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.

58. Demolition work involving asbestos removal - Work involving bonded asbestos removal work (of an area of more than 10 square metres) or friable asbestos removal work must be undertaken by a person who carries on a business of such removal work in accordance with a licence under clause 458 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

59. 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.

60. Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to in accordance with the approved Site Management Plan.

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

All clean water run-off is diverted around cleared or exposed areas.

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

Controls are put into place to prevent tracking of sediment by vehicles onto adjoining roadway. Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004 is to be met.

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

61. Site sign – Soil and Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a durable site sign, issued by Council in conjunction with this consent, must be erected in a prominent location on site. The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions relating to erosion and sediment controls. The sign must remain in a prominent location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

62. 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:

(i) Construct a 1.5 metre wide footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in Princes Highway in accordance with Council’s Specifications applying at the time construction approval is sought;

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

(iii) Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant. The work shall 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 Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, prior to the commencement of those works.

63. Driveway Construction Plan Details - Detailed engineering plans for the driveway shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application that shows:

Longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials designed in accordance with Council's Subdivision standards and AS/NZS2890.1-2004;

Suitable underground provision for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits); and

The full length of the driveway designed with a minimum 150mm thick reinforced concrete and minimum of 2.7m wide pavement/kerb face to kerb face width, and a non-slip surface.

64. Removal – Bins are to be taken to the kerbside for collection and garbage bins are to be collected twice a week and recycling bins are to be collected weekly. They are to be collected from the kerbside and removed from the kerbside as soon as possible after collection.

65. Stormwater System - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Final detailed plans of the drainage system, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering, shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate.

(a) All stormwater shall drain by gravity to Council's kerb and gutter in the street as indicated on the approved drainage plan in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

(b) Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (2005 or 2016) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

(c) The underground basement car park must pump to and all other stormwater must drain by gravity to a silt arrestor pit.

(d) The construction of the building and driveway shall be designed to protect the underground basement from possible inundation by surface waters. The crest of the driveway shall be set least 150 mm above the top of the kerb levels.

(e) The sub soil drainage for the below ground structures including basement car parks shall be designed in accordance with the findings and recommendations in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report should assess any possible impact of the proposed development upon existing ground water table and surrounding land and buildings. Should the results of the report indicate that the site is likely to experience issues associated with groundwater management, a fully-tanked dry basement with no sub soil drainage collection or disposal and an allowance made for any hydrostatic pressures.

(f) Prior to the commencement of works, the PCA/builder shall ensure that the stormwater discharge pipe across the footpath shall be RHS at an angle and is laid with minimum disturbance at a minimum 1% grade to the kerb and gutter in the street and is made in good working condition.

(g) There shall be no damage to the adjoining driveway crossing. All damages are to be rectified to its original condition at the cost of the applicant.

66. Stormwater Systems with Basement - The underground basement car park must pump to and all other stormwater must drain by gravity to the drainage system within the site via a silt trap pit.

The design of the proposed drainage system must be prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

67. Protection of basement from inundation of stormwater waters - The protection of the underground basement shall be protected from possible inundation by surface waters from the street.

Evidence from a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering that this design requirement has been adhered to shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

68. Pump-Out System Design for Stormwater Disposal - The design of the pump-out system for storm water disposal will be permitted for drainage of basement areas only, and must be designed in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) The pump system shall consist of two pumps, connected in parallel, with each pump being capable of emptying the holding tank at the rate equal to the rate of inflow for the one-hour duration storm. The holding tank shall be capable of holding one hour’s runoff from a one-hour duration storm of the 1 in 20 year storm. Minimum storage volume shall be 3m³;

(b) The pump system shall be regularly maintained and serviced, every six (6) months; and

Details and certification of compliance from a professional engineer specialising in civil engineering shall be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

69. Driveway Construction Plan Details - Detailed engineering plans for the driveway shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application for approval that show:

b) Longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials designed in accordance with Council's Subdivision standards and AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

c) Suitable underground provision for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits).

d) A longitudinal driveway sections are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer and be submitted for to and approved by the Certifying Authority. These profiles are to be at 1:100 scale along both edges of the proposed driveway, starting from the centreline of the frontage street carriageway to the proposed basement floor level.

e) The civil/traffic engineer shall provide specific written certification on the plans that:

(i) Vehicular access can be obtained using grades of 25% (1 in 4) maximum; and

(ii) All changes in grade (transitions) comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) – “Off-street car parking” to prevent the scraping of the underside of the vehicles.

70. Council Property Shoring - Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, plans and specifications prepared by a professional engineer specialising in practising structural engineering must detail how Council’s property shall 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, shall be included on the plans. Where the shoring cannot be removed, the plans must detail that the shoring will be cut to 150mm below footpath level and the gap between the shoring and any building shall be filled with a 5MPa lean concrete mix.

71. Geotechnical requirements prior to construction - The recommendations of the Geotechnical Report prepared by Dirt Doctors and dated 25 August 2018 shall be implemented and satisfied

Construction methods must ensure that nuisance from vibration does not occur, at levels below the threshold for building damage. Vibration monitoring in this regard may be required and on-site guidance by a vibration specialist during the early part of excavation.

As the submitted Geotechnical Report is based on the findings and data that is limited and has been extrapolated across the site, should actual site conditions differ from those inferred, an updated 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 is to be submitted before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

72. Traffic Management - Compliance with AS2890 - All driveways, access ramps, vehicular crossings and car parking spaces shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current version of Australian Standards, AS 2890.1 (for car parking facilities) and AS 2890.2 (for commercial vehicle facilities).

73. Allocation of street addresses - In order to comply with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing, the NSW Addressing User Manual (Geographical Names Board of NSW) and Georges River Council’s requirements, the street address for the subject development is allocated as follows:

Primary Street Address

723 Princes Highway BLAKEHURST NSW 2221

Unit Addresses

Refer to the attached list of unit addresses for the subject development Table included at the end of this consent.

Details indicating compliance with this condition must be shown on the plans lodged with any Construction Certificate for approval.

74. Access for Persons with a Disability and Adaptable Housing - Access for persons with disabilities and adaptable housing must be provided to the premises/building in accordance with the requirements of AS4299-1995, the Building Code of Australia, and AS 1428.1 where relevant. The requirements and amendments indicated in Access Report prepared by Vista Access Architects Revision B are to be complied with and are to be shown on the construction certificate drawings.

75. SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - A design verification statement, prepared by the qualified designer, shall 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.

76. BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No.959108M dated 10 September 2018 shall be updated to reflect the amended plans (Revision C and E) and the commitments must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

77. Waste Storage - The number of bins required for this property is 15 X 240L garbage bins and 15 X 240L recycling bins and 3 x 240L Green Bins. Bins will be collected once a week and need to be taken to the Blake Avenue for collection.

The waste room will contain the following to minimise odours, deter vermin, protect surrounding areas, and make it a user-friendly and safe area:

i) floor to be sealed;

ii) walls and floor surface is flat and even;

iii) all walls painted with light colour and washable paint;

iv) equipment electric outlets to be installed 1700mm above floor levels;

v) is mechanically exhausted as required by AS 1668.2;

vi) must be well lit (sensor lighting recommended); a light switch is installed at height of 1.6m;

vii) an optional automatic odour and pest control system may be installed to eliminate all pest types and assist with odour reduction;

viii) all personnel doors are hinged and self-closing; and

ix) conform to the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and local laws; and childproofing and public/operator safety shall be assessed and ensure that the bin movements should be with ease of access.

x) 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.

xi) Cleaners will monitor the bin storage area and all spills will be attended to immediately by cleaners.

78. 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 Certifier for approval prior to construction of the specified works. A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not the Certifier.

During Construction

79. Physical connection of stormwater to site - No work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system from the land the subject of this consent to Princes Highway.

80. Hazardous or Intractable Waste – Removal and Disposal - Hazardous or intractable waste arising from the demolition or construction process shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of SafeWork NSW and the NSW Environment Protection Authority and with the provision of:

· Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (as amended);

· Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (as amended);

· Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (as amended); and

· Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (as amended)

81. Cost of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on Council property. Care must be taken to protect Council's roads, including the made footway, kerbs, etc., and, where plant and vehicles enter the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered at their ends. This construction shall be maintained in a state of good repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

82. No Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Penalty infringement Notices may be issued for any offences and severe penalties apply.

83. Hours of construction for demolition and building work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity is permitted on Sundays, or Public Holidays.

Note: A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

84. Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt. Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials shall be submitted to the Principal Certifier, and Council, where Council is not the Principal Certifier.

85. Site contamination – Additional information - Any new information that comes to light during demolition or construction which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination and remediation must be notified to Council and the accredited certifier immediately.

86. Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of 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.

87. Ground levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment boundary, except where indicated on approved plans or approved by Council.

88. Discovery of Additional Information - Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (if Council is not the PCA) must be notified as soon as practicable if any information is discovered during demolition, excavation or construction that has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination or Acid Sulfate Soil risks.

89. Hazardous or Intractable Waste – Removal and Disposal - Hazardous or intractable waste arising from the demolition or construction process shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of SafeWork NSW and the NSW Environment Protection Authority and with the provision of:

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (as amended);

Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (as amended);

Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (as amended); and

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (as amended)

90. Noise control measures - All noise and vibration control measures nominated in the acoustical consultant’s report and any related project documentation must be implemented as a minimum.

91. Registered Surveyors Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to the Principal Certifier at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

(i) Set out before commencing excavation;

(ii) Floor slabs or foundation wall, before formwork or commencing brickwork;

(iii) 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;

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

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

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

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

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

92. Structures, retaining walls and fencing at the rear – The structures at the rear including fencing and retaining walls shall be formally certified by a qualified Structural Engineer prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate

93. Acoustic Certification - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted to the PCA certifying that the construction has incorporated the recommendations in the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Vibration and Noise Pty Ltd and dated 16 August 2018

94. Acoustic Compliance – General Operation of Premises - The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (as amended) and Regulations.

A suitably qualified person shall certify that the operation of the plant equipment shall not give rise to sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise sources under consideration by more than 5dB. The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s “NSW industrial Noise Policy.

Certification must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

95. 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. Also, the works are carried out in accordance with NSW Roads and Maritime Services:

(a) Construct footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications for footpaths.

(b) Construct the vehicular crossing in accordance with Council’s Specifications for vehicular crossings.

(c) Construct a new 150mm high concrete kerb with 450mm wide gutter for the full frontage(s) of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications for kerb and guttering.

(d) Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

The above works shall be carried out at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

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

96. Completion of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate in accordance with the updated Landscape Plans and in accordance with conditions in this consent which require the landscape plans to be modified.

97. Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

98. Post Construction Dilapidation report – Private Land - At the completion of the construction works, a suitably qualified person is to be engaged to prepare a post-construction dilapidation report. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works associated with the subject development created any structural damage to the two (2) adjoining premises to the south and the public infrastructure and assets to the north.

The report is to be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damaged has occurred to the adjoining premises, the Principal Certifier, must compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report required by conditions in this consent.

Evidence confirming that a copy of the post-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining properties subject of the dilapidation report must be provided to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

99. Traffic Control Devices - The internal road network, pedestrian facilities and parking facilities (including visitor parking and employee parking) shall be designated and line marked in accordance with Australian Standard - AS1742, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

If an exit from car park utilises a pedestrian footpath, then a warning system such as flashing light and/or ‘alarm sound’ must be installed on the subject property to alert pedestrians of vehicles exiting the car park. The Alarm System must be designed and installed in accordance with AS2890.1 -2004.

100. SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - The Principal Certifier must not issue an Occupation Certificate to authorise a person to commence occupation of the residential flat development unless 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 (Schedule 1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

101. Major Development Car Parking Areas - Internal driveways and parking spaces are to be adequately paved with concrete or bitumen, or interlocking pavers to provide a dust-free surface. All car parking spaces are to be line marked in accordance with AS1742, ‘Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices’ and the relevant guidelines published by the RMS.

102. Consolidation of Site - The site shall be consolidated into one allotment and by a Plan of Consolidation being prepared by a Registered Surveyor. This Plan shall be registered at the NSW Land and Property Information prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

103. Maintenance Schedule for 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.

104. Works as Executed and certification of stormwater works - Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifier must ensure that the stormwater drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the approved design and relevant Australian Standards. A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be forwarded to the Principal Certifier and Council, from a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering.

This Plan and Certification shall confirm that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system satisfies the conditions of development consent and the Construction Certificate stormwater design details approved by the Principal Certifier.

The works-as-executed drainage plan must be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering in conjunction with a Registered Surveyor and must include the following details (as applicable):

(i) The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

(ii) Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals (if applicable);

(iii) Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

(iv) The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc.) of all stormwater pipes;

(v) The orifice size/s (if applicable);

(vi) Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and (if applicable);

(v) Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes) (if applicable).

105. Design Quality Excellence (Major Development) – In order to ensure the design quality excellence of the development has been maintained throughout the construction process the Design Architect is to provide final sign off prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate to state that the development satisfies the ADG criteria (as approved) and has been constructed using the highest quality materials and finishes and is in accordance with the approved materials and finishes schedule/board that Council approved prior to the CC being issued.

106. Requirements prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate - The following shall be completed and or submitted to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

a) All the stormwater/drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

b) Work as Executed Plans prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer or a Registered Surveyor when all the site engineering works are complete shall be submitted to the Principal certifier prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

107. 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. Also, the works are carried out in accordance with NSW Roads and Maritime Services:

(e) Construct footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications for footpaths.

(f) Construct the vehicular crossing in accordance with Council’s Specifications for vehicular crossings.

(g) Construct a new 150mm high concrete kerb with 450mm wide gutter for the full frontage(s) of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications for kerb and guttering.

(h) Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

The above works shall be carried out at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

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

108. Completion of major road related works - Prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, the following works must be completed at the applicant’s expense to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Services section:

(a) Driveways and vehicular crossings within the road related area;

(b) Removal of redundant driveways and vehicular crossings;

(d) Relocation of any existing above ground utility services

(e) Relocation/provision of street signs

(f) New or replacement street trees;

(g) New footway verges, where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the footpath and the kerb or site boundary over the full frontage of the proposed development must be turfed. The grass verge must be constructed to contain a uniform minimum 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of turf predominant within the street.

(h) New or reinstated kerb and guttering within the road related area; and

(i) New or reinstated road surface pavement within the road.

Council’s Engineering Services Section must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Note: The damage deposit paid to Council will not be released until the works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction.

109. Dilapidation Report on Public Land - Upon completion of works, a follow up dilapidation report must be prepared or the items of Council infrastructure adjoining the development site. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in structural engineering, and include:

(i) Photographs showing the condition of the road pavement fronting the site;

(ii) Photographs showing the condition of the kerb and gutter fronting the site;

(iii) Photographs showing the condition of the footway including footpath pavement fronting the site;

(iv) Photographs showing the condition of retaining walls within the footway or road;

(v) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

(vi) The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

The report must 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.

Note: Council will use this report to determine whether or not to refund the damage deposit.

110. Stormwater drainage works – Works As Executed - Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, storm water 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) 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;

c) Pipe invert levels and surface levels to Australian Height Datum;

d) 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.

Council’s Engineering Services section must advise in writing that they are satisfied with the Works-As-Executed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

111. 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 must cause the issue of a Final Fire Safety Certificate in accordance with Clause 170 of the aforesaid Regulation. The Fire Safety Certificate must 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 that:

(i) the measure has been assessed by a person (chosen by the owner of the building) who is properly qualified to do so; and

(ii) 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 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.

112. Allocation of car parking spaces - Car parking associated with the development is to be allocated as follows and shall be reflected on the strata plan:

a) Minimum 32 Resident car parking spaces

b) 4 residential visitor spaces

c) 3 accessible spaces.

d) 1 car wash bay

e) Motorbike parking catering for a minimum of 1 motorbike

f) Minimum of seven (7) designated bicycle spaces

113. Structural Certificate During Construction - The proposed building must 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 must 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, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at each stage of Construction or prior issue of the Occupation Certificate.

