AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraordinary Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 5 JULY 2016

 

7:00pm

 

 


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

2          Disclosures of Interest (Section 451 of the Local Government Act
and Council’s Code of Conduct)

 

3          Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Return

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                        Page

Minutes of 24 May 2016 Extraordinary Council Meeting                                             4

Minutes of 30 June 2016 Extraordinary Council Meeting                                             9

5          Minutes of Committee Meetings

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C0716 Item 1      Minutes of Implementation Advisory Group                                               10

C0716 Item 2      Minutes of Local Representation Advisory Committee Meetings held in June 2016        13

6          Administrator’s Minutes

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C0716 Item 3      Administrator's Minute: Ratifying Council’s Position on Westconnex        26

C0716 Item 4      Administrator's Minute: Condolence Motion - Dr Stefania Siedlecky AM  28

7          Staff Reports

C0716 Item 5      Evaluation and Proposed Outcomes of Trial Off Leash Areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green                                                     29

C0716 Item 6      Development Application - 412-416 Liverpool Road, Croydon                  79

C0716 Item 7      Development Application - 132 Church Street, Croydon (Centenary Park) 217

C0716 Item 8      Development Application - 76 Alt Street, Ashfield                                    255

C0716 Item 9      Development Application - 30 Llewellyn Street, Marrickville                   315

C0716 Item 10    Development Application - 575 King Street, Newtown                             342

C0716 Item 11    Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17                                             379

C0716 Item 12    Expenses and Facilities Policy for Administrator                                      463

C0716 Item 13    Expenses and Facilities Policy for LRAC and IAG Committee Members 474

C0716 Item 14    Delegations to the Interim General Manager                                            479

C0716 Item 15    Delegation of Authority to the General Manager for Determination of Councillor Legal Costs                                                                                                         484

C0716 Item 16    Proposed Schedule of Council Meetings 2016                                         486


 

8          Reports with Confidential Information

Reports appearing in this section of the Business Paper are confidential in their entirety or contain confidential information in attachments.

ITEM                                                                                                                                    PAGE #

C0716 Item 17    Interim Executive Structure                                                                      487

C0716 Item 18    Haberfield Bay Run Shared Walk/Cycleway Upgrade - Project Update 488

C0716 Item 19    Tender for Mainstreet Improvement Works at the Intersection of Johnston Street and Booth Street, Annandale, outside the Village Church                               490

C0716 Item 20    Tender 4/16 St Peters Town Hall Roof Renewal and Improvements      492

C0716 Item 21    SSROC Tender for the Supply & Delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite (Bulk Liquid Chlorine)     494

C0716 Item 22    SSROC Tender for the Provision of Agricultural Products                      496

 

   


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

 

Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting

held at Petersham Service Centre on Tuesday 24 May 2016

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.31pm.

                                                                                                                           

Present:

 

Richard Pearson

Administrator

Vanessa Chan

Interim General Manager

Josephine Bennett

A/Director Community Services, Marrickville

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Director Works & Infrastructure Services, Ashfield

Peter Gainsford

Director of Infrastructure and Service Delivery, Leichhardt

Clare Harley

Director Environment and Community Management, Leichhardt

Nellette Kettle

Director Corporate & Community Services, Ashfield

Steve Kludass

Director Corporate Service, Marrickville

Tim Moore

Director Planning & Environmental Services, Marrickville

Matthew Phillips

Director Corporate and Information Services, Leichhardt

Gabrielle Rennard

A/Director Corporate & Community Services, Ashfield

Phil Sarin

Director Planning & Environment, Ashfield

Simone Schwarz

Director of Community Services, Marrickville

Neil Strickland

Director Infrastructure Services, Marrickville

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Ian Naylor

Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt

Erla Ronan

Group Manager Community and Cultural Services, Leichhardt

Tanya Whitmarsh

Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville

Katerina Maros

Governance Officer, Leichhardt

Rad Miladinovic

Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

 

Apologies:       Nil.

 

Acknowledgement of Country

 

Disclosures of Interest:       Nil.

 

MEETING ADJOURNED

 

As the Meeting was not proceeding in an orderly and efficient manner, the Administrator adjourned and closed the Meeting.

 

The meeting concluded at 6.36pm.

 

INCOMPLETE BUSINESS

 

The Administrator and Interim General Manager in accordance with the delegation granted to them by the Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016, has determined that the recommendations of the following reports as listed in the business paper be adopted;

 


 

APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR

 

Item 1 - Administrator's Minute: Improving Planning Practices for the new Inner West Council

Resolution:

THAT the Administrator request a report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council which proposes the establishment of an IHAP across the Inner West Council area, the categories of applications which should be referred to the IHAP and opportunities to extend electronic DA tracking across the LGA.

 

 

Item 2 - Administrator's Minute: Establishing a Key Advisory Committee Framework for Inner West Council

Resolution:

THAT the Administrator:

1.       approve the establishment of the Inner West Council Implementation Advisory Group (IAG);

2.       approve the membership of the IAG to be the immediate former Mayors and Deputy Mayors of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville councils;

3.       note the draft terms of reference of the IAG at ATTACHMENT 1 which are to be finalised at the first meeting of the IAG; and

4.       finalise establishment of the Inner West Council Local Representation Committee (LRC) following the councillor expression of interest process at the next meeting of Council.

 

Item 6 - Minutes of the 5 May 2016 Leichhardt Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Resolution:

THAT the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee, Leichhardt meeting held on 5th May 2016 be adopted.

 

 

APPROVED BY INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER

 

Item 4 - Review of Waterplay Facility at Steel Park

Resolution:

THAT:

1.       the report be received and noted;

2.       Council resolves to undertake the works including the small expansion as discussed in the report; and

3.       Council resolves to include an allocation of $300k in the 2016/2017 capital budget for the proposed works.

 


Item 5 - Sydney Fringe Festival 2016 and Council Funding

Resolution:

THAT:

 

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       Council support the Sydney Fringe Festival with a cash contribution of $30,000 with a condition that Sydney Fringe Festival presents a Sydney Fringe Festival family event hub at Camperdown Park.

 

Item 7 - Incentives to Make Homes More Sustainable

Resolution:

THAT Council:

1.       notes the work being undertaken in Oxford Street and Myrtle Street Newtown, to create an off grid sustainable house and other shared sustainability initiatives;

2.       notes the current sustainability incentives offered by former Marrickville Council which encourage residents to reduce energy and water consumption, and the range of other financial initiatives available to residents to encourage sustainable development in other Council areas;

3.       seeks the advice of environment groups about additional sustainability incentive programs that could be introduced in Marrickville; and

4.       provides a further report with options to expand Inner West Council’s sustainability incentive programs, including the cost of introducing such programs, potential State or Federal funding support & any barriers that may exist under Council’s planning rules to implementing incentives.  

 

Item 8 - Proposed Tree Removal - 2 Vincent Street, Marrickville

Resolution:

THAT:

 

1.       the tree adjacent 2 Vincent Street, Marrickville be retained; and

2.       the matter be subject to further review should conclusive evidence be presented demonstrating the tree to be the primary cause of property damage.

 

Item 9 - Cultural Action Plan 2016 - 2020

Resolution:

THAT:

 

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       Council endorses the implementation of the Draft Marrickville Cultural Action Plan.

 

Item 10 - Installation of Publicly Available Defibrillator Machine at Mackey Park

Resolution:

THAT Council confirms in principle support for the installation of an automatic electronic defibrillator at Mackey Park, Marrickville.

 

Item 11 - 801-807 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill

Resolution:

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

Item 12 - Representation on External Organisations (approved as amended)*

Resolution:

THAT Council determine appointments to External Organisations.

 

* The Interim General Manager has approved the recommendations in the report with the following amendments to committee representatives;

Joint Regional Planning Panel - the Interim General Manager or their nominee;

Greenway Steering Committee -  the Interim General Manager or their nominee; and

Eastern Region Local Government Region of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Forum - the Interim General Manager or their nominee.

 

Item 14 - 3rd Quarter 2015-16 Budget Review Statement for the former Leichhardt Council

Resolution:

THAT:

1.       the report by the former Leichhardt Council responsible accounting officer be noted; and

2.       the budget report and changes as shown in Part A (ATTACHMENT 1) of this report be adopted.

 

Item 15 - 3rd Quarter 2015-16 Budget Review Statement for the former Marrickville Council

Resolution:

THAT:

 

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       Council approves the variations identified as matters requiring budget adjustments and incorporate the changes into 2015/16 revised budget.

 

Item 16 - Investment Report April 2016 for the former Ashfield Council

Resolution:

THAT the Investment Report for April 2016 be received and noted.

 

Item 17 - Investment Report April 2016 for the former Leichhardt Council

Resolution:

THAT:

1.       the Investment Report for April 2016 for the former Leichhardt Council be received and noted; and

2.       the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer for the former Leichhardt Council be received and noted.

Item 19 - Appointment of External Auditor for Inner West Council

Resolution:

THAT PwC be appointed as external auditor for Inner West Council for the period ending 2017 with an option to extend to June 2018.

 

Item 20 - Gratuity Payments

Resolution:

THAT the gratuity payments outlined in the report be endorsed.

 

ITEMS DEFERRED TO NEXT COUNCIL MEETING

 

Item 3 - Evaluation and Proposed Outcomes of Trial Off Leash Areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green

Item 13 - Proposed Schedule of Council Meetings 2016

Item 18 - Tender 4/16 St Peters Town Hall Roof Renewal and Improvements


Minutes of Extraordinary Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on Thursday 30 June 2016

 

 

The meeting commenced at 9.00am.

 

Present:

 

Richard Pearson

Administrator

Vanessa Chan

Interim General Manager

Matthew Phillips

Director Corporate Services

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Ian Naylor

Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt

Tanya Whitmarsh

Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville

Rad Miladinovic

Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

 

Apologies:       Nil.

 

Acknowledgement of Country

 

Disclosures of Interest

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

 

C0616 Item 1:  Voting of Money and Continuation of Fees and Charges 

Moved and declared carried by the Administrator:

 

THAT Council:

 

1.    approve expenditure and vote $39 million for the period from 1 July 2016 until the adoption by the council of the first operational plan for the Inner West Council.

2.    approve the continuation of the 2015-16 adopted fees and charges until the adoption by the council of the first operational plan for the Inner West Council.

 

 

The meeting closed at 9.01am.

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 1

Subject:         Minutes of Implementation Advisory Group  

File Ref:         16/4718/74332.16         

Prepared By: Helen Tola - Manager Customer Service and Corporate Planning, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The inaugural Implementation Advisory Group Meeting was held in June 2016 and this report presents the minutes of the meeting for consideration by the Administrator.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Implementation Advisory Group held in June 2016 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

To present to Council the minutes of the Implementation Advisory Group held in June 2016. The minutes of the meeting of the Implementation Advisory Group are attached.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of the Implementation Advisory Group

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 2

Subject:         Minutes of Local Representation Advisory Committee Meetings held in June 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/74312.16         

Prepared By: Helen Tola - Manager Customer Service and Corporate Planning, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The inaugural Local Representation Advisory Committee Meetings were held in June 2016 and this report presents the minutes of the meeting for consideration by the Administrator.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee's held in June 2016 be received and noted, except for the recommendation from the Ashfield LRAC that all members be remunerated equally.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

To present to Council the minutes of the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee's held in June 2016.

The minutes of the meeting each of the Local Representation Advisory Committee meetings are attached as follows:

Attachment 1 - Minutes of the Ashfield Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 14 June 2016

Attachment 2 - Minutes of the Leichhardt Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 15 June 2016

Attachment 3 - Minutes of the Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 23 June 2016

 

It is recommended that the Minutes of the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee's held in June 2016 be received and noted, except for the recommendation from the Ashfield LRAC that all members be remunerated equally. This recommendation is contrary to the Guidelines issued to Administrators by the Department of Premier and Cabinet that stated committee members are to be remunerated at the rate of their Mayor and Councillor fees prior to amalgamations.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of 14 June 2016 Ashfield Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

2.

Minutes of 15 June 2016 Leichhardt Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

3.

Minutes of 23 June 2016 Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 3

Subject:         Administrator's Minute: Ratifying Council’s Position on Westconnex  

File Ref:         16/4718/74243.16         

From Richard Pearson, Administrator   

 

 

Motion:

 

THAT:

1.         Inner West Council formally adopts a position of continued opposition in the strongest terms to the WestConnex project, both approved and future stages, consistent with the positions of the former councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville;

2.         Council establishes a central WestConnex Response Unit to coordinate Council responses to resident concerns regarding impacts associated with the construction of approved stages of WestConnex, as well as submissions and representations on future stages;

3.         Council continues to press the immediate need for the Department of Planning and Environment to fund and establish a dedicated WestConnex compliance officer in the local area to respond promptly to resident issues;

4.         Council establish a regular bi-monthly forum chaired by the Administrator with representatives of all the inner west WestConnex resident action groups to discuss concerns with the project and opportunities for their resolution;

5.         a report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council outlining a community engagement plan to elicit views of the broader community with regards to ways the Council can assist them with concerns regarding WestConnex;

6.         a report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council which summarises the outstanding resolutions of the previous Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils regarding WestConnex and action being taken to implement;

7.         Council engages Tim Robertson SC to advise on prospects of legal challenge to the WestConnex project across the new LGA, including an injunction on the current demolition works; and

8.         Council notes that the Inner West Council Local Representation Advisory Committees (LRACs) will further discuss Inner West Council’s position on WestConnex at a future joint meeting.

 

 

Views of Local Representation Advisory Committees

This matter was considered by the Inner West Council Local Representation Advisory Committees on 14 June (Ashfield LRAC), 15 June (Leichhardt LRAC) and 23 June (Marrickville LRAC) and supported on each occasion.

Leichhardt LRAC also proposed the inclusion of a new motion that the Inner West Council Local Representation Advisory Committees (LRACs) further discuss Inner West Council’s position on WestConnex at a future joint meeting.

This is agreed and has been added to my motion.

 

Background

With the formation of the new Inner West Council, one of the key issues facing us is the WestConnex Motorway, a major infrastructure project that has considerable impact on our local government area.

The previous Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils all had clearly stated positions in opposition to the project, established unambiguously through many submissions and representations to the State Government.

It is clear the Inner West community is strongly opposed to the project.

As Administrator of Inner West Council I have made it clear that there is absolutely no change to the position of the three former councils in opposition to the WestConnex project. The project’s substantial impacts on the inner west’s residents and the very limited benefits which will accrue will continue to be strongly represented to the State Government and Sydney Motorways Corporation.

While the fundamental position of Council in opposition to WestConnex prevails, I also have a duty to act to lessen the impact of work already underway.

I have already met with representatives of some of the resident action groups in our area opposing WestConnex. We were in agreement that work already underway and the substantial construction impacts looming need to be more closely monitored and the road constructors held to account for any breaches of the development consents controlling construction.

To this end a locally based independent compliance officer is required, to enable speedy responses to complaints and concerns raised by local residents regarding actions carried out by contractors working on the WestConnex Project. As the Department of Planning and Environment is responsible for enforcement of the consent, I have called on the State Government to fund and locate a dedicated WestConnex Compliance Officer in the local area to respond to residents’ concerns.

It would also be advantageous for Council to create a central WestConnex Response Unit, comprising staff with expert knowledge and experience in traffic planning and other related matters. It would be the function of this Unit to quickly analyse and respond to concerns and issues raised with WestConnex and to seek to get improved outcomes for residents either on already approved stages, or future stages which are in the planning. This could include lobbying the State Government to introduce practical measures to lessen impacts or improve deign for approved sections in key locations. It would also focus on driving changes to future stages, especially Stage 3, to lessen impacts on residents and the environment.