114. BASIX Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved/updated BASIX Certificate and the plans approved with the Development Consent, must be implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.

115. 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 will outline the required maintenance works, how and when these will be done and who will be carrying out these maintenance works.

116. Stormwater - Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the PCA must ensure that the stormwater drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the approved design and relevant Australian Standards. A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be forwarded to the PCA and Council, from a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering.

The works-as-executed drainage plan must be prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering in conjunction with a Registered Surveyor and must include the following details:

(a) The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

(b) Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

(d) The orifice size/s.

117. 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.

118. Waste room - The waste room will contain the following to minimise odours, deter vermin, protects surrounding areas, and make it a user-friendly and safe area:

· waste room floor to be sealed;

· waste room walls and floor surface is flat and even;

· all walls painted with light colour and washable paint;

· equipment electric outlets to be installed 1700mm above floor levels;

· The bin storage rooms will be mechanically exhausted as required by AS 1668.2;

· light switch installed at height of 1.6m;

· waste rooms must be well lit (sensor lighting recommended);

· optional automatic odour and pest control system installed to eliminate all pest

· types and assist with odour reduction - this process generally takes place at

· building handover - building management make the decision to install;

· all personnel doors are hinged and self-closing;

· waste collection area must hold all bins - bin movements should be with ease of access;

· conform to the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and local laws; and childproofing and public/operator safety shall be assessed and ensured.

· 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.

· Cleaners will monitor the bin storage area and all spills will be attended to immediately by cleaners:

119. Certification - Air handling systems (including water-cooling system, hot-water systems and warm-water systems) - Certification by a suitably qualified person engineer ‘2012 must be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of any occupation certificate verifying that the air handling system has been installed in accordance with:

(a) Public Health Act 2010 (as amended)

(b) Public Health Regulation 2012 (as amended)

(c) AS/NZS 3666.1:2011 Air-handling and water systems of buildings -Microbial control -Design, installation and commissioning

120. 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.

Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

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

122. Roof top terrace – The Plan of Management for the use of this space shall be adhered to for the perpetuity of the development. The Strata Manager shall ensure that the plan is provided to all residents and occupants of the development and a sign shall be installed next to the lifts on the rooftop level to highlight the hours of use of the area (8am until 10pm daily) and any other operational restrictions i.e keeping the space clean, rules around using the bbq’s.

123. Final Acoustic Report – Verification of Noise report - Within three months from the issue of an Occupation Certificate, an acoustic assessment is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, in accordance with the EPA's Industrial Noise Policy and submitted to Council for consideration. This report should include but not be limited to, details verifying that the noise control measures as recommended in the acoustic report.

124. Clothes drying – Clothes drying shall not occur on balconies. Each unit shall include a dryer.

125. Compliance with POM for use of rooftop open space - The approved POM for use of the rooftop open space shall be enforced by the Owners Corporation.

126. Outdoor Lighting - To avoid annoyance to the occupants of adjoining premises or glare to motorist on nearby roads, outdoor lighting must comply with AS 4282-1997: Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

127. Entering & Exiting of vehicles - All vehicles shall enter and exit the premises in a forward direction.

128. Annual Fire Safety Statement - The owner of the building premises must 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 must 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.

129. Responsibility of Owners Corporation - The Owners Corporation shall 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 shall 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.

130. Maintenance of Landscaping - All trees and plants forming part of the approved landscaping in must be maintained in perpetuity. Maintenance includes watering, weeding, removal of rubbish from tree bases, fertilizing, pest and disease control, replacement of dead or dying plants and any other operations required to maintain healthy trees, plants and turfed areas.

131. Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

132. Waste facilities - 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. Cleaners must monitor the bin storage area and all spills need to be attended to immediately by cleaners.

133. 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.

134. Disability Discrimination Act – The applicant is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

135. Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued.

136. Appointment of a Principal Certifier - The erection of a building must not commence until the applicant has:

i) appointed a Principal Certifier for the building work; and

ii) if relevant, advised the Principal Certifier 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:

iii) 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

iv) notify the Principal Certifier of the details of any such appointment; and

v) 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.

137. Notification Requirements of Principal Certifier - No later than two 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 applicant of the critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

138. Council Appointed as the Certifying Authority - Should the Council be appointed as the Certifying Authority in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA. However, if an alternative solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justify the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement.

In this regard, detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements of the BCA, must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate Application.

Should there be any non-compliance, an alternative method of fire protection and structural capacity must be submitted, with all supporting documents prepared by a suitably qualified person.

In the event that full compliance with the BCA cannot be achieved and the services of a fire engineer are obtained to determine an alternative method of compliance with the BCA, such report must be submitted to and endorsed by the Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

139. FR NSW Comments - Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the applicant may be required, under Clause 144 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 to seek written comment from FR NSW about any Fire Engineered Solution developed to meet the performance requirements under Category 2 Fire Safety Provisions.

140. Building - Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the Certifying Authority, a report prepared and endorsed by an Energy Efficiency Engineer or other suitably qualified person must be submitted, detailing the measures that must be implemented in the building to comply with Section J of the BCA. The proposed measures and feature of the building that facilitate the efficient use of energy must be identified and detailed on the architectural plans. At completion of the building and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate certifying that the building has been erected to comply with the energy efficiency provisions must be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

141. Notice of Commencement - The applicant must give at least two days notice to the Council and the Principal Certifier of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

142. 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.

143. Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the Principal Certifier at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to be carried out. Where Georges River Council has been appointed as the Principal Certifier, 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.

144. 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 Principal Certifier appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

Prescribed Conditions

145. Clause 97A - BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

146. Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

147. 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.

148. Clause 98B – Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council. The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

149. 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.

150. Clause 98E - Site Excavation- Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.

All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

If the soil conditions require it, retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil shall be provided and adequate provision shall be made for drainage.

END CONDITIONS

NOTES/ADVICES

151. Review of Determination - Section 82A 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.

152. Appeal Rights - Division 8 (Appeals and Related matters) Part 4 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.

153. 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 95 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

154. Council as PCA - Compliance with the BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA. However, if an alternative solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation. In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

155. Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the PCA, a report prepared and endorsed by an Energy Efficiency Engineer or other suitably qualified person must be submitted, detailing the measures that must be implemented in the building to comply with Section J of the BCA. The proposed measures and feature of the building that facilitate the efficient use of energy must be identified and detailed on the architectural plans. At completion of the building and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate certifying that the building has been erected to comply with the energy efficiency provisions must be submitted to the PCA.

Energy efficiency provisions relate only to new building work or the installation of new measure. Existing building fabric and measures may not be upgraded

156. Compliance with Access, Mobility and AS4299 - Adaptable Housing - Should the Council be appointment as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by detailed working plans and a report or a Certificate of Compliance from an Accredited Access Consultant certifying that the building design and access to the adaptable units complies with Council’s DCP and AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

157. Council as PCA - Total Conformity with BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by the following details, with plans prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the BCA:

· Mechanical ventilation to bathroom, laundry and basement areas not afforded natural ventilation.

· Provision of natural light to all habitable areas.

· Fire-fighting services and equipment including hydrant and booster assembly systems, sprinkler and valve room systems, hose reels, portable fire extinguishers, smoke hazard management systems and sound & warning systems.

· Emergency lighting and exit signs throughout, including terrace areas, lobby and basement areas.

· Construction of all fire (smoke) doors including warning and operational signage to required exit and exit door areas.

· Egress, travel distance and the discharge from an exit including the swing of exit doors.

· The protection of openings including spandrel separation.

· Fire compartmentation and fire wall separation details including all stairway, lift and service shaft areas.

· Protection of openings including paths of travel from fire isolated exists

· Re-entry facilities from fire isolated exit stairways.

· Sound transmission and insulation details.

· Window schedule is to include the protection of openable windows.

· The location of sanitary facilities for employees in accordance with Table F2.1

In this regard, detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements of the BCA must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate Application. Should there be any non-compliance, an alternative method of fire protection and structural capacity must be submitted, with all supporting documents prepared by a suitably qualified person.

In the event that full compliance with the BCA cannot be achieved and the services of a fire engineer are obtained to determine an alternative method of compliance with the BCA, such report must be submitted to and endorsed by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

158. Long Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986. More information about the scheme and the levy amount you are required to pay to satisfy a condition of your consent can be found at http://www.longservice.nsw.gov.au.

The required Long Service Levy payment can be direct to the Long Service Corporation via their web site https://online.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy. Payments can only be processed on-line for the full levy owing and where the value of work is between $25,000 and $6,000,000. Payments will be accepted for amounts up to $21,000, using either MasterCard or Visa.

159. Disability Discrimination Act – This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The applicant is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which refers to AS1428.1-Design for Access and Mobility.

160. Stormwater & Ancillary Works – Applications under Section 138 Roads Act and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 - To apply for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993:

(a) Complete the Driveway Crossing on Council Road Reserve Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s Website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

(b) In the Application Form, quote the Development Consent No. (DA2018/0038) and reference the relevant condition number.

(c) Lodge the application form, together with the associated fees at Council’s Customer Service Centre, during business hours. Refer to Council’s adopted Fees and Charges for the administrative and inspection charges associated with Vehicular Crossing applications

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 shall 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.

161. Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year. Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

162. Development Engineering - Conditions relating to future Strata Subdivision of Buildings

No approval is expressed or implied for the subdivision of the subject building(s). For any future Strata subdivision, a separate Complying Development Certificate shall be approved by Council or an Accredited Certifier.

Prior to the issue of any Strata Certificate of the subject building(s) the following conditions shall be satisfied:

(a) Unit Numbering

Apartment type numbers shall be installed adjacent or to the front door of each unit.

The unit number shall coincide with the strata plan lot numbering.

(b) Car Parking Space Marking and Numbering

Each car space shall be line marked with paint and numbered in accordance with the strata plan lot numbering.

“Visitor Parking" signs shall be installed adjacent to any and all visitor car spaces prior to the issue of any Strata Certificate.

“Accessible spaces” shall also be accordingly marked and designated.

(c) Designation of Visitor Car Spaces on any Strata Plan

Any Visitor car spaces shall be designated on the final strata plan as "Visitor Parking - Common Property".

(d) Allocation of Car Parking Spaces, Storage Areas and Common Property on any Strata Plan

i. All car parking spaces shall be created as a part lot of the individual strata’s unit lot in any Strata Plan of the subject building.

ii. All storage areas shall be created as a part lot of the individual strata’s unit lot or a separate Utility Lot (if practical) in any Strata Plan of the subject building.

iii. The minimum number of parking spaces required to be allocated as a part lot to each individual strata’s unit lot shall be in accordance with the car parking requirements of Council's Development Control Plan and as required by the relative development consent for the building construction.

iv. No parking spaces shall be created as an individual strata allotment on any Strata Plan of the subject building unless these spaces are surplus to the minimum number of parking spaces required.

If preferred the surplus car spaces shall be permitted to be created as separate Utility Lots, (instead as a part lot of the individual strata’s unit lot), in accordance with section 39 of the Strata schemes (freehold development Act 1973).

The above requirements regarding car parking spaces and storage areas may only be varied with the conditions of a separate Development Application Approval for Strata Subdivision of the Building(s).

(e) On Site Detention Requirements

The location any on-site detention facility shall be shown on the strata plan and suitably denoted.

(f) Creation of Positive Covenant

A Positive Covenant shall be created over any on-site detention facility by an Instrument pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919, with the covenant including the following wording:

"It is the responsibility of the Owner's Corporation to keep the on-site detention facilities, together with any ancillary pumps, pipes, pits etc, clean at all times and maintained in an efficient working condition. The on-site detention facilities shall not be modified in any way without the prior approval of Georges River Council."

Georges River Council is to be nominated as the Authority to release, vary or modify this Covenant.

163. Strata Subdivision - Council will check the consent conditions on the relevant Strata Subdivision consent. Failure to submit the required information will delay endorsement of the plan of subdivision.

Council will undertake the required inspections to satisfy the requirements of the Strata Schemes Development Regulation 2016 to determine the Strata Certificate.

Strata Plans, Administration Sheets, 88B Instruments and copies must not be folded. All Strata Plans, Strata Plan Administration Sheets and 88B Instruments shall be submitted to Council enclosed in a protective cardboard tube (to prevent damage during transfer).

164. Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

165. Noise - Council will generally enforce noise related conditions in accordance with the Noise Guide for Local Government (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm) and the Industrial Noise Guidelines (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm) publish by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Other state government authorities also regulate the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Useful links relating to Noise:

(a) Community Justice Centres—free mediation service provided by the NSW Government (www.cjc.nsw.gov.au).

(b) Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Noise Policy Section web page (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise).

(c) New South Wales Government Legislation home page for access to all NSW legislation, including the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Noise Control Regulation 2000 (www.legislation.nsw.gov.au).

(d) Australian Acoustical Society—professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au /index.php).

(e) Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants—professional society of noise related professionals (www.aaac.org.au).

(f) Department of Gaming and Racing - (www.dgr.nsw.gov.au).

166. Acoustic Engineer Contacts & Reference Material - Further information including lists of Acoustic Engineers can be obtained from:

a) Australian Acoustical Society—professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au)

b) Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants—professional society of noise related professionals (www.aaac.org.au)

c) NSW Industrial Noise Policy – Office of Environment & Heritage (www.environment.nsw.gov.au)

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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site analysis - 723-729 Princes Hwy Blakehurst
Attachment ⇩2	Princes Hwy and Blake Ave Elevation - 423-429 Princes Hwy Blakehurst
Attachment ⇩3	South and west elevation - 723-729 Princes Hwy Blakehurst
Attachment ⇩4	Roof plan - 723-729 Princes Hwy Blakehurst

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

Page 382

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

LPP MEETING OF Thursday, 07 November 2019

LPP Report No	LPP049-19	Development Application No	DA2018/0137
Site Address & Ward Locality	7-11 Derby Street Kogarah Kogarah Bay Ward
Proposed Development	Lot consolidation, demolition of existing structures and construction of a twelve (12) storey mixed use building with three (3) levels of basement parking
Owners	MC O'Connor Super Fund
Applicant	Smith and Tzannes
Planner/Architect	Architect and Planner: Smith and Tzannes
Date Of Lodgement	12/04/2018
Submissions	One (1)
Cost of Works	$20,247,115.00
Local Planning Panel Criteria	The proposed development is a mixed use building where the residential component is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Planning Policy No 2- Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Draft Environment State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy, Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Site and Elevation Plans Statement of Environemntal Effects
Report prepared by	Senior Development Assessment Planner

Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the conditions included in this report.

Summary of matters for consideration under Section 4.15

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

Yes

Legislative clauses requiring consent authority satisfaction

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

Yes

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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

Yes - Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

Special Infrastructure Contributions

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

Not Applicable

Conditions

Have draft conditions been provided to the applicant for comment?

No, standard conditions have been attached with no design changes

Site Plan

Site outlined in blue

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. The development application proposes lot consolidation, demolition works and construction of a 12 storey mixed use building with three levels of basement parking. Two commercial tenancies and two residential units are proposed on the ground floor. The total number of units proposed is 54 residential units (12 x 1 bedroom units, 39 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units). Communal open space is provided on the rooftop.

Figure 1: Photomontage of the proposal

Site and Locality

2. The subject site is legally identified as Lots A and B in DP 107114 and CP/SP498, and has a street address of 7-11 Derby Street Kogarah.

3. The site is located on the south western side of Derby Street between Kensington Street and Post Office Lane and has a secondary (rear) frontage to Kensington Lane. The site is currently occupied by two single storey residential form buildings and a two storey flat building.

Figure 2: Built form existing on the development site.

4. The wider locality features a diverse mix of land uses including primarily medical related uses, commercial/retail activities, shop top housing and the St George Hospital campus, further to the south. The T4 – Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Rail Line is located to the north of the site.

Zoning and Permissibility

5. The site is zoned ‘B4 Mixed Use’ under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP). The development is defined as shop top housing under KLEP, which is permissible with consent in this zone.

Submissions

6. The development application was publicly exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. One (1) submission was received as a result.