Further engagement with the community is also clearly a priority. In order to remain informed of residents most pressing concerns I propose to establish a bi-monthly forum in which I meet with the representatives of all local WestConnex resident action groups. These groups have real, on the ground experience with the impacts of this project and their input is invaluable. These meetings will provide the interface to try to get a better outcome for residents on the project’s impacts.  

There are also many residents in the community who have practical and innovative ideas as to how Council can respond to the issue of WestConnex, but may not have the time to be actively involved in an action group.

Therefore I would request that Council officers propose a community engagement campaign utilising innovative best practice community engagement tools to allow members from across the broader community to have input into Council’s responses to WestConnex.

I would also request that in order to understand any outstanding resolutions from the former councils in relation to WestConnnex, a report from staff be brought forward to the next meeting of Council. This will ensure I am able to fully represent the concerns and views of our residents, consistent with the positions of the former councils.

Additionally, it is noted that Council is in the process of engaging Tim Robertson SC to advise on the prospects of legal challenge to the WestConnex project across the new LGA, including an injunction on the current demolition works.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 4

Subject:         Administrator's Minute: Condolence Motion - Dr Stefania Siedlecky AM  

File Ref:         16/4718/74637.16         

From Richard Pearson, Administrator   

 

SUMMARY

This report expresses Council’s condolences on the passing of Dr Stefania Siedlecky AM and details the significant contribution Dr Siedlecky made to our local area in the area of health, particularly women’s health.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council writes to the family of Dr Stefania Siedlecky AM, expressing our condolences and sadness for their loss.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Dr Siedlecky was a founder of Australia’s women’s health movement and a trailblazer. Dr Siedlecky has had a significant and lasting impact on thousands of women’s lives and Australia’s health system and academia through her intelligence, passion and commitment to medicine and women’s health which spans more than fifty years.

In 1974 Dr Siedlecky established the medical clinic at Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre, becoming the first doctor in an Australian women's health centre. In this role she occupied an interesting and uncomfortable space between the old guard medical establishment and a push for a new kind of primary health care model, now internationally regarded as best practice.  Dr Siedlecky's work and influence in medicine and academia has had an enormous impact on women, families and our local communities over decades.

In 2016, Dr Siedlecky was recognised for her contribution to women’s health services in Leichhardt with an award at the event held for International Women’s Day.

Over the years Dr Siedlecky did not waver in her commitment and compassion for women’s equality and women’s right to access quality health care without discrimination or impediment.

Dr Siedlecky was an excellent doctor, a pioneer, mentor and friend to many.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 5

Subject:         Evaluation and Proposed Outcomes of Trial Off Leash Areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green  

File Ref:         16/4718/63602.16         

Prepared By: Peter Montague - A/Manager Culture and Recreation Services, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

 

SUMMARY

 

This report details the outcomes from the recent evaluation process undertaken to assess the current trial of three dog off leash areas at Laxton Reserve, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       the report be received and noted;

2.       the trial dog off leash areas at Petersham Park, Petersham and Sydenham Green, Sydenham are made permanent under the same conditions used during the trial period;

3.       Council ceases the off leash trial at Laxton Reserve, Dulwich Hill;

4.       Council implements a trial off leash area at Johnson Park, Dulwich Hill subject to the following time restrictions:

-    6am to 9am, 6pm to 8pm during daylight saving, and 5pm to 7pm during non-daylight saving time;

5.       Council implements a trial off leash area at Morton Park, Lewisham; and

6.       all residents who have provided feedback during the trial and evaluation process are notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council’s Recreation Policy and Strategy (2013) states that:

“Council actively promotes responsible pet ownership, recognises the value of pet ownership in contributing to community well-being, and acknowledges that providing public spaces to exercise pets is essential. Council’s approach to equitable access to parks for people with pets is based on:

·    safe and shared use of Marrickville’s parks and open space;

·    the development of facilities to meet the needs of residents and their pets; and

·    ongoing management of pet access in parks and open space.”

The aim of Council’s Biodiversity Strategy 2011-21 is to:

‘Protect and enhance Marrickville’s biodiversity values and the ecosystem services they provide’

 

The Biodiversity Strategy sets out six strategic focus areas that have specific, associated strategies to achieve the aim. The following focus areas are relevant to parks in the GreenWay Priority Biodiversity Area:

1.  Priority Biodiversity Areas – preserve and enhance the biodiversity value of Priority Biodiversity Areas.

 

3.  Threats – eliminate or mitigate key present and future threats to Marrickville’s biodiversity.

 

Further Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (2011-15) and Draft Biodiversity Action Plan (2016-21) lists the following action for the GreenWay Priority Biodiversity Area:

Investigate and implement options to exclude or manage dog access in parks within the Bandicoot protection Area and incorporate into Council policy relating to dog access in parks.

 

In 2014 Council conducted off leash trials at a number of parks resulting in the development of five new permanent off leash areas and amendments to permitted off leash hours at two existing areas.

Consistent with Council’s strategic position, a 6 month trial of additional DOLAs was implemented at Laxton Reserve Dulwich Hill, Petersham Park and Sydenham Green.

The objectives of the trials were to:

§ inform Council’s decision making on the future of DOLAs by investigating and measuring community attitudes;

§ identify issues arising from the trial for Council to investigate / address;

§ record compliance issues for future policy making purposes;

§ educate park users on ways to share the spaces; and

§ encourage the community to create their own solutions to park sharing issues.

 

Community Engagement

 

The community was encouraged to provide feedback throughout the trial and an evaluation process was conducted at the trial’s conclusion. Specifically, the community engagement undertaken comprised:

 

§ letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the trial;

§ Council Column notice;

§ media releases;

§ information on the Council website;

§ development and installation of DOLA signage in relevant parks; and

§ the installation of additional bins and bags (December 2015).

 

Evaluation of the trial included the following:

§ an evaluation survey on Your Say Marrickville;

§ letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the evaluation process;

§ a designated email address dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au was set up for feedback during the duration of the trial; and

§ promoting awareness of the evaluation through Council Column and media release.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There is an allocation of $30,000 in the 2016/17 Operational Plan for the establishment of new and improvements to existing dog off leash areas. This should be sufficient to fund the implementation of the three trial areas as proposed in conjunction with a possible further trial area at HJ Mahoney Reserve in Marrickville as proposed in the draft Cooks River Parklands Plan of Management and Master Plans recently endorsed by Council for public exhibition. Resources will be required for signage, local resident notification and the evaluation process.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

Overall level of response

 

A total of 472 communications were received during the trial and evaluation period.

 

§ 233 people participated in the evaluation process through March into early April 2016;

§ 239 emails were received through the dogs@marrickville email address; and

§ 154 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system (Merit).

 

At the request of residents, a meeting was held in November 2015 with local residents and the Principal of St Paul of the Cross School regarding the trial off leash area at Laxton Reserve.

 

Monitoring

Council Rangers conducted a total of 364 patrols across the three off leash areas during the trial period. Further information on the monitoring of the trials is included in Attachment 1.

 

Laxton Reserve

Open space in Dulwich Hill is limited and consequently the available open space has to work hard to deliver multiple outcomes for the community. The largest areas of open space with potential for off leash use comprise the closely linked parks at Laxton Reserve, Arlington Reserve and Johnson Park. These areas are located in the bandicoot protection area under Council’s DCP which aims to protect the endangered long-nosed bandicoot population of inner western Sydney as listed under NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Dogs, cats and foxes are a recognised threat to bandicoots.

 

The Recreation Policy and Strategy 2013 (based on the findings from the Recreation Needs Research 2012) identifies Johnson Park in the Dulwich Hill area as a potential off leash area. Following liaison with Monitoring Services and Environmental Services, the area at Laxton Reserve was selected due to the reduced likelihood of impacting on the bandicoot population.