7. Minor amendments to the application received during the course of its assessment were not required to be publicly notified in accordance with the development control plan, as they did not result in significant additional environmental impacts.

Level of Determination

8. This development application is referred to the Local Planning Panel for consideration and determination as it comprises development to which State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies as required by the Ministerial Direction of 23 February 2018.

Conclusion

9. The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal is acceptable subject to minor design changes and it is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Report in Full

Description of Proposal

10. The development application proposes lot consolidation, demolition works and construction of a 12 storey mixed use building with three levels of basement parking. Two (2) commercial tenancies and two (2) residential units are proposed on the ground floor. The upper levels contain fifty two (52) residential units (12 x 1 bedroom units, 38 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units). Communal open space is provided on the rooftop.

11. Specifically, the proposal includes the following:

Basement Levels

· Basement Level C3 - This basement level contains 24 parking spaces, residential storage, 9 bicycle spaces and stair and lift access.

· Basement Level C2 - This basement level contains 19 parking spaces, residential storage, 12 bicycle spaces and stair and lift access.

· Basement Level C1 - This basement level contains 13 parking spaces including 4 commercial spaces, 7 visitor spaces, a commercial loading bay, a caretaker’s bathroom, a bin store room, residential storage, bicycle parking and stair and lift access.

Ground Floor

The ground floor contains two commercial tenancies fronting Derby Street, a commercial bin room and the residential entry lobby from Derby Street. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Kensington Lane, and two residential apartments (1 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom) are located adjacent to the Kensington Lane frontage. A communal landscaped courtyard is provided between the commercial tenancies and the residential units to the north western side of the development.

A central void area is proposed to align with the void area of the building under construction on the property to the south east known as 13 Derby Street Kogarah, and setback and void over the ground level landscaped communal area is provided to the north western site boundary at all levels.

Fire stairs from the residential units and the basement levels discharge at this level and lift access is provided throughout.

Level 1

This level contains four units (1 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) with lift access and egress stairs.

Levels 2 to 4

These levels contain six units at each level (2 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom units) with lift access and egress stairs.

Levels 5 to 9

These levels contain five units at each level (1 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom units) with lift access and egress stairs.

Levels 10 and 11

These levels contain 5 x two storey 2 bedroom units. The dwelling entry, kitchen and living areas, laundry and private open space balconies are located on Level 10 and the bedrooms and bathrooms are located on Level 11. Lift access and egress stairs are provided to level 10.

Rooftop Communal Open Space

The roof level provides a consolidated area of communal open space which includes a children’s play area, covered and open areas for searing and tables, landscaped planters along the edges. Level and egress stairs are provided to this level.

12. The site is rectangular in shape, having a combined street frontage of 24.38m to Derby Street and Kensington Lane, a depth of 44.15m and an overall area of 1,076.37sqm.

13. Immediately to the north west of the site is a part 2, part 3 storey commercial building known as 1 Derby Street Kogarah. Immediately to the south east known as 11-13 Derby Street Kogarah is an approved seven (7) storey shop top housing development which is under construction.

14. Opposite on Derby Street to the north east is a seven (7) storey mixed use building containing place of public worship uses and a heritage listed church building occupied by medical practices. Opposite Kensington Lane to the south west is child care centre and the Kogarah Uniting Church.

15. The wider locality features a diverse mix of land uses including primarily medical related uses, commercial/retail activities, shop top housing and most prominently the St. George Hospital campus. Kogarah railway station and the adjoining retail centre known as Kogarah Town Centre are approximately 350m walking distance from the site to the north east.

16. The built form immediately adjoining is illustrated in figures 3 and 4 below.

Figure 3: 1 Derby Street (north west of the site)

Figure 4: 11-13 Derby Street under construction (south east of the site)

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

17. The subject site has been inspected and the development has been assessed under the relevant Section 4.15, Matters for Consideration of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Environmental Planning Instruments

State Environmental Planning Policies

18. Compliance with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies is summarised in the table as follows and discussed in more detail thereafter.

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017	N/A
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy – Infrastructure	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

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

20. Clause 7 requires contamination and remediation to be considered in determining a development application. The consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development on land unless it has considered whether or not the land is contaminated.

21. A Preliminary Site Investigation Report was submitted with the application, which concludes:

‘Based on the results of the PSI (Preliminary Site Investigation), there is low to medium potential for contamination to have occurred at the Site as a result of past and present land use. It is the opinion of ADE that further investigation works should be undertaken to further evaluate the environmental conditions of the Site. ADE notes a Phase II Detailed Site Investigation of soil and groundwater should be conducted in accordance with National Environmental Protection Measure, NEPM 2013.

It is likely that the site can be made suitable for the proposed development, pending the Phase II Detailed Site Investigation and remediation (if required). Measures to ensure the site is suitable for the intended land use should be undertaken in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land.

Prior to demolition of onsite structures as part of the site development, ADE recommends that a hazardous materials survey be conducted and all hazardous materials identified on a register. If hazardous materials are identified, they must be removed as per the relevant codes of practice.’

22. An addendum to the Preliminary Report was submitted to Council on 21 October 2019 which stated:

‘BACKGROUND

ADE prepared a PSI for the site, which investigated the potential for contamination to be present within soils and groundwater at the site located at 7, 9 and 11 Derby Street, Kogarah NSW. The site is the location of a proposed development of a medium density residential apartment building.

The PSI concluded that the site had a low to medium potential for contamination to be present due to uncontrolled filling at the site, and thus recommended a DSI to assess the potential for contamination within soil and groundwater at the site.

ADE notes that any potential contamination issues identified at the site would largely be limited to the soils or fill materials beneath the paved surfaces and footprints of the existing buildings on the site. As such, adequate soil investigation can be undertaken more easily after the existing buildings and pavements have been demolished and removed from the site to provide clear access to soil/fill materials. In our opinion, the requirement to conduct a DSI could be included as a condition of the DA approval and conducted once the building demolition has been completed.

CONCLUSION

Based on a review of the Site PSI, it is the opinion of ADE that:

• The PSI lists the potential for contamination as low to moderate;

• The potential contamination issues identified would likely be limited to soil and or fill materials beneath the currently existing paved surfaces and/or building footprints;

• A DSI to investigate these potential contamination issues would not be practical before the demolition of these structures and removal of the paving and/or building slabs to allow clear access to the soil;

• The requirement to carry out a DSI (detailed site investigation) could be made a condition of the Development Approval; and

• Regardless of the identified potential risk, contamination in the soil or fill materials beneath the existing paved surfaces and building footprints could be managed during the proposed redevelopment of the site. According to the current proposed redevelopment this would entail, detailed sampling of the area and complete removal of soils to depths of 9m below ground level to accommodate basement level car parking. As such any potential contamination would be removed from the basement footprint and disposed off-site, therefore the site could be made suitable for the proposed land use.’

23. Based on the information provided, a contingency condition has been included in the recommended conditions detailing what is required to take place should unexpected contamination be found during demolition, excavation and construction.

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

24. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 aims to ensure consistency in the implementation of a scheme to encourage sustainable residential development throughout New South Wales (also referred to as the ‘BASIX scheme’).

25. A BASIX certificate accompanies the DA verifying that the relevant water, energy and thermal comfort targets have been met by the proposal. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the commitments required under the BASIX certificate will be satisfied by the proposed development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

26. The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State.

27. The DA was referred to Ausgrid on 26 September 2019 in accordance with Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. At the time of writing this report, no response had been received. The DA may be determined in the event that no response has been received from Ausgrid within twenty one (21) days, i.e. 17 October 2019. It is acknowledged there is a substation that exists to the Kensington Lane frontage.

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

28. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (‘Vegetation SEPP’) regulates clearing of native vegetation on urban land and land zoned for environmental conservation/management that does not require development consent.

29. The Vegetation SEPP applies to clearing of:

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

b. Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP).

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

a. No issues arise in terms of the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP, as there is no significant vegetation on the site or within the footpath area of Derby Street immediately fronting the site. Further, there is no significant vegetation on immediately adjoining properties in close proximity to the site.

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

31. The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to improve the design quality of residential apartment development in New South Wales.

32. The proposed development meets the pre-requisites for the application of the SEPP 65 in that it constitutes development for the purpose of ‘shop top housing’ in a proposed building of more than three (3) storeys and having more than four (4) dwellings. Therefore, it must be assessed against the provisions of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

33. A design verification statement dated March 2018 has been provided by Peter Smith Registered Architect (Registration No. 7024) in accordance with Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

34. The DA has been reviewed by the Design Review Panel (DRP) and their comments are further detailed in the DRP discussions below.

Design Review Panel

35. The initial plans that accompanied the application were referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) on 8 August 2019. The design quality principles of SEPP 65 are addressed as follows, in the context of the DRP comments. Commentary in response has been provided by the Assessment Officer where necessary.

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

DRP Comment

General comment

Context and Neighbouring

Character

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.

This building contributes to an evolving medium to high density mixed use context in Derby Street. It makes some effort to relate to the building under construction on the south east side and to the existing building on the north west side. It makes particular attempts to address and activate both Derby Street and Kensington Lane. The building has extremely high site cover and basement excavation and consequently has negligible deep soil.

Given the scale and density of this development, every measure should be made to improve the streetscape.

The proposal is a suitable response to the location of the site in the Kogarah Town Centre including provision of an active street address on Derby Street.

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.

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 proposal is for twelve (12) storey mixed use development including fifty four (54) units, two (2) commercial tenancies and three (3) basement levels. The basic plan layout provides approximately 6m side setback on the north western boundary with commercial ground floor tenancies and the residential entrance along the Derby Street frontage. There is a 2.75m setback to Derby Street with a landscape interface.

The Panel notes that the separation distances do not comply with the ADG standards for Levels 5 and above on the north western boundary. The north eastern boundary the building has zero setback for most of that frontage. The architect stated that this was designed to maximise solar access for the units and has indicated how the adjacent site might be developed in the future.

The Panel notes that the non-compliance in height is due to lift over runs and roof terrace access only.

Public domain improvements should be provided including new street tree planting and undergrounding of powerlines.

The built form and scale of the proposal is supported. The building complies with the maximum FSR for the site, and the non-compliance with the building height relates to the uppermost roof, rooftop communal open space shade structures and the lift overruns. The variation to the height control is supported in this case.

The design of the building seeks to replicate the location of void areas of the neighbouring building to the south-east which will allow solar access to units and provide separation between the buildings.

The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and will activate the street level.

The Panel approved an additional two storeys atop the approved 5 storey mixed use building at 13 Derby Street at its meeting on 5 September 2019.

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.

The Panel notes that the FSR appears to be in excess of that permissible and should be carefully considered.

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR for the site.

Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Comply with BASIX.

A development of this scale should investigate sustainability measures beyond the minimum requirements. This should include solar panels, energy and thermal measures, water sensitive urban measures.

The proposal for tree planting on the street and lane frontages is strongly supported. All measures to maintain tree health (such as adequate soil volume, irrigation, etc) should be developed and documented. This should include consideration of footpath upgrades to incorporate measures to improve tree health (such as permeable footpath treatments).

The proposal is BASIX compliant.

The applicant has not taken up the comments of the Design Review Panel in relation to the increased sustainability measures.

Landscape

The design of the roof top communal spaces requires significant review:-

Re-plan the roof top communal space as single consolidated area that is substantially bigger (at least double its current size). The Panel is of the opinion that any resulting non-compliance with the height standard for the lift overrun is acceptable because no adverse amenity or bulk and scale would occur and the benefits to the occupants of the development are warranted.

Remove roof over light well to ensure maximum solar and daylight penetration

Provide lift access and small amenities room to serve the roof garden.

Retain as much space open to the sky

Provide adequate variety of spaces to allow for a range of different groups to gather and use the space, with planters for trees and shrubs

Provide detailed planting plans illustrating proposed species, layout for this roof top communal open space. This should also include details regarding proposed irrigation.

The ground floor landscape needs to be further reviewed to address the deeply shaded microclimate that is proposed. Solar access should be illustrated on landscape plans and appropriate species incorporated.

The ground floor commercial access should be relocated to maximise space for trees at the northern corner. This landscape area should also be irrigated and documented on all DA and CC drawings.

The roof on Level 2 adjacent to Unit 2.05 should be redesigned as a roof terrace.

Streetscape improvements should be made as part of this application (refer comments under ‘Built Form’ and ‘Sustainability’). This should incorporate measures to maximise tree health such as permeable paving to adjacent footpaths (refer comments above under ‘Sustainability’).

The roof top open space has been replanned and substantially increased in size. The Level 2 area has been incorporated into the roof-top space.

High quality landscaping is provided at ground level within a courtyard and rooftop communal open space area.

Tree planting is also proposed in the front setbacks to Derby Street and Kensington Lane.

Conditions are included with regards to public domain upgrades.

Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident wellbeing.

Redesign of the communal open space as one (1) level at the roof top creates opportunity for widows and cross ventilation of bedroom level of Units 10.02, 10.03 and 10.04.

The undercroft landscape areas need to be carefully designed to respond to lack of sun. There is an opportunity to provide a distinctive landscape character using shade tolerant species. Minor redesign and reconfiguring of paved and landscaped areas to provide a seating and gathering area opposite the lift to promote social interaction.

Communal open space at roof level to be redesigned as one level - see comments above.

Access to garbage room from commercial tenancy C.02 needs to be redesigned to cater for level change.

The communal open space area has been consolidated to the rooftop to improve its functionality and size.

All units will provide a high level of internal and external amenity and the development complies overall with the ADG controls for solar access, cross ventilation, unit sizes and private open space areas.

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.

Acceptable

The proposal meets the requirement of CPTED.

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.

There are twelve (12) x one (1) bedroom units, thirty nine (39) x two (2) bedroom units and three (3) x three (3) bedroom units which appears to be an acceptable mix.

Refer comments above regarding communal open space. It is noted that children’s play sculptures are to be provided at ground level. It is recommended that this be relocated to the roof top communal open space. A larger children’s play zone should be provided in this location (roof).

A suitable unit mix is proposed with a variety of unit layouts.

A children’s play space is now incorporated as a larger element in the roof communal open space.

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.

Generally acceptable subject to roof top amendments.

Amended plans have been submitted consolidating the communal open space on to the rooftop.

The schedule of colours, materials and finishes are suitable.

Apartment Design Guide

36. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is detailed in the compliance table as follows.

Note: where relevant, the figures/percentages in the ADG compliance table have been rounded up/down to the nearest whole number.

Section	Design Criteria	Proposed	Comply
3D - Communal and public open space	Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (1075 x 0.25 = 268.75sqm)	The primary area of communal open space is provided on the rooftop and has an area of 135sqm. In addition there is a Ground Level communal open space area of 245sqm, the total area of communal open space is 380sqm or 35% of the site area.	Yes
3D - Communal and public open space	Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)	2 hours of sunlight is achieved to at least 50% of the rooftop communal open space area, which is the principle area of communal open space for the development.	Yes
3E – Deep soil zones	Deep soil zones are required at a sliding scale in this clause. For a site area of 1075sqm, the deep soil zone requirement is 7% with minimum 3m dimensions.	44sqm (2.75m) 4.1%	No
Comments on deep soil zones: These controls relate to SEPP 65 compliance relating to a residential flat building, this development is shop top housing with a commercial interface to the Derby Street frontage. This development is part of a town centre with respect to the development form permitted; as a result a nil façade to Derby Street is proposed which is consistent with other developments adjoining and in the vicinity of this development site. This development design results in limited area being available for deep soil planting. The application has incorporated landscaping along this frontage to provide some relief, however it is over the basement slab. The proposal whilst not numerically compliant is considered to be acceptable in this location for this development form.
3F – Visual privacy	Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: · For building height up to 12m / 4 storeys – Habitable rooms and balconies 6m; and non-habitable rooms 3m. · For building height up to 25m / 5-8 storeys – Habitable rooms 9m; and non-habitable rooms 4.5m. · For building height over 25m / 9+ storeys – Habitable rooms 12m; and non-habitable rooms 6m	G to Level 4: Nil (blank wall) – south east 6m – north west Levels 5 to 9: Minimum of 6m – north west Nil – south east Level 10: Minimum 8.24m to balcony edge north west Level 11: 8.2m - habitable rooms	Yes No – refer to comments below. No No
Comments on visual privacy The proposal complies with the required setbacks to the side boundary from the Ground Floor to Level 4. From Level 5 to Level 9 the building retains the proposed setback of the lower levels, resulting in a non-compliance with the ADG control. At Level 10, the minimum setback is 8.24m to the edge of the balconies, and at Level 11 the minimum setback is 8.24m to the north west elevation windows. Despite the numerical non-compliance with the control, the proposed setbacks are a suitable response to the site and adjacent development at 1 Derby Street, which is occupied by a two storey commercial building. The non-compliances will not restrict future development to the north west if 1 Derby Street should it ever be redeveloped given that site benefits from three street frontages to which to orient balconies, and visual privacy is maximised as far as practical in the given arrangement through the use of solid balustrades to balconies within the setback and very minor non-compliances to the NW windows on Level 11. Overall the development meets the objectives of the visual privacy controls in the ADG as the compliance with the solar access and natural ventilation controls is achieved and adequate separation is provided to the NW to accommodate future development and still achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy and the non-compliance does not result in any adverse loss of solar access to the adjoining allotments.
3J – Bicycle and car parking	For development in the following locations: · on sites that are within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or · on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street	Given the site is 350m from the Kogarah Town Centre and within 800m of the Kogarah Rail Station the required residential parking is calculated in accordance with the RMS Guide for Traffic Generating Development. (12) 1B x 0.4 = 4 (39) 2B x 0.7 = 27 (3) 3B x 1.2 = 5 Visitor 1/7 (54) = 7.7 A carwash bay is provided in Visitor Space No. 7. Commercial: 1 space per 40sqm for any floor space at ground floor level = 146/40 = 3.65 spaces Total = 43 spaces Provided: 45 residential 7 visitor 4 commercial 1 commercial loading bay	Yes Yes Yes Yes
4A – Solar and daylight access	Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas	72% of units achieve a minimum of 2 hours sunlight in midwinter.	Yes
4A – Solar and daylight access	A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter	10 of 54 (18.5%) units receive less than 1 hour of sunlight, but do receive some sunlight.	No – refer to comment below
Comment on solar access The maximum number of units permitted to receive no sunlight during midwinter is 8 units. The proposal results in 10 units receiving less than 1 hour of sunlight (but some sunlight is received). Given the north-south orientation of the site, and the design of the building incorporating a full-height void to protect the solar access of the building under construction at 13 Derby Street (which is built to the site boundary on both sides of the void), this minor non-compliance is supported as all units receive some sunlight during midwinter.
4B – Natural ventilation	At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed.	61% of units are cross ventilated.	Yes
4B – Natural ventilation	Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.	All of the proposed units are less than 18m in depth.	Yes
4C – Ceiling heights	Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are: · Habitable rooms 2.7m · Non-habitable rooms 2.4m · For 2 storey apartments: 2.7m for main living area floor 2.4m for second floor, where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area · Attic spaces: 1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope · If located in mixed use areas - 3.3m for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.	All of the proposed units have ceiling heights of 2.8m.	Yes
4D – Apartment size and layout	Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas: Studio – 35sqm 1 bedroom – 50sqm 2 bedroom – 70sqm 3 bedroom – 90sqm The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5sqm each A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12sqm each.	All apartments meet minimum internal size requirements. Calculated accordingly. N/A	Yes Yes N/A
	Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.	Within prescribed range	Yes
	Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5m x the ceiling height.	Within prescribed range	Yes
	In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window	Within prescribed range	Yes
	Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10sqm and other bedrooms 9sqm (excluding wardrobe space)	All bedrooms comply	Yes
	Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)	All bedrooms comply	Yes
	Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of: · 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments · 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments	All living rooms comply	Yes
	The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.	All of the proposed units are in excess of 4m width internally.	Yes
4E – Private open space and balconies	All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows: · Studio apartments require 4sqm with no min depth · 1 bedroom apartments require 8sqm with min depth 2m · 2 bedroom apartments require 10sqm with min depth 2m · 3+ bedroom apartments require 12sqm with minimum 2.4m depth The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.	All balconies achieve the minimum area and depth requirements. Unit 1.04 is 1sqm under the required controls. A condition has been included to have this area comply and will not result in an undersized unit. Calculated accordingly.	Yes - subject to a condition of consent. Yes
4E – Private open space and balconies	For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15sqm and a minimum depth of 3m.	Minimum area and depth is achieved for the ground-level 3 bedroom apartment (27sqm) but not for the 2 bedroom apartment (13sqm). Despite the non-compliance, the courtyard is functional and accessible. The landscaping proposed to Kensington Lane provides a buffer between the lane and courtyard as well as providing visual amenity for the residents. The minor 2sqm non-compliance is acceptable on merit as a 2 bedroom apartment at an upper level would ordinarily require 10sqm, with which the courtyard complies. It is noted that the town centre location and mixed use nature of the building limits opportunity for provision of ground level courtyards.	Yes – acceptable on merit.
4F – Common circulation and spaces	The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight.	A maximum of 6 units at each level.	Yes
4F – Common circulation and spaces	For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.	Two lifts service 54 apartments and the 3 levels of basement.	Yes
4G - Storage	In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided: · Studio apartments require 4m³ · 1 bedroom apartments require 6m³ · 2 bedroom apartments require 8m³ · 3+ bedroom apartments require 10m³ At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.	All units have compliant total storage volumes as per the ADG volumes. At least 50% of storage is located within the apartment.	Yes Yes

Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

Draft Environment SEPP

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

38. 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.

39. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of this Draft Instrument given there is no vegetation impacted by the proposed development.

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP

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

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

42. Whilst the proposed SEPP will retain the key operational framework of SEPP 55, it will adopt a more modern approach to the management of contaminated land.

43. An addendum to the Preliminary Report was submitted to Council on 21 October 2019 which stated:

‘BACKGROUND

CONCLUSION

Based on a review of the Site PSI, it is the opinion of ADE that:

• The PSI lists the potential for contamination as low to moderate;

• The potential contamination issues identified would likely be limited to soil and or fill materials beneath the currently existing paved surfaces and/or building footprints;

• The requirement to carry out a DSI could be made a condition of the Development Approval; and

An unexpected finds condition has been recommended to be imposed should any contamination be experienced during demolition or excavation.

44. On the above information, site contamination is not suspected. In this regard, no further assessment is warranted with regard to site contamination.

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zoning and Permissibility

45. The site is located within the ‘B4 Mixed Use’ zone under the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012.

46. The proposed development contains residential accommodation and commercial premises which are collectively defined as shop top housing which is permissible in the zone.

Figure 4: Extract from the NSW legislation website including the subject site outlined in blue

47. The objectives for development in the B4 Mixed Use zone are as follows:

· To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

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

· To encourage development that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities.

· To encourage development that contributes to an active, vibrant and sustainable town centre.

· To provide opportunities for residential development, where appropriate.

48. The proposed development is consistent with the above objectives in that it provides for additional residential accommodation and compatible commercial tenancies at the ground floor level within close proximity to a range of services and facilities including public transport options. The additional residential accommodation and commercial tenancies will contribute to the economic viability and social vibrancy of the Kogarah Town Centre.

49. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of Kogarah LEP 2012 is detailed in the compliance table below:

Clause	Objectives/Provisions	Comment	Complies
4.3 - Height of buildings	The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the height of buildings on the subject site to 39m.	The proposal has a building height of up to 40.23m. The roof form, structures in the communal open space area and the lift overruns result in the height breach.	No – refer to assessment of the Clause 4.6 variation following this table.
4.4 - Floor space ratio	The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. In this case, the relevant map limits the floor space ratio for buildings on the subject site to 4.5:1.	The proposal has a floor space ratio of 4.49:1.	Yes
5.10 - Heritage conservation	The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Kogarah, (b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, (c) to conserve archaeological sites, (d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.	The subject site is not identified as a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area, nor is it immediately adjoining a heritage item or heritage conservation area. It also contains no recognised archaeological sites or aboriginal objects. The site is across the road from the ‘Former Kogarah Presbyterian Church and hall’ which are identified collectively as a heritage item of local significance. Given the ample separation provided by Derby Street, and it is located to the north east of the subject site, the proposal is not likely to result in any adverse effects upon the heritage significance of church and hall opposite and associated public views of these buildings.	Yes
6.1 - Acid sulfate soils	The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.	The subject site is not identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being affected by any particular class of acid sulfate soils.	N/A
6.2 - Earthworks	The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.	Excavation is limited to the extent required for the basement parking levels. Suitable conditions of consent can be imposed during construction to protect neighbouring property damage and undermining.	Yes
6.3 - Flood planning	The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land, (b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change, (c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.	The subject site is not identified on the Flood Planning Map as being within a Flood Planning Area. Further, Council’s records do not indicate the site is at or below the ‘flood planning level’. The site is not impacted by overland flow.	N/A
6.5 - Airspace operations	The objective of this clause is to protect airspace around airports	The proposed development will penetrate prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport requiring a ‘controlled activity’ within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996. The applicant has obtained the necessary approval for the controlled activity (refer to further commentary in the referrals section of this report).	Yes

Exception to Development Standards – Clause 4.6

Detailed assessment of variation to Kogarah LEP 2012 (LEP) - Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

50. The objectives of Clause 4.6 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.

51. The proposed development seeks a variation to the development standard relating to height (Clause 4.3). The LEP identifies a maximum height of 39m for the Site and the proposed development reaches a maximum height of 41.522m. The building exceeds the height by 2.522m which comprises of the stair and lift overrun and communal open space on the rooftop. This amounts to a 6.5% variation to the control.

52. Any variation to a statutory control can only be considered under Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the KLEP. An assessment of the proposed height against the survey plan levels was conducted to indicate the Applicant’s calculations are generally accurate.

Figure 5: Section plan of the proposal showing proposed height variation

Figure 6: Height plane diagram showing exceedance

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

53. Height of Buildings control under Clause 4.3 of the KLEP 2012 is a development standard. The maximum permissible height is 39m.

54. Clause 4.6(3) states that:

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

- that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard”

55. To support the non-compliance, the applicant has provided a request for a variation to Clause 4.3 in accordance with Clause 4.6 of KLEP 2012. The Clause 4.6 request for variation is assessed as follows:

What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?

56. The objectives of Height of Buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of KLEP 2012 are:

(a) to establish the maximum height for buildings,

(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

(c) to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

Compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (clause 4.6(3)(a))

57. There have been several Court cases that have established provisions to assist in the assessment of Clause 4.6 statements to ensure they are well founded and address the provisions of Clause 4.6. In Wehbe V Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ set out ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

58. Preston CJ in the judgement then expressed the view that there are 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, as follows (with emphasis placed on number 1 for the purposes of this Clause 4.6 variation:

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

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

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

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

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

59. The Clause 4.6 Statement was prepared in consideration of the recent court cases and their judgements.

60. Applicants comment:

“1. OBJECTIVES ARE ACHIEVED NOT WITHSTANDING THE NON-COMPLIANCE

With respect to the objectives:

(a) to establish the maximum height for buildings,

The overall height of a majority of the development is below the maximum height of building and the intended height in storeys anticipated by the Kogarah City Plan. The area of non-compliance is located centrally in the built form and would not be visible from the immediate context. This non-compliance from a distance would not be a perceivable interruption to the skyline compared to a building that had a complying height.

(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

The height non-compliance will not further contribute to overshadowing, visual impact or privacy loss as it is setback from all four sides of the building and further separated by planters and privacy screening. In responding to the recommendation from the Design Review Panel to include a communal rooftop terrace, it was perceived vital to provide direct accessible access via a lift and roof coverage and enclosure to part of the communal open space to prevent it being unusable due being overly exposed to the elements. To create an accessible compliant and usable space that would provide greater amenity to all residents, the addition of a lift/lift overrun and roof structure was imperative. The below figures illustrate the setbacks and mitigation of privacy loss of adjoining neighbours through screening devices.

(c) to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

The proportion of the height exceedance is extremely minor when compared to the overall bulk and scale of the building, nor has the intensity of the building been affected. The overall perceived bulk and scale of the development is no different to the proposed development complied with the height limit. This is due to the fact that only a minor portion of the overall built form that exceeds the height limit, with the main mass of the building located under the height limit.”

Clause 4.6(3)(b) are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard

61. Having regard to Clause 4.6(3)(b) and the need to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, it is considered that there is an absence of any negative impacts of the proposed non-compliance on the environmental quality of the locality and amenity of adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or view loss.

62. Applicants Comment:

“INCREASED AMENITY FOR RESIDENTS

The part of the building that exceeds the height limit is the lift overrun that provides access to the rooftop communal open space and the roof that provides shelter to the communal open space. Locating the communal open space at this level was recommended by the Design Review Panel and provides greater amenity to the residents than locating it at ground level. The height of potential adjacent redevelopment would in the future limit solar access to ground or near ground level communal open space and reduce the amenity for this area. By locating a large portion of communal open space on the rooftop it provides a space for residents that is less likely to be adversely impacted by future surrounding development and is of high amenity to residents.

Providing communal open space at the roof level needs consideration to the micro climate and conditions at this height. Providing shelter and wind protection is essential to the amenity and usefulness of the space. A complying height could be established by removing the roof and lift access, however this would create a communal open space which did not provide equitable access to the roof top for less mobile residents and guests, leave the area exposed to extreme weather. This would result in a communal open space that would be useful for only a small part of the year when wind speeds are low and weather is fine.

The addition of the roof provides for a greater public benefit to the future residents of the development.”

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(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

63. Clause 4.6(4) states that:

“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

64. Applicants Comments:

“The public benefit is served as the proposal results in better amenity for the future residents of the proposed development. If the lift and rooftop shading device was deleted, the proposed development would achieve compliance in overall height but the communal rooftop would reduce accessibility and be overly exposed to weather, dramatically reducing its unusable. By providing useable space on the rooftop a variation in the type communal space is provided to the development. This allows for a mixture of communal open spaces, which in addition to the ground floor courtyard encourage greater opportunities for social interaction and group or individual relaxation. The public is benefited by a building which provides a higher amenity to the residents that live within it.”

65. Officer Comment: The proposed development has been designed to ensure all habitable areas are located within the height limit and the only protrusions are in relation to the rooftop communal open space area, stair access and the lift overrun. The lift overrun at the rear is the highest structure that exceeds the height control.

66. The proposal generally satisfies the objectives of the development standard in the following ways:

(a) to establish the maximum height for buildings,

67. Officer Comment: The site and its immediately adjoining properties have been up scaled to allow for medium to larger scaled development. In part this is due to the proximity of the site to Kogarah Town Centre and Kogarah railway station, as these conditions cater for larger scaled developments. Figure 7 shows the extent of the immediate precinct which allows for a maximum height of 21m and 39m. The proposed variation is located central to the building, and accordingly will not be perceptible from the public domain. The building generally will read as being of a compliant height.

Figure 7: Extract from KLEP 2012 Height of buildings map

(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

68. Officer Comment: This objective relates to considering the amenity impacts associated with the non-compliance. In terms of visual impact the structures are generally centrally located which reduces their visual appearance from the immediately adjoining streetscapes.

69. The objective seeks to “minimise” the visual impact, it is not requiring it to be eliminated or totally negated, and as this is a small scale ancillary structure which will not be highly visible or intrusive given the scale and proportions of the building. In respect to the more dominant elements like the lift overrun accessing the roof terrace, this will be a visible element when viewed from a distance. It will not be visible from immediately adjoining properties and streetscapes given that it is centrally located. There will be no adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing or overlooking to adjoining properties.

(c) to provide appropriate scale and intensity of development through height controls.

70. Officer Comment: New developments of a similar nature have been approved in the Kogarah Town Centre precinct and have established a precedent for development in the street and immediate area. The proposed development is consistent with the pattern of development that is slowly being established in the precinct.