 

The trial commenced in September 2015. Council was notified of an incident at the park in late November 2015 involving a dog knocking over a child in the playground area. Due to this incident, the conditions of use of the dog off leash area were reviewed in December 2015 and investigations conducted to develop options for the management of the space in the short term. Fencing options to prevent dogs entering the playground were considered, however it was found that this would result in a disjointed and poorly functioning park which is at odds with the objective of shared open space and park best practice. The preferred option was to implement time restrictions for the off leash area before 8am and after daylight hours in the evening to reduce the likelihood of conflict between children’s play and off leash dogs. The amended conditions were put in place from 8 January 2016 onwards.

 

Laxton Reserve - Evaluation

The evaluation process provided opportunity for feedback on the initial three months of the trial and the ensuing three months under the amended time restrictions. Respondents were initially asked if they visited the park to exercise their dog (dog users) or for other reasons (non-dog users). Depending on the response, respondents were then referred to relevant questions. Reponses have been collated into categories of dog users and non-dog users.

 

Laxton Reserve - Dog users

71 respondents indicated they visited Laxton to exercise their dog and were asked:

§ to rate the success of the trial;

§ what changes they noticed with the implementation of the time restrictions halfway through the trial;

§ suggestions for an alternative off leash facility in the area;

§ how they travelled to the park; and

§ where else they exercised their dogs.

 

Feedback

§ the majority dog users (79%) rated the initial period of the trial as a success;

§ the implementation of the time restrictions had a considerable impact and 75% of this group rated the trial under time restrictions as unsuccessful;

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

-     Johnson Park - 37

-     Hoskins Park - 3

-     Morton Park - 3

-     Yeo Reserve - 1

 

Almost all respondents indicated they walked to the park. Other locations respondents used to exercise their dogs were:

§ Hawthorne Canal Reserve in Haberfield; and

§ on leash around local streets.

 

Other comments included:

§ has been positive for exercising dogs;

§ good to meet other dog owners and neighbours;

§ too small for conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities – 10m rule;

§ has increased the use of the park;

§ requires fencing;

§ issues with local residents;

§ implementation of time restrictions made many users feel unsafe after dark;

§ unable to see dog waste to clear up after dark; and

§ majority of users are responsible.

 

The full list of dog user responses from Laxton Reserve is included at Attachment 2.

 

Laxton Reserve - Non-dog users

69 respondents identified themselves as visiting the park for reasons other than exercising a dog (non-dog users) and were asked;

§ to rate the success of the trial;

§ what changes they noticed with the implementation of the time restrictions halfway through; and

§ suggestions for an alternative off leash facility in the area.

 

Feedback

§ the majority of non-dog users (86%) rated the trial as unsuccessful;

§ with the implementation of time restrictions, 77% of this group rated the trial as unsuccessful; and

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

§ Johnson Park - 31 responses;

§ Yeo Reserve - 5 responses;

§ Cooks River - 3 responses;

§ Hoskins Park - 2 responses;

§ Marrickville Park - 2 responses; and

§ Tempe – 1 response.

 

Other comments included:

§ issues with children’s safety;

§ too small for conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities – 10m rule;

§ prevents St Paul of the Cross School using the park during school hours;

§ issues with close proximity to residences;

§ residents not feeling comfortable to walk through the park;

§ dog waste;

§ noise from barking;

§ has been divisive for the local community;

§ reduction in birthday parties in the park;

§ dog owners not adhering to time restrictions;

§ no being effectively monitored;

§ needs fencing; and

§ divided the community.

 

The full list of non-dog user responses from Laxton Reserve is included at Attachment 3.

 

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 228 communications were received during the trial period from a total of 68 different people. There were multiple communications from some residents (140 communications were received from three individuals - 88, 31 and 21 respectively).

 

The feedback included comments on Laxton Reserve’s unsuitability and the predominant themes included:

§ too small and safety issues with conflicting uses – playground, picnic facilities;

§ needs fencing;

§ proximity to residences;

§ dog waste; and

§ noise with barking.

 

Feedback through Merit

A total of 145 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system from a total of 32 individuals. The most populous items included:

§ safety issues with dogs entering the children’s playground;

§ issues with dog waste;

§ excessive dog barking;

§ dogs entering private properties; and

§ dog owners not complying with time restrictions.

 

Two online petitions were started in relation to Laxton Reserve, one opposed to the off leash trial (currently 245 supporters) and another in support (currently 340 supporters).

 

Laxton Reserve - Outcomes

Council identified the need for off leash dog facilities across Marrickville in the 2012 Recreation Needs Research and the trial at Laxton Reserve has validated the popularity of this recreation activity in the Dulwich Hill area. Dulwich Hill has a limited supply of open space and there are similarly limited options to provide an off leash facility.

Notwithstanding the level of support or opposition, the trial at Laxton Reserve has divided the local community and this is reflected in the polarised feedback.  In this regard the trial has not educated park users on ways to share the spaces and encourage the community to create their own solutions to park sharing issues.

The safety issues associated with preventing dogs from entering the children’s playground have been unable to be resolved in addition to difficulties with managing access such that dogs do not go within 10 metres of the playground.

There has been feedback on fencing parts of Laxton Reserve and as a result investigations have been undertaken on options to effectively prevent dogs entering the playground. Fencing the playground or the dog off leash area within Laxton Reserve reduces park connectivity and divides the park into compartmentalised use areas that results in unusable space, concentrated use and wear areas. This is inconsistent with the objective of shared open space associated with the trial and will result in a disjointed and poorly functioning park. The implementation of time restrictions at Laxton Reserve was unpopular with both dog users and non-dog users alike. While there is a good level of support for off leash at Laxton, in light of the evident safety, management and community issues, it is not considered a viable long term option and it is not proposed to make this a permanent off leash area.

 

Laxton Reserve - Implications

The Laxton trial has demonstrated the evident need for an off leash dog area in the locality. Without a designated off leash area, it is foreseeable that unauthorised off leash use will proliferate in all available open space in Dulwich Hill resulting in impacts on residents and the endangered bandicoot population.

 

Other options investigated to provide an off leash facility to effectively service the Dulwich Hill area include:

 

§ Johnson Park – this option was most frequently mentioned as an alternate off leash area by the community. The park is well used and has a playground, fitness facilities, basketball court, cricket nets, open grassed area and is located in the bandicoot protection area. A trial of time restricted use has potential to minimise conflicts with children’s play (including the Magic Yellow Bus) and the endangered bandicoot population;

§ Hoskins Park – this park contains children’s play facilities and the site is relatively small for this use. The pathway connections from the play facilities to the public toilets would conflict with an off leash area and the park is also located in the bandicoot protection area adjacent to the rail corridor;

§ Yeo Reserve (Ashfield Council) – although not located in the Marrickville Local Government Area, the location of Yeo Reserve would effectively service the Dulwich Hill area. The park is currently on leash only. Yeo Park Infants School is located within the park providing public education for K – 2 years in an unfenced facility. Discussions with representatives of the school have revealed that the school is unfenced as well as existing issues with unleashed dogs and children. Any proposal to introduce off leash use to the park would not be supported by the school; and

§ Morton Park – this park has been the subject of an online petition by residents as suitable for an off leash facility (currently with 180 supporters). The park is of a reasonable size and contains children’s play facilities and is not in the bandicoot protection area. The location is a considerable walking distance from Dulwich Hill and requires the traversing of two major roads. Nonetheless Morton Park may effectively service the needs of residents on the eastern side of Dulwich Hill and remove some pressure from the more conflicted open space around Laxton Reserve / Arlington Reserve / Johnson Park.

 

To provide effective management of conflicting uses and potential impact on the endangered bandicoot population from unauthorised off leash dogs in the Dulwich Hill area, it is proposed to implement trial off leash areas as follows:

 

§ Johnson Park - the proposed trial area at will comprise the raised rectangular grassed area which is easily defined and not immediately adjacent to the rail corridor which based on the available evidence is the most likely location for bandicoots. To manage potential impacts to the endangered bandicoot population, minimise conflict with the children’s playground and cricket nets and not coincide with the Magic Yellow Bus program, the trial is proposed to be subject to the following time restrictions:

§ 6am to 9am, 6pm to 8pm during day-light saving, and 5pm to 7pm during non-daylight saving time.