71. The non-compliant height of the building which only relates to certain sections of the uppermost level, rooftop communal open space and lift access to the roof can be catered for in this location given the siting, orientation and the fact the buildings comply with the anticipated building envelope which is largely compliant with the ADG and KDCP in terms of the separation distances, landscaped area requirements, front setback control etc. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the development standard.

72. Officer Comment: The exceedance in the control generally satisfies the objectives of the zone for the following reasons:

· To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

73. The development provides a mix of commercial and residential land uses suitable to the site and its location.

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

74. The site is located in a highly accessible location being 350m walking distance from Kogarah railway station.

· To encourage development that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities.

75. The proposal provides two commercial tenancies.

· To encourage development that contributes to an active, vibrant and sustainable town centre.

76. The proposal provides fifty four (54) residential apartments and two (2) commercial tenancies to assist with the activation of the town centre, and provides an active frontage to Derby Street. Kensington Lane is also activated by two (2) units and basement car park access.

· To provide opportunities for residential development, where appropriate.

77. The proposal provides fifty four (54) residential apartments, being a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms in a highly accessible location.

78. The level and location of non-compliance is not considered to be unreasonable and will not establish an undesirable precedent. It will not have any adverse effect on the surrounding locality, which is emerging to be characterised by mixed use development of comparable character. The proposal promotes the economic use and development of the land consistent with its zone and purpose. The Panel is requested to invoke its powers under Clause 4.6 to permit the variation proposed.

79. The public benefit of the variation is that it will appropriately facilitate the provision of residential accommodation and commercial tenancies on a B4 zoned site and provide for a range of new housing stock. It is noted that in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ clarified what items a Clause 4.6 does and does not need to satisfy. Importantly, there does not need to be a "better" planning outcome resulting from the non-compliance.

80. The second matter was in cl 4.6(3)(b), where the Commissioner applied the wrong test in considering this matter by requiring that the development, which contravened the height development standard, results in a "better environmental planning outcome for the site" relative to a development that complies with the height development standard (in [141] and [142] of the judgment). Clause 4.6 does not directly or indirectly establish this test. The requirement in cl 4.6(3)(b) is that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, not that the development that contravenes the development standard have a better environmental planning outcome than a development that complies with the development standard.

81. The roof top area and its associated ancillary structures could be deleted and the building largely compliant however this space will add value and provide greater functionality for the development, providing space and amenity not otherwise easily accessed within a town centre.

82. In this case the proposal seeks to establish the preferred and appropriate design and built form outcome for this site with the building complying in large with the height standard. There will be no adverse amenity or visual impacts generated by the variation and the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and the development standard. In this case the justification to vary the height control is considered to be a reasonable and well-founded request.

Clause 4.6(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

83. Concurrence from the Secretary has been obtained and can be assumed in this case.

84. It is considered that the Clause 4.6 Statement lodged with the application addresses all the information required pursuant to Clause 4.6 and the statement is considered to be well founded as there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard given that in this case the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone and development standard (Clause 4.3, building height control).

Development Control Plans

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013

85. The provisions of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013) are relevant to the proposed development. Several controls within the KDCP 2013 are inconsistent with the scale of development now permitted under the KLEP 2012 (as amended on 26 May 2017). As a consequence, the proposed development will contravene a number of the controls including significant variations to the height and floor space ratio controls as contained in the DCP.

86. The significant variations to KDCP 2013 have resulted from the subsequent amendments to KLEP 2012 which allows a higher density/scale of development. The approach to support the development with significant variations to KDCP 2013 (but compliant with KLEP 2012) is consistent with recent judgements in the NSW Land and Environment Court. In particular, in Michael Murr v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC1369.

87. It is also noted that in the hierarchy of planning controls, Development Control Plans cannot prescribe more onerous corresponding controls than those in a Local Environmental Plan.

88. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant controls in the KDCP 2013 is detailed in the compliance table below.

Part B General Controls
Part	Objectives/Controls	Comments	Complies
B1 - Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas	The objectives of this part are to: · Ensure development protects and enhances the environmental and cultural heritage of Kogarah; · Ensure proposed development is sympathetic to heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas; · Provide guidance on appropriate design, siting, bulk, materials, landscaping and streetscape character.	The site is across the road from the ‘Former Kogarah Presbyterian Church and hall’ which are identified collectively as a heritage item of local significance. Given the ample separation provided by Derby Street, the proposal is not likely to result in any adverse effects upon the heritage significance of church and hall opposite.	Yes
B2 - Tree Management and Green Web	The objectives of this part include the following: · Ensure the protection of existing trees which contribute to the visual amenity and environment of the City of Kogarah; · Protect trees within and adjacent to development sites; · Maximise healthy tree canopy coverage across the City of Kogarah.	Refer to earlier comments regarding the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP. The site is not within a ‘habitat corridor’ or ‘habitat reinforcement corridor’ under council’s green web strategy.	N/A
B3 - Developments near Busy Roads and Rail Corridors	The objectives of this part are to: · Ensure an appropriate acoustic amenity can be achieved for development near transport corridors, particularly residential development and other noise sensitive land uses; · Provide additional acoustic design or mitigation measures that may be necessary; · Development fronting a busy road or a rail corridor should be designed and sited to minimise noise impacts.	Based on the location of the site and characteristics of the surrounding locality, the rail noise/vibration and road noise/vibration provisions in clauses 87 and 102 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 are not relevant to this proposal.	N/A
B4 - Parking and Traffic	The objectives of this part are to: · Minimise traffic congestion and ensure adequate traffic safety and management; · Ensure an adequate environmental quality of parking areas (including both safety and amenity); · Provide adequate car parking for building users and visitors, depending on building use and proximity to public transport.	The car parking rates for the Kogarah Town Centre as specified in Part E1 of the DCP prevail over those rates specified in this part. In accordance with the provisions of clause 3.43(5) of the EP&A Act, this control has no effect. Given this development is within an accessible area the requirements of the RMS Guide for Traffic Generating Development are triggered by SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide.	N/A – Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
B5 - Waste Management and Minimisation	The objectives of this part are to: · Encourage best practice in waste management that minimises waste generation, facilitates waste separation and maximises reuse and recycling; · Ensure quality design of waste management facilities that complement the building design and minimise noise, odour and visual impacts on adjacent uses and the public domain; · Ensure suitable and efficient waste storage, recycling and collection in all development.	An acceptable waste management plan has been submitted with the application.	Yes
B6 - Water Management	The objectives of this part are to: · Reduce flooding and drainage impacts within and downstream of the development site; · Reduce pollutant loads exported to the waterways via the stormwater system; · Conserve water and reduce mains water consumption.	A suitable stormwater management plan has been provided and conditions of consent provided by Council’s Development Engineer.	Yes
B7- Environment Management	The objectives of this part are to: · Apply principles and processes that contribute to ecologically sustainable development; · Reduce the impacts of development on the environment; · Increase the resilience of development to the effects of climate change; · Ensure that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced; · Reduce the use of potable water; · Ensure that development can adapt to climate change.	A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application verifying that the relevant water, energy and thermal comfort targets have been met by the proposal. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the commitments required under the BASIX certificate will be satisfied by the proposed development.	Yes

Part E1 Kogarah Town Centre - Built Form
Part	Control	Proposed	Complies
3.4 - Building Heights	Maximum building heights are shown in Figure 1 – Building Heights Plan. Note: the relevant figure prescribes a 12m height.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 3.43(5) of the EP&A Act, this control has no effect. In this regard, it is inconsistent with the building height standard in KLEP 2012.	N/A - Refer to the KLEP 2012 assessment earlier in this report and the Clause 4.6 variation to the height control development standard.
3.4 - Building Heights	Articulation Where buildings are greater than four storeys, strong articulation should be provided in the form of a setback at the 5th and 6th storey, a strongly marked balcony cornice line (projection) and modulation in roof form.	The facades to Derby Street and Kensington Lane are highly articulated with the use of recessed balconies, variations in balustrade treatments and a ‘stepped’ built form including distinctive facade treatments at different levels.	Yes
3.5 - Building Density	The maximum floor space ratios for the Kogarah Centre are specified in the Floor Space Ratio Plan (Figure 4 below). Note: the relevant figure prescribes a 1.3:1 floor space ratio.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 3.43(5) of the EP&A Act, this control has no effect. In this regard, it is inconsistent with the floor space ratio standard in KLEP 2012 which is 4:1.	N/A – Refer to the KLEP 2012 assessment earlier in this report.
3.6 - Building Alignment	Buildings must be built to the alignments specified in Figure 3.4 below, for the majority of the facade length. This control requires the building to be built predominantly to the specified building alignment; however buildings are not to have straight, flat facades. Note: the relevant figure does not prescribe a setback to the subject site.	Not applicable.	N/A
	Buildings require highly articulated facades with many projections such as stepped facades, entry porches, bay windows and balconies to provide vertical subdivisions and visual interest in the streetscape.	The facades to Derby Street and Kensington Lane are highly articulated with the use of recessed balconies, variations in balustrade treatments and a ‘stepped’ built form including distinctive facade treatments at different levels.	Yes
	Lanes For buildings above 4m high, the whole of the building must be built to the alignments specified in Figure 8. Note: 3m setback to lane required	A 1.9m setback is proposed to Kensington Lane.	On merit – the DCP did not anticipate building heights as per the LEP. The proposed setback is consistent with recent approvals on adjacent sites, and the existing setback of the building at 1 Derby Street.
3.7 - Building Depth	New buildings are to provide operable windows to all living and working environments.	All proposed units include operable windows to enable cross ventilation.	Yes
	Articulate buildings using courtyards, atria and the like to achieve substantial day lighting, cross ventilation and/or stack ventilation.	A central void and separation from the adjacent building to the north west allows a compliant number of units to achieve the required solar access and cross ventilation in accordance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).	Yes
	The range of maximum building depth for residential buildings in order to allow natural light and cross ventilation should be 10m – 15m. This includes sheltered balconies (which is a balcony with a roof over it), sunrooms and the like.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A – Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
3.8 - Floor to Ceiling Heights	Floor to ceiling heights should be a minimum of 2.7m at upper storeys of buildings, to all habitable rooms to allow for a range of uses, and to improve the environmental performance and amenity of the building.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect. It is acknowledged the floor to ceiling heights are 2.8m.	N/A – Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
3.9 - Parking Provision in the Kogarah Town Centre	Car Parking Residential parking is to be provided in developments at the following rates: (i) 1 resident car space is to be provided on-site for each dwelling. (ii) 1 visitor car space is to be provided on-site for each 5 dwellings. (2) The number of on-site resident and/or visitor car parking spaces for residential development may be reduced at Council’s discretion if the applicant can demonstrate a reduced parking need. Any negotiated/agreed reduction in parking would have to be complemented by demonstrated tangible benefits which are both complementary and consistent with the objectives of this Part. (3) Specific parking requirements apply to the following precincts: (i) Railway Parade Precinct – Refer to Section 5.5 for requirements (ii) Railway Parade South – Refer to Section 5.6 for requirements (4) For commercial/retail development and other land uses parking is to be provided at the following rate: (i) 1 space per 40m2 for any floor space at ground floor level. (ii) 1 space per 50sqm for all other floor space above ground floor level. (5) 1% of all car parking spaces are to be designated “accessible” spaces for people with mobility impairments, with a minimum of 1 space for facilities such as medical suites. (6) For car parks between 10 to 99 spaces at least one “accessible” space must be provided. (7) Designated “accessible” car spaces are to be treated as resident car spaces in the calculation of the parking requirement.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 3.43(5) of the EP&A Act, this control has no effect. Car parking is in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Service Guide to Traffic Generating Development.	N/A – Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
3.9 - Parking Provision in the Kogarah Town Centre	Bicycle Parking Bicycle storage is to be provided at the rate of: (i) 1 secure bicycle storage facility per 2 residential units. (ii) 1 bike space per 10 car spaces for the first 200 spaces then 1 space per 20 car spaces thereafter, for commercial and retail land uses.	Bicycle parking (27 spaces) is provided in basement levels C3, C2 and C1, plus additional bicycle parking at the street frontage to Derby Street.	Yes
	Loading Bay Facilities (1) Loading bay facilities are to be provided at the following rates: Retail: · floor area 15sqm to 500sqm - 1 bay required · floor area 500sqm to 1500sqm - 2 bays required Commercial: · floor area 1000sqm to 5000sqm - 1 bay required · floor area 5000sqm to 10000sqm - 2 bays required (2) Loading bay facilities are to be designed as follows: · minimum bay width - 3.5m · minimum bay length for Bay 1 - 9.5m · minimum bay length for Bay 2 - 6.5m	Two commercial spaces are proposed (74sqm and 72sqm in size). A loading bay is provided on Basement Level C1, measuring 3m x 6m. The dimensions of the bay are considered suitable for the size of delivery vehicle likely to service the small-sized tenancies and the type of business that will likely occupy them.	Yes