§ Morton Park - the proposed trial area is in the north-western area of the park to minimise any conflict with children’s play.

 

Petersham Park

 

Petersham Park - Evaluation

Respondents were initially asked if they visited the park to exercise their dog to identify dog owners from other park users. They were then they were asked if they were:

§ supportive;

§ somewhat supportive;

§ neutral;

§ somewhat opposed; or

§ opposed.

 

The opportunity was also given to add further comment / feedback on the trial. A total of 84 people provided feedback in response to the evaluation survey for Petersham Park.

§ 63 (78%) were dog users and were supportive (97%) or somewhat supportive (3%) of the trial.

§ 21 non dog users rated their support of the trial as follows:

opposed                           11

somewhat Opposed         1

neutral                              1

somewhat supportive       3

supportive                                    5

§ The most common issues raised in comments by all respondents in order of frequency were:

need for more enforcement / monitoring            9

safety – inadequate control of dogs        6

lack of fencing                                         6

dogs adjacent to playground                    5

dog waste                                                 5

 

All responses from dog and non-dog users at Petersham Park are included at Attachments 4 and 5.

 

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 3 communications were received concerning Petersham Park and expressed concerns about the need to monitor owners who did not effectively control their dogs.

 

Feedback through Merit

A total of 9 communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system. The majority of these communications raise potential safety issues with off leash use and dogs off leash outside the designated trial area.

 

Petersham Park - Outcomes

While those opposed to the trial expressed strong views, there was overall support for the trial from the community. Notwithstanding Council’s decision for trialing an additional off leash area, in light of the level of support from the community it is proposed that the area covered by the current trial is made permanent.

 

Following a petition from local residents a meeting was held with local residents on site. A Notice of Motion was presented on 19 April 2016 and Council resolved to implement an additional trial off leash area at Petersham Park allowing dogs around the oval off leash between the hours of 6am and 9am, and 5pm and 8pm during day-light saving, and 4pm and 6pm during non-daylight saving time. The existing artwork on the signs will need to be replaced and an assessment of the need for additional signs / bin supply undertaken prior to commencement which is anticipated in the next few months pending adoption of the 2016/17 budget.

 

Sydenham Green

 

Sydenham Green - Evaluation

The evaluation process for Sydenham Green was identical to that used for Petersham Park.

A total of 36 people provided feedback in response to the evaluation survey for Sydenham Green.

§ 21 (%) were dog users and were supportive (95%) or somewhat supportive (5%) of the trial.

§ 15 non dog users rated the support of the trial as follows:

- Opposed                               7

- Somewhat opposed              2

- Supportive                            6

§ The most common theme raised by 4 respondents was the need for fencing due to proximity to roads.

 

All responses from dog and non-dog users at Sydenham Green are included at Attachments 6 and 7.

 

Feedback through ‘dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au’

A total of 3 communications were received concerning Sydenham Green all from the same resident. They expressed concerns with the size and popularity of the existing fenced area and that the trial area was unfenced and adjacent to busy roads.

 

Feedback through Merit

No communications were received through Council’s Customer Response Management system concerning the off leash trial area at Sydenham Green.

 

Sydenham Green – Outcomes

While there was a much lower level of feedback throughout the trial and response to the evaluation at Sydenham Green, the trial was highly supported by dog users with a level of support from non dog users. Based on evidence gathered during patrols by Rangers, the trial DOLA at Sydenham Green did not appear to be highly used. Nonetheless Rangers have referred to the relevance of the area for the purpose of re-educating off leash users of the nearby Tillman Park of the trial area at Sydenham Green in order to transfer off leash use at Tillman to Sydenham Green. Given the overall support from the community it is proposed that the current trial area is made permanent.

 

Internal Engagement

There has been regular internal engagement throughout the off leash trials project involving Corporate Communications and Strategy, Environmental Services, Investigation and Design and Monitoring Services.

 

Comments from Environmental Services

As custodians of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), Environmental Services recommend that Office of Environment and Heritage (National Parks and Wildlife) are consulted as part of the current trial evaluation and any potential expanded trial proposal/changes in relation to impacts to the Endangered Bandicoot population at parks within Council’s Bandicoot Protection Area.

 

Council Officers collaborate and implement a strategic approach to DOLA in relation to Council’s Priority Biodiversity Areas and Bandicoot Protection Area that will protect and enhance biodiversity as per Council’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans. See map attached for parks within the Bandicoot Protection area.

 

Johnson Park

The proposed trial DOLA at Johnson Park is not supported by Environmental Services given these changes could further potentially negatively impact the endangered bandicoot population through:

§ an increased predation risk by dogs; and

§ a decrease in foraging habitat.

 

Any negative impacts to the bandicoot population as a result of this proposal potentially contravene Council’s responsibilities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).

 

Council’s Biodiversity Officer has previously considered off leash areas in parks within the Bandicoot Protection Area and because of the relatively small space at Johnson Park within the context of biodiversity and Threatened Species protection / legislative responsibilities and the potential for conflict with many other uses in the park, concluded that it is not suitable as a potential DOLA.

Morton Park

Environmental Services supports a trial DOLA at nearby Morton Park. This park is not within the Bandicoot Protection Area and the space large enough to accommodate multiple users and a DOLA potentially with minimal conflict.

 

Yeo Park (Ashfield)

Environmental Services supports a trial DOLA at nearby Yeo Park. This park is not within the Bandicoot Protection Area and the space large enough to accommodate multiple users and a DOLA potentially with minimal conflict and worthy of further investigation.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

Extensive community engagement has been undertaken as follows:

 

§ Letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the trial;

§ Council Column;

§ Media releases;

§ Council website;

§ Development and installation of DOLA signage in relevant parks; and

§ Installation of additional bins and bags (Dec ’15).

 

Evaluation of the trial was through the following:

§ An evaluation survey was undertaken throughout March into early April 2016;

§ Letterbox drop to residents adjacent to the three trials informing them of the evaluation process;

§ A designated email address dogs@marrickville.nsw.gov.au was set up for direct submissions from the community throughout the trial;

§ Your Say Marrickville;

§ Council Column; and

§ Media release.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The trial off leash areas at Petersham Park and Sydenham Green have received overall support from the community and it is proposed that the current trial areas are made permanent. The trial at Laxton Reserve has highlighted a number of issues and it is not proposed that the use of this area for off leash dogs is continued. The Laxton trial has demonstrated the evident need for an off leash dog area in the locality. Without a designated off leash area, it is foreseeable that unauthorised off leash use will proliferate in all available open space in Dulwich Hill. To provide effective management of conflicting uses and potential impact on the endangered bandicoot population from unauthorised off leash dogs, it is proposed to implement trial off leash areas at Johnson Park (time restricted) and Morton Park.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Monitoring Report on Trial Off Leash Areas - September 2015 to March 2016

2.

Laxton Reserve Dog Users Evaluation Responses

3.

Laxton Reserve Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses

4.

Petersham Park Dog Users Evaluation Responses

5.

Petersham Park Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses

6.

Sydenham Green Dog Users Evaluation Responses

7.

Sydenham Green Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 6

Subject:         Development Application - 412-416 Liverpool Road, Croydon 

File Ref:         16/4718/73117.16        

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

Council’s consent is sought for demolition of all existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building consisting of 22 dwellings over 2 basement levels.

The proposal complies with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013 and achieves general compliance with Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013. Although the balconies fronting Liverpool Road intrude into the nominal 6m setback zone by up to 3m, it is considered that this provides a better urban design outcome given the scale of the building and the context of the locality and that this will set a suitable precedent for future development on adjacent sites.