Part E1 Kogarah Town Centre - Urban Design
Part	Control	Proposed	Complies
4.1 Address and Active Street Frontages	(1) Buildings on the street frontage are to provide pedestrian amenity in the form of active street frontages, building entrances and awnings. (2) Buildings setback from the street frontage, are to address the street with major facades, entrances, stairs, low fences, substantial planting and other streetscapes. (3) In predominantly residential areas, strengthen the interaction between the public and private domain by providing multiple entrances for large developments, locate shops where they will be most visible and minimise the vehicular entrance width.	Active street frontage is provided to Derby Street through the tenancies and the entrance lobby to the residential apartments. The laneway is activated by the vehicular entrance and two ground floor apartments. Suitable façade and entry treatments are provided. The tenancies are oriented to Derby Street and separated from the residential entry.	Yes Yes Yes
4.2 Corners	(1) Buildings are to be sited on the street frontages at corners, addressing the corner. (2) The street intersection is to be addressed with splays, curves, building entries and other special architectural elements. (3) Architectural corner elements may be slightly higher than the rest of the building. They must not exceed 4.0m above the average street wall height. The floor space they contain will be part of the total gross floor area of the building.	N/A	N/A
4.3 - Architectural Articulation	Large areas of flat facade are to be avoided. Facades should be articulated into separate sections, using steps in the facade, expressed entries, panels, bay windows, balconies, pergolas and other architectural elements.	There are no large areas of flat facade addressing the lane or street. The facades are articulated into suitable elements by way of a change in built form between the base, middle and top of the building and distinctive balcony treatments at these levels.	Yes
	Articulation elements must be integral with the building design and should consider the whole building - not just the street facade.	The facades addressing all elevations are suitably articulated.	Yes
	Changes of texture and colour should complement facade articulation.	A suitable mix of materials and finishes are proposed.	Yes.
	Provide solar protection elements as integral with the building design and massing.	The proposed units are provided with suitably recessed, covered balconies which serve to provide solar protection as well as articulation of the built form. The pergola proposed for the rooftop communal open space will achieve a similar effect.	Yes
4.4 - Façade Composition	Provide a balance of horizontal and vertical facade elements to relate to adjacent facades in the streetscape. Avoid simple facade designs containing only horizontal or vertical elements.	The street facades include an appropriate balance of horizontal and vertical elements in keeping with other approved buildings in the streetscape.	Yes
	Subdivide long facades with columns, windows and other vertical elements to provide a vertical emphasis.	The vertical emphasis is achieved through the use of consistent materials and vertical façade treatments.	Yes
	Provide substantial cornices, balconies and other horizontal elements to subdivide the facade into a base, middle and top.	The proposed building achieves a base, middle and top through façade treatments, balustrading and setbacks.	Yes
4.5 - Private Open Space and Balconies	Every apartment is to have at least one balcony directly accessible from the main living area, of minimum size 10sqm.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	The minimum dimension in any direction is to be 2.5m.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	There is no minimum size for a bedroom balcony (eg Juliet balconies).	Noted.	-
	Design balconies which are recessed into the wall or enclosed with walls, columns or roofs to provide sufficient enclosure and visual firmness.	The proposed balconies are enclosed by walls, columns and a roof providing sufficient enclosure and visual strength.	Yes
	Design balustrades which allow for views into and along the street, but avoid all-glass and all-brick balustrades.	The proposed balconies incorporate a mix of solid masonry and open-style balustrades.	Yes
	Employ Juliet balconies and French windows to articulate facades with architectural detail and vertically proportioned windows.	The proposal does not include any Juliet balconies or French windows. Given the contemporary design of the development, these design features are unnecessary and would only detract from the building’s appearance.	No - but acceptable on merit.
	Include sunscreens, pergolas, shutters, operable walls to control sunlight, wind and harsh environmental effects.	The proposed balconies do not include any of these climate control features. Notwithstanding, these balconies are substantially enclosed with solid masonry elements and roofing such that climatic conditions are reasonably controlled.	Some balconies on the lower levels of the building contain screens, and all balconies contain a combination of solid and open form balustrades.
4.6 Awnings	(1) Step awnings and other weather protection devices in relation to street level changes and building entrances. (2) Avoid steeply pitched awnings which break the general alignment of awnings in the street. (3) Provide architectural detail in the form of: (i) Posts (ii) exposed structures and joints (iii) fascia motifs, patterns (4) Provide under-awning lighting to enhance safety. (5) Awnings are to be built to the street frontage where indicated in Figure 4.9	The Derby Street awning is consistent with the height of the awning on the adjoining building. The proposed awnings are flat. The exposed elevations are suitably treated. Can be conditioned. The site is not required to provide awnings to the street frontage.	Yes Yes Yes Yes – by condition N/A
4.7 - Roof Designs	Articulate roofs to provide a varied and interesting roofscape.	The roof is articulated by way of the ‘stepping’ of the built form across the site and provision of rooftop communal open space including landscaping and pergola elements. As a result, the roofscape will be varied and interesting.	Yes
	Design large projections, shade structures and pavilions to enhance the appearance of flat roofed buildings.	The main roof incorporates a range of design elements to enhance the appearance of the building including a recreational pavilion and shade structure.	Yes
	Conceal lift over-runs and plant equipment (incl. satellite dishes) within well designed roof forms.	The lift over-run is centrally located within the site.	Yes
	Design steep pitched roofs with strong roof forms. Roofs should be integral part of the design of the building.	Although the roof forms are not pitched, they are an integral part of the design of the building.	No - but acceptable on merit.
	Penthouses are encouraged in residential developments, to create interesting skylines using set back upper storeys, special fenestration and roof decks.	Although penthouses are not included in the proposal, this is not a requirement but rather a recommendation.	N/A
4.8 - Visual and Acoustic Privacy	Buildings are to be sited so that walls containing windows to habitable rooms are a minimum of 6m from a side or rear boundary. This will ensure a minimum distance of 12m is achieved between windows of habitable rooms.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	Separation for balconies and terraces is to be a minimum 8m balcony to another balcony, or 7m balcony to a window of a non-habitable room. (This assumes that only habitable rooms will have balconies).	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	Overlooking should be minimised by: (i) building on the perimeter of the block and building to the side boundaries of sites, with blank walls, to avoid overlooking; (ii) locating habitable rooms within buildings away from privacy sensitive areas.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	Screen views from windows and balconies by: (i) using screens in front of windows and balconies to cut out direct views; (ii) offsetting windows opposite each other in neighbouring wall (iii) using horizontal and vertical projecting screens above, below and to the side of windows, to reduce overlooking.	The windows and balconies of the proposed units are oriented towards Derby Street, Kensington Lane and to the north-west. No windows or balconies are oriented directly towards the adjoining residential properties.	Yes
	Development is to meet or exceed the sound insulation requirements for separating walls and floors of adjoining dwellings of the Building Code of Australia.	This BCA requirement is relevant to the construction certificate stage.	N/A
	With particular regard to timber flooring in residential developments, appropriate insulation between floors is to achieve minimum sound attenuation of (50Rw).	This BCA requirement is relevant to the construction certificate stage.	N/A
	Site buildings and design internal layouts of rooms, courtyards, terraces, to minimise acoustic problems. The use of openings, screens and blade walls can reduce acoustic problems.	The units and balconies are suitably designed to minimise acoustic impacts.	Yes
	Blank walls are not desirable however blank walls may be built on the property boundary in certain circumstances. They should be articulated, patterned or contain appropriate public art.	Where the proposed building extends beyond the height of the existing and approved adjoining buildings, the façade is suitably treated.	Yes
4.9 - Landscaping and Deep Soil Planting	Deep soil landscaping areas are to be provided where possible within the side boundary setback area and to the front and rear setback areas, where more than one building is located on the site, landscaping and deep soil planting should be provided to assist in privacy screening.	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	Landscaping should be of native species and should include species that are drought resistant and require minimal watering once established, or plants that match the rainfall and drainage conditions.	The proposed landscaping to the ground floor podium and rooftop open space area includes a combination of native and non-native plant species. This mix of planting is reasonable in an urban setting as it is not in proximity to any environmentally sensitive areas.	No - but acceptable on merit.
	Limit turf to usable outdoor spaces.	No turf is proposed.	Yes
4.10 Location of Car Parking Areas	(1) Car parking should be provided below ground. (2) In residential areas where there is no retail or commercial development, a basement car park may project a maximum 1m above-ground level. This may provide natural ventilation to the carpark. However, openings should be screened with landscaping. (3) Like other buildings, above ground car parks should fit within and complement the existing streetscape. (4) Carpark entrances should:  be shared with adjoining properties where possible;  incorporate other facade elements such as overhanging balconies or side planter boxes in the composition of the façade;  contain doors with a minimum recess into the wall of 300mm;  contain doors of a minimum width to allow the passage of vehicles.	Basement parking is proposed. Not applicable. Not proposed. Not possible. The ground floor overhangs the basement entry. Complies. Complies.	Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes
4.11 - Safety and Security	Orient buildings towards the street, such that building frontages and entries overlook and are clearly visible from the street and provide a sense of address and visual interest.	The proposed building is oriented to both street frontages.	Yes
	Avoid blank walls addressing streets and any other public spaces.	There are no blanks walls addressing the streets.	Yes
	Clearly design buildings and spaces, and the entries to buildings, delineate public, semi public and private space through the use of symbolic or actual barriers, such as low fences or landscaping, post boxes, lighting and signage.	The entry to the commercial tenancies and the units is clearly defined on the Derby Street frontage and in Kensington Lane.	Yes
	Avoid building recess, alcoves or dense landscaping in places where concealment is possible.	The design does not result in any unsuitable areas where concealment is possible.	Yes
4.13 - Housing Choice and Ancillary Requirements	To achieve a mix of living styles, sizes and layouts, all residential development (or residential component within a mixed development) must provide a mix of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom apartments.	1B x 12 units 2B x 39 units 3B x 3 units	Yes
	Residential units must have the minimum net floor area as follows: ^·1 Bedroom unit = 75sqm ^·2 Bedroom unit = 100sqm ^·3 Bedroom unit = 115sqm	In accordance with the provisions of clause 6A (2) of the SEPP 65, this control is of no effect.	N/A - Refer to the ADG assessment earlier in this report.
	External clothes drying facilities are encouraged. These should be provided in the form of a screened balcony or terrace area.	Although external clothes drying facilities are not included in the proposal, this is not a requirement but rather a recommendation.	N/A

Section 7.11 Contributions

89. Monetary contributions are required under Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, with respect to the proposed development. These contributions have been calculated appropriately and a suitable condition of consent has been included in the recommendation in this respect.

IMPACTS

Natural Environment

90. The proposed development is unlikely to result in have adverse impacts on the natural environment.

Built Environment

91. The proposed development is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on the built environment.

92. In particular, the proposal complies with the Floor Space Ratio control contained in Kogarah LEP 2012, and is consistent with the bulk and scale of both existing and emerging development in both the immediate and broader context.

Social Impacts

93. The development will provide additional housing stock to the area and cater to the needs of families by providing a range of dwelling sizes through a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. Two (2) commercial suites are also located on the ground floor activating Derby Street Kogarah.

Economic Impacts

94. The development will have positive short term economic benefit associated with construction employment and minimal adverse economic impacts over the longer term.

Suitability of the site

95. The subject site is inherently suitable for the proposed development having regard to the emerging character of the surrounding locality which features several multi-level buildings with residential accommodation and its location in close proximity to public transport options and a wide range of services and facilities. Further, there are no natural or man-made environmental constraints (eg flooding/bushfire risks) that would render the site unsuitable for the proposed development.

SUBMISSIONS

96. The application was publicly exhibited from 13 June 2018 to 27 June 2018 in accordance with the public notification provisions in Part A of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013. One (1) submission objecting to the proposal was received.

97. The issues raised in the submission are addressed below.

· Overshadowing of the United Early Learning Centre

Comment: The centre has shade structures over the majority of the outdoor play area and therefore the proposal will not significantly reduce the existing amount of daylight afforded to the outdoor play areas. Given the north-south orientation of the site, overshadowing to the south is inevitable. In addition, the site is located in an urban locality undergoing transition to higher densities and building heights, where the ability to protect the solar access of neighbouring properties is inherently difficult to achieve.

· Loss of privacy to the Centre from balconies

Comment: There are a maximum of two balconies per level oriented to the south west, with one of those balconies at each level having a primary orientation to the north west rather than the south west. The majority of balconies will look over the top of the centre rather than down onto the outdoor play areas.

· Impacts of traffic on Kensington Lane

Comment: A Traffic Impact Statement was submitted with the DA which concludes that: “There is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.” Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has not raised any concerns in relation to traffic generation or impacts on local roads.

The development is compliant with respect to parking numbers and compliance with the relevant Australian Standards.

98. The minor amendments to the application during the course of its assessment were not required to be publicly notified in accordance with the DCP as they were considered to not result in additional environmental impacts. In this regard, the amendments were substantially in response to design issues raised by council officers and the design review panel and generally improved the bulk/scale and associated impacts of the proposal.

REFERRALS

Council Referrals

99. Landscaping – No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

100. Stormwater – No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

101. Property Information - No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

102. Health – No objections were raised subject to conditions. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions.

External Referrals

Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

103. The proposed development will penetrate prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport and hence constitutes a ‘controlled activity’ within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 12 of the Airports Act 1996. The applicant has obtained the necessary approval for the controlled activity.

CONCLUSION

104. The proposal has been assessed using the matters for consideration listed in Section 4.15 and 4.16(1) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Based on this assessment, the proposal is considered generally to comply with the relevant assessment criterion. The non-compliances are considered acceptable and worthy of support subject to appropriate conditions.

105. There are some areas of non-compliance with the applicable planning controls contained in the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, as well as the design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide. However, these areas of non-compliance are justifiable as discussed throughout this report.

DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS

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 KLEP 2012.

· 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 KLEP 2012.

· The proposal’s 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.

Determination

106. THAT pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Georges River Local Planning Panel grant development consent to Development Application DA2018/0137 for lot consolidation, demolition works and construction of a 12 storey mixed use building over basement parking at Lots A and B in DP107114 and CP/SP498 and known as 7-11 Derby Street, Kogarah, subject to the following conditions of consent:

Section A - Development Details

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

Description	Reference No.	Date	Revision	Prepared by
Site Plan	DA-A- 0101	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Construction Management and Demolition	DA-A-030	31/5/19	A	Smith & Tzannes
Level C3	DA-A-100	31/5/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Level C2	DA-A-101	31/5/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Level C1	DA-A-102	10/10/19	E	Smith & Tzannes
Level 0 (Ground)	DA-A-103	10/10/19	E	Smith & Tzannes
Level 1	DA-A-104	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Level 2	DA-A-105	10/10/19	C	Smith & Tzannes
Levels 3 to 4	DA-A-106	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Level 5	DA-A-107	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Levels 6 to 9	DA-A-108	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Level 10	DA-A-109	31/5/19	A	Smith & Tzannes
Level 11	DA-A-110	12/9/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Roof	DA-A-111	12/9/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Adaptable Units	DA-A-150	31/5/19	A	Smith & Tzannes
Elevations (Street Frontages)	DA-A-200	2/10/19	C	Smith & Tzannes
North West Elevation	DA-A-201	2/10/19	E	Smith & Tzannes
South East Elevation	DA-A-202	2/10/19	C	Smith & Tzannes
Sections	DA-A-203	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Section CC	DA-A-204	10/10/19	B	Smith & Tzannes
Building Finishes	DA-A-900	31/5/19	A	Smith & Tzannes
Façade Materials and Finishes	DA-A-901	31/5/19	A	Smith & Tzannes
Landscape Plan Level 0	LC01	13/10/19	C	Stitch Design Studio
Landscape Plan Level 10	LC02	13/10/19	C	Stitch Design Studio
Landscape Plan Roof	LC03	13/10/19	B	Stitch Design Studio
Landscape Plan Level 2	LC04	13/10/19	A	Stitch Design Studio
Proposed Planting	LC05	13/10/19	A	Stitch Design Studio

Separate Approvals Required Under Other Legislation

2. 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 1.2 metre wide footpath for the full length of the frontage of the site in accordance with Council’s Specifications applying at the time construction approval is sought.

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

(c) Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be restored at the expense of the applicant. The work shall 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 Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, prior to the commencement of those works.

3. 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’ (overhead type) hoarding or ‘C type’ scaffold, in accordance with the requirements of SafeWork NSW, must be erected along that portion of the footways/roadway where the building is within 3 metres of the street boundary.

An application for this work under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993 must be submitted for approval to Council.

The following information is to be submitted with a Hoarding Application under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993:

a) A site and location plan of the hoarding with detailed elevation, dimensions, setbacks, heights, entry and exit points to/from the site, vehicle access points, location of public utilities, electrical overhead wire protection, site management plan and builders sheds location; and

b) Hoarding plan and details that are certified by an appropriately qualified engineer; and

c) The payment to Council of a footpath occupancy fee based on the area of footpath to be occupied and Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges (available at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au) before the commencement of work; and

d) Public Risk Insurance Policy with a minimum cover of $20 million in relation to the occupation of and works within Council's road reserve, for the full duration of the proposed works, must be obtained a copy provided to Council. The Policy is to note Council as an interested party.

4. Below ground anchors - Information to be submitted with S68 Application under LGA 1993 and S138 Application under Roads Act 1993 - 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 must 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. The following details must be submitted.

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 [$50,000].

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.

5. 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.

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

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

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

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

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

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

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

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

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

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

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

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

6. Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must 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.

Requirements of Concurrence, Integrated & Other Government Authorities

7. General Terms of Approval - The development shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the General Terms of Approval (GTA) outlined below.

Approval Body	Date of GTA
Airspace Protection	14 June 2019

A copy of the requirements of the approval Authority is attached to this consent.

8. Trade Waste Agreements - A Trade Waste Agreement with Sydney Water may be required. Details of any work required to comply with the agreement must be detailed on the plans lodged with the Construction Certificate. If no trade waste agreement or grease trap is required, a letter from Sydney Water to this effect must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

9. Electricity Supply - An application is required to be made to Ausgrid for a network connection. This may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. Evidence of this application being lodged with Ausgrid is required to be provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. For further details, you are advised to contact Ausgrid on 13 13 65 or www.ausgrid.com.au (Business and Commercial Services).

10. Connection to the network will be required prior to the release of any Occupation Certificate - Where works within the road reserve are to be carried out by the developer, a Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre before commencement of work.

11. Electricity Supply to Development - The electricity supply to the Development must be underground.

12. Geotechnical Report - Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Applicant shall provide Sydney Trains with a Geotechnical Report and structural drawings/report. These reports shall provide confirmation that there will be no negative impact on Sydney Trains infrastructure and land. Written confirmation shall be provided from Sydney Trains to the Certifying Authority confirming this condition has been satisfied.

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

14. Notice of Requirements for a Section 73 Certificate - A Notice of Requirements of what will eventually be required when issuing a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. Please refer to the ‘Plumbing, building and developing’ section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to ‘Providers’ under ‘Developing’ or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate

15. Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report - Private Land - A professional engineer specialising in structural or geotechnical engineering shall prepare a Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report detailing the current structural condition of adjoining premises.

The report shall be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

A copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report is to be provided to the adjoining properties (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 PCA.