The driveway access is located at the south west corner of the site and provides vehicular access via the section of Wetherill Street in the low density zone. This is contrary to the provisions of AIDAP 2013 and would create increased traffic flow through the low density zone and has been the source of considerable neighbour objection. To address this, Council’s traffic engineer has recommended a deferred commencement condition of consent requiring the applicant to relocate the traffic island in Wetherill Street so as to redirect traffic flow so that access to the site is from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

Although the privacy impacts are generally satisfactory, the upper level south western units (Nos. 102 & 202) include balconies which are located facing south and would overlook the private open space of 15 Wetherill Street. To address this, a deferred commencement condition has been recommended requiring the relocation of these balconies to the northern side of the unit to face into the inner courtyard. This will address the privacy concern and provide these units with improved solar access to their living rooms.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) grant deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 10.2015.264.1 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising 22 dwellings above 2 levels of basement car parking on Lot 100, DP 1124619, known as 412-416 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       Description of Proposal

 

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building consisting of 22 dwellings with 2 basement levels.

 

2.0       Application Details

 

Applicant:                           Mr G Ali

Owner:                               Rahman Nominees

Value of work:                   $5,812,343

Lot/DP:                              LOT: 100 DP: 1124619

Date lodged:                      29/12/2015

Building classification:       2

Application Type:               Local

Construction Certificate:   No

 

3.0       Site and Surrounding Development

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection with Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street, Croydon.  The site area is approximately 1,208 square metres.  An existing car wash is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises commercial development and low density residential.  Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map.

 

The site consists of the following lot:

 

Street Address

Lot No.

Deposited Plan

Title System

Site Area

412-416 Liverpool Road

100

1124619

Torrens

1,208m2

 

4.0       Development History

Previous building and development applications submitted to Council for the subject site include:

 

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

10.2010.128.1

20.07.2010

24 hour operation for car wash facility

Refused

10.2007.273.1

26.11.2007

Consolidation of 3 lots into one

Approved

10.2006.310

12.06.2007

Car wash facility

Approved

16.06.2014

16.06.2014

Residential flat building

Refused

 

The following table shows the background to the current application:

 

Application Milestones

Date

Event

File no

16.06.2014

Application lodged as Development Application “As-is” without any amendments to address the issues raised.

10.2014.167.1

04.09.2014

Class 1 Appeal filed with the Land and Environment Court against a deemed refusal.

14.10701

28.10.2014

Development application refused by Council for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and is excessive in bulk and scale.

2.  The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, in that no contamination report has been provided despite the use of the adjacent land as a petrol station and the industrial use of the subject site.

3.  The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, as follows:

a.  cl. 30(2)(b), Design Quality Principles: The proposal does not comply with:

i. Principle 2: Scale: The proposal is of an inappropriate scale, in particular:

·   The provision of a two storey element directly on the boundary with the adjacent property at 15 Wetherill Street;

·   A four storey built form in a location identified by Part C4 of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy for only 3 storey development.

ii.         Principle 3: Built form: The built form is overly dominating upon the adjacent property at 15 Wetherill Street and is inconsistent with the built form in a location identified by Part C4 of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy which requires a 3m front setback with deep soil planting and a 3m deep soil planting zone on the southern boundary to provide a buffer with the low density residential zone.

iii.        Principle 6: Landscape: There is inadequate landscaping on the site in respect of:

·   deep soil planting along the street frontages;

·   Rear boundary deep soil zone; and

·   Communal open space.

iv.        Principle 7: Amenity: The units provide poor internal amenity due to:

·   Many bedrooms obtaining natural light and ventilation only by way of a narrow access corridor to a small balcony.

·   Bedrooms fronting directly onto Liverpool Road unable to open windows without direct exposure to noise and no noise amelioration strategy such as winter gardens.

v.         Principle 10: Aesthetics:

·   Inadequate facade detail has been provided to demonstrate that the aesthetic treatment proposed will be realised in the resultant building.

·   The materials and finishes are not low maintenance and include excessive use of painted finishes and aluminium panels at ground level.

b.  cl. 30(2)(c), Residential Flat Design Code: The proposal does not comply with:

i. Part 1, Local Context – Building Separation: The set back of the proposal from the southern boundary is inadequate and fails to provide the recommended setback of 9m between habitable rooms and balconies to 15 Wetherill Street which results in unacceptable overshadowing and privacy impacts.

ii.         Part 2, Site Design - Open Space: The proposal only provides 13% of the site area as communal open space, whereas the RFDC nominates at least 25%.

iii.        Part 3, Facades: Inadequate facade detail has been provided to demonstrate that the aesthetic treatment proposed will be realised in the resultant building.

iv.        Part 3, Daylight Access: Numerous bedrooms obtain daylight only by way of a long narrow aperture and is inadequate.

v.         Part 3, Maintenance: The external materials, in particular those on the ground level, consist largely of painted finishes which are not durable, easily cleaned, and graffiti resistant.

4.  The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing), as follows:

a.  cl. 14(1)(c)(ii), Only 13% of the site is landscaped.

b.  cl. 14(1)(d)(i), Only 12% of the site is provided as deep soil.

c.  cl. 14(1)(d)(ii), Not all of the areas of deep soil have a minimum dimension of 3m.

d.  cl. 16A, the proposal is not compatible with the character of the local area, in particular the adjacent Wetherill Street Heritage Conservation Area.

5.  The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, as follows:

a.  cl. 4.3, Height of buildings: The proposal exceeds the maximum height of 13m on the northern part of the site;

b.  cl. 4.3(2A), Height of buildings: The proposal includes gross floor area within the top 3m of the height limits for the site;

c.  cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: the request regarding contravention of clause 4.3(2A) in respect of building height is not well founded and cannot be supported.

d.  cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: no request regarding contravention of clause 4.3 in respect of building height has been submitted.

6.  The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013, as follows:

a.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.1, Maximum Building Height: The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 3 storeys by one storey;

b.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.2, The proposal does not maximise the separation from neighbouring houses;

c.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.3, Building Locations: The proposal does not provide a 6m front setback to Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street;

d.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.4, Building Scale Relationship with Neighbouring Residential Properties: The proposal does not reduce in scale and is inadequately set back from southern boundary.

e.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.5, Northerly Solar Access for Adjoining Residential Properties: The proposal results in unacceptable overshadowing of the northern elevation of 15 Wetherill Street.

f.   Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.1, Main road frontage and building structure setbacks for front gardens and trees: The proposal does not provide the required 3m deep soil zone along the front boundaries.

g.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.2, Communal Open Space: The proposal does not provide the required minimum of 25% communal open space.

h.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.3, Rear/Side Landscape Buffer Areas: The proposal does not provide a 3m deep soil zone along rear boundary for dense tree planting.

i.   Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.6, Trees: The proposal does not provide for the required tree planting on site along the street frontages.

j.   Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 4.3, Visibility to Street: The proposal does not provide residential lobbies min 5m wide.

k.  Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 5.6, Landscaped Buffer Areas: The proposal does not provide the required 3m width of deep soil tree planting to southern boundary.

l.   Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 8.1, Vehicle Access Points: The proposal does not provide the required driveway access from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

m. Part C11, Parking, cl. 5.7, Ramp Gradients: The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted ramp gradient of 1:5.  

n.  Part E4, Stormwater Management Policy, No Flood Certificate has been provided to enable adequate assessment of the stormwater design of the proposal.

7.  The proposal proposes the removal of a healthy street tree on the Council verge in Wetherill Street.

8.  The proposal is not in the public interest.

10.2014.167.1

28.04.2015

Appeal dismissed by Court.

14.10701

03.12.2015

Provisional Development Application lodged.

17.2015.354

10.12.2015

Letter sent to applicant raising following issues:

1.   The proposed setback to Wetherill Street should be a minimum of 3m for all the floors whilst retaining the building facade articulation on the corner.

2.   The elevational shadow diagrams should be presented at hourly intervals between noon and 3pm on June 21 and nominate the uses of the rooms on the northern elevation. Please provide elevational shadow diagram which clearly show the extent of overshadowing on the adjoining property at No 15 Wetherill Street.

3.   The proposed upper level balconies facing south west would result in overlooking of the adjacent properties and should be reconfigured.

4.   An arborist report should be provided in respect of the street tree removal and an advanced replacement tree of the same species is to be nominated on the plans in a suitable nearby location.