Should the owners of properties (or their agents) refuse access to carry out inspections, after being given reasonable written notice, this shall 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.

16. On Site Detention - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Final detailed plans of the drainage system, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering, shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate.

An on-site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering must be designed, approved and installed. The design must include the computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:

(a) peak flow rates from the site are to be restricted to a permissible site discharge (PSD) equivalent to the discharge when assuming the site contained a single dwelling, garage, lawn and garden.

(b) at Annual Recurrence Intervals of 2 years and 100 years.

(c) The proposed arrangement of the OSD system shall discharge by gravity using the minimum allowable size of an orifice plate Ø25mm to the street kerb and gutter.

(d) Provide at least one grated access and sufficient ventilation to the OSD tank.

(e) Provide at least two sealed access on the opposite ends of the OSD tank.

(f) Provide a silt trap in a boundary pit prior to discharge the flow into the kerb and gutter.

(g) All roof downpipes shall drain into the OSD tank and not into the basement.

(h) Ensure that the stormwater discharge pipe between the boundary pit and the street kerb shall be RHS laid at an angle at a minimum 1% grade to drain by gravity to the street kerb.

17. Pump-Out System Design for Stormwater Disposal - The design of the pump-out system for stormwater disposal will be permitted for drainage of basement areas only, and must be designed in accordance with the following criteria:

a) The pump system shall consist of two pumps, connected in parallel, with each pump being capable of emptying the holding tank at the rate equal to the rate of inflow for the one-hour duration storm. The holding tank shall be capable of holding one hour’s runoff from a one-hour duration storm of the 1 in 20 year storm;

b) The pump system shall be regularly maintained and serviced, every six (6) months; and

c) Any drainage disposal to the street gutter from a pump system must have a stilling sump provided at the property line, connected to the street gutter by a suitable gravity line.

Details and certification of compliance from a professional engineer specialising in civil engineering shall be provided for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

18. Driveway Construction Plan Details - Detailed engineering plans for the driveway shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application for approval that show:

(a) Longitudinal and cross sections, gradients, access onto the proposed lots, type of construction materials designed in accordance with Council's Subdivision standards and AS/NZS2890.1-2004.

(b) Suitable underground provision for the supply of all relevant services to the proposed lots (proposed position of pipes and conduits).

(c) A longitudinal driveway sections are to be prepared by a qualified civil/traffic engineer and be submitted for to and approved by the Certifying Authority. These profiles are to be at 1:100 scale along both edges of the proposed driveway, starting from the centreline of the frontage street carriageway to the proposed garage/parking level. The civil/traffic engineer shall provide specific written certification on the plans that:

a. Vehicular access can be obtained using grades of 25% (1 in 4) maximum and

b. All changes in grade (transitions) comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) - “Off-street car parking” to prevent the scraping of the underside of the vehicles.

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

20. 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 either Council or a PCA. Such list must also specify the minimum standard of performance for each essential fire safety measure included in the list. The Council or PCA will then issue a Fire Safety Schedule for the building.

21. 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: $29,664.00.

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

c) Submit to Council, before the commencement of work, a 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.

22. Engineer’s Certificate - A certificate from a professional Engineer specialising in structural engineering certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure, to support all proposed additional superimposed loads shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

23. Access for Persons with a Disability - [Access and/or sanitary facilities] for persons with disabilities must be provided to the premises/building 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 for approval.

24. 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/stabilization works and any excavations.

(b) Dilapidation Reports on the adjoining properties including, but not limited to (address) and (address) 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 must be submitted to the PCA 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.

(d) Measures to minimise vibration damage and loss of support to other buildings. Where possible any excavation into rock is to be carried out with tools such as rock saws which reduce vibration to adjoining buildings and associated structures. Where a hydraulic hammer is to be used within 30 metres of any building (other than a path or a fence) the report shall detail the maximum size of hammer to be used and provide all reasonable recommendations to manage impacts.

(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.

25. 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:

(i) hours of use of the rooftop deck;

(ii) maximum number of users at any one time;

(iii) provisions for no amplified music to be played;

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

It is suggested that a maximum of 20 persons be accommodated in this space at any one time.

The approved POM shall be incorporated into the Owners Corporation by-laws in any future Strata subdivision.

26. Car Wash Bay - The car wash bay must:

(i) have clearly visible signs which indicate that no degreasing or mechanical work is to be undertaken in the bay;

(ii) have a fixed basket trap for floor waste; and

(iii) includes a 1000 litre general purpose pit.

(i) removal off-site by an authorised liquid waste disposal contractor;

(ii) reuse of treated wastewater for car washing or irrigation on landscaped areas. An appropriate method should be used to treat grease, oil and silt before reuse or irrigation; or

27. Construction Traffic Management Plan [Large Developments only] - A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing:

(a) construction vehicle routes;

(b) anticipated number of trucks per day;

(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 must specify in writing that they are satisfied with the Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

28. SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - A design verification statement, prepared by a qualified designer, shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority 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.

29. Waste Storage - Residential and Mixed Use Developments - The plans shall include details of the waste storage area. The waste storage area shall not be visible from the street. The waste storage area shall be located within the lot/building in accordance with the approved plans.

The waste storage area shall be large enough to accommodate the required number of bins for the development and located in an area to suitably facilitate servicing on waste collection day.

The path to the bin room is to be at least 1.0 metres wide and kept clear and unobstructed at all times.

Residential Waste

The development will require the provision of the following waste and recycling facilities:

· The property requires 13 x 240L bins for garbage collected twice a week and 9 x 240L recycling bins collected twice a week.

· As indicated in the waste management plan all bins must be taken to kerbside for collection.

The waste room will contain the following to minimise odours, deter vermin, protect

surrounding areas, and make it a user-friendly and safe area:

· waste room floor to be sealed;

· waste room walls and floor surface is flat and even;

· all walls painted with light colour and washable paint;

· equipment electric outlets to be installed 1700mm above floor levels;

· The bin storage rooms will be mechanically exhausted as required by AS 1668.2;

· light switch installed at height of 1.6m;

· waste rooms must be well lit (sensor lighting recommended);

· optional automatic odour and pest control system installed to eliminate all pest

· types and assist with odour reduction - this process generally takes place at

· building handover - building management make the decision to install;

· all personnel doors are hinged and self-closing;

· waste collection area must hold all bins - bin movements should be with ease of access;

· conform to the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and local laws; and childproofing and public/operator safety shall be assessed and ensured.

· 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.

· Cleaners will monitor the bin storage area and all spills will be attended to immediately by cleaners.

30. Design Quality Excellence (Major Development) -

(a) In order to ensure the design quality excellence of the development is retained:

i. The design architect is to have direct involvement in the design documentation, contract documentation and construct stages of the project;

iii. Evidence of the design architect’s commission is to be provided to the Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

(b) The design architect of the project is not to be changed without prior notice and approval of the Council.

31. Waste Storage Containers - Commercial/Industrial - Appropriate waste and recycling containers and facilities will need to be provided for all specific end use businesses in accordance with the following waste generation rates:

Commercial Waste

(a) Retail Trading - shops, to 100 square metres - 0.1-0.2 cubic metres per 100 square metres of floor area per day;

(b) Restaurants and Food Shops - 0.3-0.6 square metres per 100 meals, plus up to 0.15 cubic metres of beverage containers per 100 meals; and,

All waste and recycling containers shall be stored in an approved waste storage area that is large enough to store the required number of bins for the number of units and intended uses of the building.

Bins shall be stored in an area of the building that can be adequately serviced by waste collection vehicles. If the waste storage area is located in a part of the building that cannot be easily accessed by service providers, it will be the responsibility of the Owners Corporation to present the bins for collection to the kerb-side.

Details of the waste storage area must be illustrated on the plans submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate for approval.

32. Waste Handling Systems - All waste handling equipment and systems used in conjunction with the provision of waste and recycling services shall be manufactured, installed and maintained in accordance with any applicable regulatory requirements, relevant Australian Standards, and relevant manufacturer’s specifications.

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

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

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	$29,664.00
Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit	$155.00
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.1 - Roads and Traffic Management - Residential	$33,295.93
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.5 - Open Space 2007	$583,362.18
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Buildings	$12,927.06
Kogarah Section 94 Development Contributions Plan No.9 - Kogarah Libraries - Books	$9,216.69

General Fees

Development Contributions

The Section 7.11 contribution is imposed to ensure that the development makes adequate provision for the demand it generates for public amenities and public services within the area.

Indexation

Timing of Payment

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

Further Information

34. 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.

35. BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. 901649M must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37. Stormwater System - The submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Final detailed plans of the drainage system, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering, shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate.

(a) All stormwater shall drain by gravity to Council's kerb and gutter in the street as indicated on the approved plan in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

(b) Prior to the commencement of works, the registered surveyor shall ensure to the PCA that the stormwater discharge pipe across the footpath shall be RHS at an angle and is laid with minimum disturbance at a minimum 1% grade to the kerb and gutter in the street and is made in good working condition.

(c) A longitudinal section of the site stormwater discharge pipe across the footpath reserve shall be prepared showing the public utility services particularly those may encroach the above proposed stormwater pipe.

(d) The RHS galvanised pipe must have a minimum of 50mm of cover along its length through the road reserve. A detailed section of the connection through the road reserve is to be prepared and shown on the drainage plan prior to the commencement of works.

(e) There shall be no damage to the adjoining driveway crossing. All damages are to be rectified to its original condition at the cost of the applicant.

(f) The stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a professional engineer who specialises in Hydraulic Engineering in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

Stormwater Systems with Basement

(a) The underground basement car park must pump to and all other stormwater must drain by gravity to:

i. the drainage system within the site via a silt trap pit .

Protection of basement from inundation of stormwater waters

(b) The protection of the underground basement shall be protected from possible inundation by surface waters from the street.

Evidence from a professional engineer who specialises in hydraulic engineering that this design requirement has been adhered to shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

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

A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA.

39. Traffic Management - Compliance with AS2890 - All driveways, access ramps, vehicular crossings and car parking spaces shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current version of Australian Standards, AS 2890.1 (for car parking facilities) and AS 2890.2 (for commercial vehicle facilities).

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

41. Landscape Plans - All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by Stitch Design Studio, reference numbers - LC01 to LCO5 dated 13/10/19. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans in perpetuity.

General Landscape Requirements

a) The proposed plant species, pot/ bag size and quantities of plants shall be in accordance with the proposed plant schedule and as referenced upon the landscape plan. If plant species, pot/ bag size and quantities cannot be sourced, Council shall be contacted for alternatives.

42. Allocation of street addresses - In order to comply with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing & the NSW Addressing User Manual (Geographical Names Board of NSW) and Georges River Council’s requirements, the street addresses for the subject development must be allocated as advised by Georges River Council.

Details indicating compliance with this condition must be shown on the plans lodged with any Construction Certificate for approval.

Prior to the Commencement of Work (Including Demolition & Excavation)

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

The report must include the following:

(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,

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

(e) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

(f) The full name and signature of the structural engineer.

(g) The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer. The report must be provided to the PCA and a copy provided to the Council.

The Dilapidation Report must be prepared by a professional engineer. The report must be provided to the PCA 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.

Note: Council will use this report to determine whether to refund the damage deposit after the completion of works.

44. Site Audit Report and Site Audit Statement - Prior to the commencement of any work, other than demolition or excavation in association with the remediation of the site, a Site Audit Report and Site Audit Statement are to be submitted to Council. These documents must clearly state that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

Note: The Applicant must comply with clauses 17 ‘Guidelines and notices: all remediation work’ and clause 18 ‘Notice of completion of remediation work’ under State Environmental Planning Policy No.55-Remediation of Land.

Note: Words and expressions used in these conditions have the same meaning as in the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

45. Structural Engineers 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 must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

46. Site Contamination - Additional Information - Any new information that comes to light during excavation (after demolition of the onsite structures and the conclusion of the detailed site investigation) which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination and remediation must be notified to Council and the accredited certifier immediately.

The following steps must then be taken before any further works proceed onsite:

A further detailed investigation of the site should then be prepared by a suitably qualified contaminated land consultant and submitted to Council.

This report must consider whether the land is contaminated, and

· if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

· if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) must be prepared by an suitably qualified consultant in accordance with NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Guidelines and shall document all the remedial works to be undertaken at the site and also contain an environmental management plan and occupational health and safety plan for the remedial works.

Remediation Works

All remediation work must be carried out in accordance with: -

· the Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 Remediation of Land; and,

· the EPA Guidelines made under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

and in accordance with the proposed Remedial Action Plan.

Validation Report

After completion of all Remediation works, a copy of the Validation and Monitoring Report prepared by suitably qualified contaminated land consultant shall be submitted to Council. The Construction Certificate shall not be issued until Council approves this Report. The validation report shall be prepared in accordance with the Office Environment and Heritage Guidelines, Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, and shall certify the suitability of the site for the proposed development.

1 describe and document all works performed;

2 include results of validation testing and monitoring;

3 include validation results of any fill imported on to the site;

4 show how the objectives of the Remedial Action Plan have been met;

5 show how all agreed clean-up criteria and relevant regulations have been complied with; and

6 include clear justification as to the suitability of the site for the proposed development and the potential for off-site migration of any residual contaminants.

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

All demolition work including the removal of asbestos, shall be undertaken in accordance with the Demolition Code of Practice (NSW Work Cover July 2015).

Note: Copies of the Act, Regulation and Code of Practice can be downloaded free of charge from the SafeWork NSW website: www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au.

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

(a) The developer /builder must 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.

49. Demolition work involving asbestos removal - Work involving bonded asbestos removal work (of an area of more than 10 square metres) or friable asbestos removal work must be undertaken by a person who carries on a business of such removal work in accordance with a licence under clause 458 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

50. Dial before your dig - The applicant shall contact “Dial Before You Dig on 1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate. The sequence number obtained from “Dial Before You Dig” shall be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council for their records.

51. Registered Surveyors Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to the PCA at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

a) Set out before commencing excavation.

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

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

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

e) Completion of any Pool Formwork - Before concreting of pool shell, detailing the location of the pool relative to the adjacent boundaries and its height relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.

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

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

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

52. 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.

During Construction

53. Physical connection of Stormwater to site - No work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system from the land the subject of this consent to street kerb and gutter as indicated on the approved plan. The site stormwater discharge pipe across the footpath shall be RHS type, laid at minimum 1% grade reflected on the drainage plan and the connection into the street kerb shall not extend beyond the distance of what is indicated on the above approved drainage.

54. Site sign - Soil & Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), a durable site sign, issued by Council in conjunction with this consent, must be erected in a prominent location on site. The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions relating to erosion and sediment controls. The sign must remain in a prominent location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

55. Hours of construction for demolition and building work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity is permitted on Sundays, or Public Holidays.

Note: A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

56. Cost of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on Council property. Care must be taken to protect Council's roads, including the made footway, kerbs, etc., and, where plant and vehicles enter the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered at their ends. This construction shall be maintained in a state of good repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

57. Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Penalty infringement Notices may be issued for any offences and severe penalties apply.

58. Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt.

Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials shall be submitted to the PCA and Council, where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate

59. Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation/Subdivision Certificate.

60. Major Development - Internal driveways and parking spaces are to be adequately paved with concrete or bitumen, or interlocking pavers to provide a dust-free surface. All car parking spaces are to be line marked in accordance with AS1742, ‘Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices’ and the relevant guidelines published by the RMS.

61. SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement - The PCA must not issue an Occupation Certificate to authorise a person to commence occupation of the residential flat development unless the PCA 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 65Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

62. 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 if 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 (i) hereof. Such expense shall include reasonable wages for the Council’s employees engaged in effecting the work referred to in (i) 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.