5.   The planting shown on the architectural drawings (plans and elevations) is not representative of either existing or proposed planting and should either be corrected to be consistent with the landscape plan or removed from the drawing altogether.

6.   The basement storage for each apartment should be provided in accordance with the SEPP 65.

7.   All units must provide a bathroom visitable by people in a wheel chair in accordance with part C1 of AIDAP 2013. 

8.   Plans showing direct pipe connection to Sydney water canal along Liverpool Road are to be provided.

9.   The location of the driveway access is inconsistent with Part C4 of Ashfield Interim development Assessment Policy 2013 which nominates that vehicular access should be provided at the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.  The proposal should be amended to comply.

10. The basement ramp grades do not comply with the relevant Australian Standards and should be amended to comply.

17.2015.354

29.12.2015

Development Application lodged.

10.2015.264.1

5.0       Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

The site is zoned B4 - Mixed Use under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.

The property is located within the Ashfield West precinct.

The site is adjacent a heritage conservation area.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

6.0       Section 79C Assessment

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

6.1       The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

6.1.1    Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (ALEP 2013) was gazetted on 23 December 2013 and applies to the proposal. The following table summarises the compliance of the application with ALEP 2013.

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.3

Zone objectives and land use table

Zone B4 Mixed Use

Residential flat building

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

No change

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

13m

12.6m

Yes

4.3(2A)

Height of buildings

If a building is located on land in Zone B4 Mixed Use, any part of the building that is within 3 metres of the height limit set by sub-clause (2) must not include any area that forms part of the gross floor area of the building and must not be reasonably capable of modification to include such an area.

The top three metres does not include a habitable floor space

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

1.5:1

1.39:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located adjacent:

·  Wetherill Street Conservation Area C88

5.10(5)

Heritage assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

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

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

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

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

The application is assessed as satisfactory by Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Yes

 

As demonstrated in the above table, the proposal complies fully with Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

6.1.2    Regional Environmental Plans

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

An assessment has been made of the matters set out in Clause 20 of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.  It is considered that the carrying out of the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the Plan and would not have any adverse effect on environmental heritage, the visual environmental, the natural environment and open space and recreation facilities.

 

6.1.3    State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of land

 

The site is located adjacent a service station and, as such, it is likely that it has some degree of contamination. Given this, it is necessary for a preliminary site investigation to be undertaken to ascertain the extent of contamination and the measures required to render the site suitable for residential purposes.

 

A suitable remediation action plan has been provided and compliance with its requirements will be a condition of consent.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The proposed development includes a residential flat building as defined by the SEPP in that it comprises 3 or more storeys and 4 or more self-contained dwellings. The proposal is therefore subject to the provisions of the SEPP. The proposal is accompanied by a suitable Design Verification Statement as required by the regulations.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65:

Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

28

Determination of Development Applications

28(1)

After receipt of a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies (other than State significant development) and before it determines the application, the consent authority is to refer the application to the relevant design review panel (if any) for advice concerning the design quality of the development.

The application has been referred to Council’s SEPP 65 review officer for comment.

Yes

 

28(2)

In determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration):

(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.

Yes

28(2)(b)

The design quality principles

1.

Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood 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 proposal responds appropriately to desired future character of the B4 zone in Liverpool Road. In addition, it provides a suitable transition to the R2 zone to the rear in Wetherill Street which is also a heritage conservation area.

Yes

2.

Principle 2: Built form and scale

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The scale is consistent with the LEP and DCP controls for the site and generally appropriate for the context.

Yes

3.

Principle 3: 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 density is consistent with the FSR nominated for the site by ALEP 2013.

Yes

4.

Principle 4: 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.

The proposal has been accompanied by a BASIX certificate demonstrating compliance with fundamental sustainability requirements.

 

Yes

5.

Principle 5: 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 landscaping satisfactorily addresses the following:

·    Continuous landscaped buffer along Liverpool Road with canopy tree planting;

·    Suitably planted communal open space;

·    Deep soil planting to the rear of the site with canopy trees to allow for a landscaped buffer between the site and the R2 zone; and

·    Generous and well appointed areas of communal open space on the roof overlooking Liverpool Road.

Yes

6.

Principle 6: 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.

Residential amenity is adequate:

·    Suitable internal layouts;

·    Adequate solar access and cross ventilation;

·    Adequate visual and acoustic privacy;

·    Suitable site layout.

Yes

7.

Principle 7: 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.

Safety and security is adequate due to good passive surveillance of internal circulation spaces.

Yes

8.

Principle 8: 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.

A suitable range of unit sizes is provided from studios to 2 bedrooms.

 

 

 

 

Yes

9.

Principle 9: 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 aesthetic resolution is satisfactory in the context of the site.

Yes

28(2)(c)

Apartment Design Guide

Part 3

Siting the development

3B

Orientation

On merit.

 

Orientation to the street is appropriate in the context.

Yes

3C

Public domain interface

On merit.

 

Appropriate in the context

Yes

3D-1

Communal open space

Communal open space: min. 25% site area:

302m2

34%

(409m2)

Yes

 

 

Solar access to communal open space

Excellent solar access to rooftop communal open space.

Yes

3D-3

Communal open space is designed to maximise safety

Safety

Ground level communal open space is well observed by surrounding units;

Rooftop communal open space is open and well observed.

Yes

3E-1

Deep soil zones

7% min dimension 3m:

85m2

18%

(222m2)

Yes

3F1

Building Separation

(up to four storeys)

6 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and side boundaries

3m

The purpose of this guideline is to ensure adequate privacy impacts and solar access. It is acceptable given that:

·   (subject to application of deferred commencement conditions) no habitable room windows or balconies will have any interface with adjacent properties; and

·   Solar access to adjacent properties is acceptable.

Acceptable

3F-2

Privacy

 

Communal open spaces adequately separated from private open spaces and windows.

Yes

3J-1

Car parking

· 88m of railway or light rail station; or

· In or within 400m of B3/B4 land

Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013

Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013

Yes

Part 4

Designing the Building

4A-1(1)

Solar & daylight access

70% of living rooms and private open spaces: min. 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

91%

Yes

4A-1(3)

Solar & daylight access

No direct sunlight at the above time: max. 15%

9%

Yes

4B-3(1)

Natural ventilation

Natural cross ventilation: min. 60% of apartments

77%

Yes

4B-3(2

Natural ventilation

Maximum depth of cross through apartments: 18m glass to glass

17m

Yes

4C-1

Ceiling heights

· Habitable rooms: 2.7m

· Non-habitable: 2.4m

· 2 storey: 2.4m 2nd storey

· Attics: 1.8m at edge of room with 30 degree slope

· Commercial: 3.3m ground and first floor.

2.7m

Yes

4D-1(1)

Apartment size and layout

Minimum internal areas:

· Studio: 35m2

· 1 bed: 50m2

· 2 bed: 70m2

· 3 bed: 90m2

All units exceed the minimum areas.

Yes

4D-1(2)

Apartment size and layout

All habitable rooms to have window in external wall min. 10% floor area.

All units exceed the minimum areas.

Yes

4D-2

Apartment size and layout

Max. Habitable room depth: 8m

All units comply.

Yes

4D-3(1)

Apartment size and layout

Min areas:

· Master bedroom: 10m2

· Other bedrooms: 9m2

All units comply.

Yes

4D-3(2)

Apartment size and layout

Min. Bedroom dimension (excl. Robe): 3m

All units comply.

Yes

4D-3(3)

Apartment size and layout

Min. Living room dimension:

· 1 Bed Unit: 3.6m

· 2 Bed Unit: 4.0m

All units comply.

Yes

4E-1(1)

Private open space & balconies

Min. Balcony size/depth:

· Studio: 4m2/-

· 1 Bed: 8m2/2m

· 2 Bed: 10m2/2m

· 3 Bed: 12m2/2.4m

All units comply.