63. Requirements prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate - The following shall be completed and or submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

(a) All the stormwater/drainage works shall 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) shall be completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate plans prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

(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 shall be issued and submitted to the PCA 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 shall be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

64. Completion of Major Works - Prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, the following works must be completed at the applicant’s expense to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineering Services section:

(a) Stormwater pipes, pits and connections to public stormwater systems within the road related area;

(b) Driveways and vehicular crossings within the road related area;

(d) New footpaths within the road related area;

(e) Relocation of existing power/light pole

(f) Relocation/provision of street signs

(g) New or replacement street trees;

(h) New footway verges, where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the footpath and the kerb or site boundary over the full frontage of the proposed development must be turfed. The grass verge must be constructed to contain a uniform minimum 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of turf predominant within the street.

(i) New or reinstated kerb and guttering within the road related area; and

(j) New or reinstated road surface pavement within the road.

Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Section must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Note: The damage deposit paid to Council will not be released until the works have been completed to Council’s satisfaction.

65. Traffic Control Devices - The internal road network, pedestrian facilities and parking facilities (including visitor parking and employee parking) shall be designated and line marked in accordance with Australian Standard - AS1742, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

66. Dilapidation Report on Public Land for Major Development Only - Upon completion of works, a follow up dilapidation report must be prepared for the items of Council infrastructure adjoining the development site:

The dilapidation report must 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

(d) Photographs showing the condition of retaining walls within the footway or road

(e) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

(f) The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

The report must be provided to the PCA 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.

NOTE: Council will use this report to determine whether or not to refund the damage deposit.

Council’s Engineering Services Division must advise in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

67. 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.

Council’s Engineering Services section must advise in writing that they are satisfied with the Works-As-Executed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

68. 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 must cause the issue of a Final Fire Safety Certificate in accordance with Clause 170 of the aforesaid Regulation. The Fire Safety Certificate must 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.

69. Slip Resistance - At completion of work an in-situ (on-site) test, in wet and dry conditions, must be carried out on the pedestrian floor surfaces used in the foyers, public corridors/hallways, stairs and ramps as well as the floor surfaces in wet rooms in any commercial/retail/residential units to ascertain the actual slip resistance of such surfaces taking into consideration the effects of grout, the gradients of the surface and changes from one material to another. The in-situ test must be carried out in accordance with AS/NZS 4663:2002. Proof of compliance must be submitted with the application for the Occupation Certificate for approval.

70. Acoustic Certification - Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant shall certify that the operation of the premises and plant equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the acoustic criteria established by the Acoustic Report required by a condition of this consent. The development shall at all times comply with these noise levels post occupation.

71. BASIX Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate in the plans approved with the Development Consent, must be implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.

72. Noise from roof top mechanical plant and equipment - Noise from the operation of rooftop mechanical, equipment, ancillary fittings, machinery, mechanical ventilation system and / or refrigeration systems must not exceed background noise when measured at the nearest lot boundary of the site. Where noise sensitive receivers are located within the site, noise from the operation of mechanical plant and equipment must not exceed background noise when measured at the nearest strata, stratum or community title boundary.

A professional acoustic engineer shall be engaged to certify that the design and construction of the all sound producing plants and equipment associated with the building complies with the above requirements. Certification shall be submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

73. Electricity Supply - Evidence shall be provided demonstrating that the development has been connected to the Ausgrid, if required.

74. Allocation of street addresses - Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate, all unit numbering is to be allocated in accordance with AS/NZA 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing & the NSW Addressing User Manual (Geographical Names Board of NSW) and Georges River Council’s requirements, Council must be contacts in relation to specific requirements for street numbering.

75. Post Construction Dilapidation report - Private Land - At the completion of the construction works, a suitably qualified person is to be engaged to prepare a post-construction dilapidation report. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works associated with the subject development created any structural damage to the adjoining premises.

The report is to be prepared at the expense of the applicant and submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damaged has occurred to the adjoining premises, the PCA, must compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report required by conditions in this consent.

Evidence confirming that a copy of the post-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining properties subject of the dilapidation report must be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

76. BASIX Compliance Certificate - A Compliance Certificate must be provided to the PCA regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved BASIX Certificate before any Occupation Certificate is issued.

77. Completion of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue of the Final Occupation Certificate in accordance with approved landscape plans and specifications, drawn by Stitch Design Studios, reference numbers - LC01 to LCO5 dated 13/10/19.

78. 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 must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

Operational Conditions (Ongoing)

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

80. Lighting - General Nuisance - Any lighting on the site shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to other residences in the area or to motorists on nearby roads and to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by light overspill or glare.

Flashing, moving or intermittent lights or signs are prohibited.

81. Activities and storage of goods outside buildings - There shall 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.

82. Loading & Unloading of vehicles - All loading and unloading of vehicles in relation to the use of the premises shall take place wholly within a dedicated loading dock/area.

83. Entering & Exiting of vehicles - All vehicles shall enter and exit the premises in a forward direction.

84. Annual Fire Safety Statement - The owner of the building premises must 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 must 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.

85. Outdoor Lighting - To avoid annoyance to the occupants of adjoining premises or glare to motorist on nearby roads, outdoor lighting must comply with AS 4282-1997: Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

86. Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

Operational Requirements Under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

87. Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued.

88. Appointment of a PCA - The erection of a building must not commence until the applicant has:

(a) appointed a PCA for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner -Builder.

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner - Builder, the applicant must:

(a) appoint a Principal Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the details of any such appointment; and

(c) notify the Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

An Information Pack is attached for your convenience should you wish to appoint Georges River Council as the PCA for your development.

89. 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.

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. 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.

93. Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

Only the PCA appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

Prescribed Conditions

94. Clause 97A - BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

95. Clause 98 - Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

96. Clause 98A - Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign. The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the PCA and the Principal Contractor.

97. Clause 98B - Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council. The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

98. 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.

99. Clause 98E - Site Excavation - Excavation of the site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from the site.

All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

Advice

100. 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.

101. 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.

102. 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.

103. Access to NSW Legislations (Acts, Regulations and Planning Instruments) - NSW legislation can be accessed free of charge at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au

104. Council as PCA - Compliance with the BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by the following details, with plans prepared and certified by an appropriately qualified person demonstrating compliance with the BCA:

a) Mechanical air handling, ventilation and car park exhaust system.

b) Essential fire services and equipment including hydrant systems, hose reels, sprinklers, mechanical air handling system, portable fire extinguishers, emergency lights, exit signs, smoke hazard management and warning systems, etc.

c) Smoke hazard management system and associated alarm system, stair pressurisation and fire modelling etc.

d) Emergency lights, exit signs and warning systems.

e) Energy efficiency report demonstrating compliance with the BCA.

f) Protection of wall openings that stand less than 3 metres from the boundary or fire source feature.

g) Fire Separation and Construction between Occupancies

h) Sound Transmission & Insulation between Occupancies

i) A new Fire Engineered Building Report prepared by an accredited fire engineer, confirming that the existing alternative solution implemented in the building will not be rendered ineffective by the proposed building alterations and fit-out works.

j) Floor plan of the whole of the existing building with sufficient details to enable assessment for compliance with the BCA.

105. Energy Efficiency Provisions - Should Council be appointed as the PCA, a report prepared and endorsed by an Energy Efficiency Engineer or other suitably qualified person must be submitted, detailing the measures that must be implemented in the building to comply with Section J of the BCA. The proposed measures and feature of the building that facilitate the efficient use of energy must be identified and detailed on the architectural plans. At completion of the building and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a certificate certifying that the building has been erected to comply with the energy efficiency provisions must be submitted to the PCA.

Energy efficiency provisions relate only to new building work or the installation of new measure. Existing building fabric and measures may not be upgraded.

106. Compliance with Access, Mobility and AS4299 - Adaptable Housing - Should the Council be appointment as the PCA, the Construction Certificate Application must be accompanied by detailed working plans and a report or a Certificate of Compliance from an Accredited Access Consultant certifying that the building design and access to the adaptable units complies with Council’s DCP and AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

107. Noise - Noise related conditions - Council will generally enforce noise related conditions in accordance with the Noise Guide for Local Government (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm) and the Industrial Noise Guidelines

(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm) publish by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Other state government authorities also regulate the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Useful links relating to Noise:

(a) Community Justice Centres - free mediation service provided by the NSW Government (www.cjc.nsw.gov.au).

(b) Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Noise Policy Section web page (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise).

(d) Australian Acoustical Society - professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au/index.php).

(e) Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants - professional society of noise related professionals (www.aaac.org.au).

(f) Department of Gaming and Racing - (www.dgr.nsw.gov.au).

108. Sydney Water Section 73 Certificates - The Section 73 Certificate must be a separate certificate that relates specifically to this development consent. For example, if the development consent relates to the subdivision of the land, a Section 73 Certificate for the construction of the building that is subject to a different development consent will not suffice.

109. Electricity Supply - This development may need a connection to the Ausgrid network which may require the network to be extended or its capacity augmented. You are advised to contact Ausgrid on 13 13 65 or www.ausgrid.com.au (Business and Commercial Services) for further details and information on lodging your application to connect to the network.

110. Access for persons with disabilities - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA, an Access report prepared by an Accredited Access Consultant may be required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate Application, detailing the existing level of compliance in the building with the above requirements, and to provide details of proposed upgrading work necessary to bring the building into conformity with the Premises Standards and the BCA. All recommendations of the accredited access consultant must be incorporated in the plans to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

111. Long Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986. More information about the scheme and the levy amount you are required to pay to satisfy a condition of your consent can be found at http://www.longservice.nsw.gov.au.

112. Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year. Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

113. Council as PCA - Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of BCA - Should the Council be appointed as the PCA in determining the Construction Certificate, the building must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the BCA. However, if an alternative fire solution is proposed it must comply with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement. Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited organisation. In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs for the independent review.

114. Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

115. Stormwater & Ancillary Works - Applications under Section 138 Roads Act and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 - To apply for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 Local Government Act 1993:

(a) Complete the Stormwater Drainage Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River Council’s website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

(b) In the Application Form, quote the Development Consent No. (eg. DA2018/0***) and reference this condition number (e.g. Condition 23)

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 stormwater 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.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Site Plan - 7-11 Derby St Kogarah
Attachment ⇩2	Elevations - 7-11 Derby St Kogarah

Meeting:	Georges River Local Planning Panel (LPP)
Date:	Thursday, 7 November 2019
Time:	4.00pm
Venue:	Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Hurstville
Panel Members:	Paul Vergotis (Chairperson) Helen Deegan (Expert Panel Member) Michael Leavey (Expert Panel Member) Cameron Jones (Community Representative)

Site Area	588.1sqm
West (Primary frontage to Newman Street)	15.43m
North (Secondary frontage to Ocean Lane)	38.10m
East (rear boundary to Ocean Lane)	15.68m
South (side adjoining 5 Newman Street, Mortdale)	38.10m

Composition	No. proposed
Single occupant boarding rooms	8
Double occupant boarding rooms	10
Manager single rooms	1
Total rooms	19
Car parking spaces	10
Accessible spaces	1
Total car spaces	11
Motorcycle spaces	4
Bicycle spaces	4

Site Area	588.1sqm
West (Primary frontage to Newman Street)	15.43m
North (Secondary frontage to Ocean Lane)	38.10m
East (rear boundary to Ocean Lane)	15.695m
West (side adjoining 5 Newman Street, Mortdale)	38.10m

Objects of the EP&A Act	Proposal	Complies
(a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources	The proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with this objective.	Yes
(b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental, and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment	The amended proposal reconfigured rooms and windows, however has not been supported by a revised BASIX Certificate. This does not satisfy the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 and the Regulations.	No
(c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land	The proposal is not considered to provide an orderly and economic development of the land due to poor vehicular car parking and manoeuvrability on site. The proposal results in poor occupant amenity for future residents. In this regard the intent of this object has not been satisfied.	No
(d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing	The proposal seeks development consent for eighteen (18) boarding house rooms and one (1) manager’s room.	Yes *(comment: the DA was lodged prior to the amendment of the SEPP whereby a savings provision applies)
(e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats	The proposal seeks the removal of one (1) paradise fern. The development given its excavation is likely to affect trees on the neighbouring property at 5 Newman Street, Mortdale. Council’s consulting arborist has commented that an arborist report be provided to assess the impacts of these trees and identify and appropriate tree protection zone given the proposed basement which is in part on the boundary and in close proximity to these adjoining trees. No such information has been submitted to enable Council to undertake an informed assessment of these impacts.	No
(f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage	The proposal is not listed as a heritage item or within the immediate vicinity to a heritage item or conservation area within a Local or Stage Heritage register.	Yes
(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment	The proposal is considered poorly designed due to inadequate functional car parking provided on site.	No
(h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants	The proposal is not considered to satisfy the intent of this objective as the proposal results in poor accessibility for future occupants. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has commented that the amended proposal seeks stainless steel mesh along the ground floor and first floor windows of the single aspect boarding rooms may conflict with light and ventilation requirements of the BCA. Furthermore, additional information would be required for consideration to ensure compliance.	No
(i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State	N/A	-
(j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment	The proposal was notified in accordance with the HDCP. In response, eleven (11) submissions were received; the concerns have been addressed in detail further within in this report. As previously mentioned, the amended proposal was not re-notified as the submission was deficient in the necessary information to undertake a holistic assessment of the proposal.	Yes

LPP Report No	LPP047-19	Development Application No	DA2018/0190
Site Address & Ward Locality	3 Newman Street Mortdale Mortdale Ward
Proposed Development	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
Owners	State Projects Pty Ltd
Applicant	State Projects Pty Ltd
Planner/Architect	Architect and Planner - Pyramid Consulting
Date Of Lodgement	15/05/2018
Submissions	Eleven (11) submissions
Cost of Works	$737,000.00 (cost of original works)
Local Planning Panel Criteria	More than 10 unique submissions received
List of all relevant s.4.15 matters (formerly s79C(1)(a))	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy BASIX (Building and Sustainability Index) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017; Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, Draft Environmental State Environmental Planning Policy, Draft Remediation of Land, Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan (amendment No.7)
List all documents submitted with this report for the Panel’s consideration	Architectural Plans Landscape Plan Statement of Environmental Effects Survey
Report prepared by	Senior Development Assessment Officer

Clause 30	Standards	Proposal	Complies
Communal living	(a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided	One communal living room provided located on the ground floor (16.78sqm) Room ref: G01	Yes
Size of boarding rooms	(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25sqm	All rooms less than 25sqm (excluding area of bathrooms and kitchens).	Yes
Maximum occupancy	(c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers	Maximum 2 adult lodgers per room proposed (28 lodgers total therefore 1 manager required).	Yes
Kitchen and bathroom facilities	(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger	All boarding rooms have kitchen and bathroom facilities.	Yes
Boarding house manager	(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager	The boarding house rooms have the capacity to accommodate 28 lodgers. A Managers room has been provided on the first floor and is a single occupant room.	Yes
Bicycle and motor cycle space	(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.	10 boarding rooms provided: 4 motorcycle and 4 bicycle spaces required. 4 motorcycle spaces and 4 bicycle spaces provided however the proposed motorcycle spaces are of an insufficient dimension at 1m in width and 1.75m in length. This is not in accordance with the AS2890.1:2004 whereby motorcycle spaces require a minimum dimension of 1.2m in width and 2.5m in length.	No

Control	Single Dwelling	Dual Occupancy	Proposal
Height Maximum ceiling height	9m 7.2m	9m 6.8m	7.2m 6.6m
Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 (0.55:1 for dwelling house only)	0.6:1	GF: 267sqm FF: 270sqm Total = 537sqm 0.91:1 – however this development type receives an FSR bonus under the ARHSEPP
Landscape (minimum 2m x 2m)	20%	20%	23.2% (137sqm)
Setbacks: Front Rear setback: Ground First Side setback: Ground First	4.5m 3m 6m 900mm 1.2m	4.5m 7m 9m 900mm 1.2m	5.76m 7.17m 7.17m 1,117mm 1,117mm
Secondary frontage	2m	2m	2,047mm

Attachment ⇩1	REDACT - Revised Site Plan - 3 Newman Street Mortdale
Attachment ⇩2	Revised - Elevations East & South - 3 Newman St Mortdale
Attachment ⇩3	Revised - Elevations West & Nouth - 3 Newman St Mortdale