Yes

4E-1(2)

Private open space & balconies

Min. Courtyard size/depth:

· 15m2/3m

Ground floor units are elevated due to flooding and as such have balconies rather than courtyards. They comply with the balcony areas.

Acceptable

4F-1(1)

Common circulation spaces

Max. apartments off a single core: 8

8

Yes

4F-1(2)

Common circulation spaces

Max. apartments sharing single lift: 40 (10 storeys and over)

22

Yes

4G-1(1)

Storage

Minimum storage:

· Studio: 4m3

· 1 Bed: 6m3

· 2 Bed: 8m3

· 3 Bed: 10m3

50% to be in apartment (not bedroom/kitchen)

All units comply.

Yes

4H-1

Acoustic privacy

Noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout.

Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.

Yes

4H-2

Acoustic privacy

Noise impacts are mitigated within apartments through layout and acoustic treatments.

Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.

Yes

4J-1

Noise and pollution

In noisy or hostile environments the impacts of external noise and pollution are minimised through the careful siting and layout of buildings.

Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.

Yes

4J-2

Noise and pollution

Appropriate noise shielding or attenuation techniques for the building design, construction and choice of materials are used to mitigate noise transmission.

The acoustic report recommends suitable acoustic treatment which will be included as conditions of consent.

Yes

4K-1

Apartment mix

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

A variety of apartment types is provided.

Yes

4L-1

Ground floor apartments

Street frontage activity is maximised .

All ground floor apartments directly address the street.

Yes

4L-2

Ground floor apartments

Private courtyards elevated above the street by 1m-1.5m

All ground floor courtyards are elevated above street level by at least 1m.

Yes

4M-1

Facades

Building facades provide visual interest and respect character of local area.

The building façade provides a variety of materials and finishes which provides good articulation and a visual character suitable to the existing and evolving context of the locality.

Yes

4M-1

Facades

Building functions are expressed on the facade.

The building functions are suitably expressed on the façade.

Yes

4N-1

Roof design

Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street.

The roof is appropriate to the context.

Yes

4N-2

Roof design

Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised.

The roof has been utilised for a large area of communal open space which also includes landscaping, BBQ areas, eating areas, covered sitting areas and general open space.

Yes

4N-3

Roof design

Roof design incorporates sustainability features.

The roof includes planting and covered areas which reduce heat gain to the units below.

Yes

4O

Landscape design

 

The landscape design is considered appropriate in respect of its treatment of Liverpool Road and the southern setback. There is no detailed landscape plan and this will be a condition of any consent to determine suitable tree species for Liverpool Road.

Yes

4P-1

Planting on structures

Min. Soil depths:

· 12-18m trees: 1.2m deep & 10m x 10m

· 8-12m trees: 1.0m deep & 6m x 6m

· 6-8m trees: 0.8m deep & 3.5m x 3.5m

· Shrubs: 0.5m – 0.6m deep

· Ground cover: 0.3m – 0.45m deep

· Turf: 0.2m deep

Soil depths are generally 1m which is adequate for the type of planting proposed.

Yes

4Q-2

Universal design

Adaptable housing in accordance with Council policy.

Only 3 of the units are adaptable whereas Council’s policy requires all units to have visitable bathrooms. A condition of consent will be applied to ensure compliance.

No

4R-1

Adaptive reuse

New additions to existing buildings are contemporary and complementary and enhance an area’s identity and sense of place.

New construction - not applicable.

N/A

4S-2

Mixed use

Residential uses of the building are integrated within the development, and safety and amenity is maximised for residents.

Residential use only – not applicable.

N/A

4T-1

Awnings and signage

Awnings are well located and complement and integrate with the building design.

No awnings proposed – not applicable.

N/A

4T-2

Awnings and signage

Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.

No signage proposed – not applicable.

N/A

4U

Energy efficiency

 

A BASIX certificate has been submitted which demonstrates compliance with this provision.

Yes

4V

Water management

 

A BASIX certificate has been submitted which demonstrates compliance with this provision.

Yes

4W

Waste management

 

The garbage room is of adequate size to accommodate the number of bins required; and

The waste management and collection arrangements would be satisfactory.

Yes

4X-3

Building maintenance

Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.

Although much of the proposal is painted render, durable low maintenance materials (i.e. dark coloured face brick) have been proposed at ground level and for fences and dwarf walls.

Yes

 

As identified in the above table, the proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the SEPP except as noted above where the impacts would be acceptable.

 

It is noted, however, that the south facing balconies of units 102 and 202 are considered inappropriate as they overlook the principal private open space of the adjacent property at 15 Wetherill Street and are located less than 6m from the common boundary. To address this, deferred commencement conditions of consent will be applied requiring the applicant to switch the balcony to the northern side of this unit where the kitchen is currently located and the kitchen to where the balcony is located. This will permit a north facing balcony and living area which would have no privacy impacts on the property to the south; although it will face towards a small balcony off a bedroom, conditions will be applied requiring a 1.6m privacy screen to on this balcony to address any privacy impacts. In addition, any south facing windows will be required to have a sill height of 1.65m above floor level. With the application of these conditions, the proposal will avoid all adverse privacy impacts on adjacent properties and provided satisfactory amenity in respect of both privacy and solar access internally.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The proposal is located on a site with frontage to a classified road and is subject to the provisions of the SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Standard

Proposed

Complies

101

Development with frontage to classified road

101(2)

The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

101(2)(a)

where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

Vehicular access is proposed via Wetherill Street.

Yes

101(2)(b)

the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i)

the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

Neither RMS nor Council’s engineer have raised concerns with the design of the access.

Yes

(ii)

the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

No dust or smoke is likely to result from the development.

Yes

(iii)

the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

It is noted that Council’s traffic engineer has recommended a deferred commencement condition requiring the relocation of the traffic island in Wetherill Street so that access is via the northern Liverpool Road and not from the southern low-density residential end. RMS has been advised that Council intends to impose this condition and has raised no objection to this or the proposal generally.

Yes

101(2)(c)

the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

If the recommendations of the acoustic report are applied, the proposal will perform satisfactorily in this respect.

Condition

 

6.2       The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to the site.

 

6.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

Although the Ashfield DCP 2007 is still in force, it is interpreted by reference to the Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy IDAP which specifically addresses how the ADCP 2007 is to be interpreted in the context of ALEP 2013. Please see Section 7.8 below.

 

6.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.

 

6.5       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

Overshadowing:

 

The height and configuration of the proposal in relation to the common boundary with 15 Wetherill Street is acceptable, Overshadowing impacts are minimal.

 

Bulk and Scale:

 

The proposal is of the scale and form envisaged by Council’s development controls for the site and locality.

 

Privacy:

 

Provision of the proposed amendments noted above, would result in acceptable privacy impacts.

6.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.

 

6.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 6 January 2016 until 29 January 2016. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.

 

6.7.1    Summary of submissions

 

28 submissions (Attachment 3) were received during the notification of the development application along with 1 petition containing a total of 132 signatures.

 

Submission

R. Barda

227 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

K. Bryson et al

5 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

A. Camatta

15 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

V. Carnovale

7 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Carnovale

7 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Clarke

6 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

P. & S. Coulton

233 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

R. Eggleton

PO Box A187, Enfield South NSW 2133

T. Robb

Evolution Planning Pty Ltd

PO Box 309, Frenchs Forest NSW 1640

On behalf of Caltex Australia (Petroleum) Pty Ltd

D. & G. Fernandes & V. Caradonna

5 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. Flanagan

14 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. Heinecke & A. Richardson

237 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. & M. Hughes

2 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

Mr I. Jeremy & Ms E. McMullen

11 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

N. Krisco

8 Lion Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. N. S. & V. Latsinos

4 & 8 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. Leung

3 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

N. Lewis

2 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Mireless & M. Rutherford

8 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Nicholson

9 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

P. & V. Nube

13 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

H. & M. Pappas

1 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

K. Ruschen

9 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. Thomas

16 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Trazerra

45 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Tulloch

16 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. & S. Woodward

18 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

S. Woodward

18 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

Petitions

Petition of 132 names

Head petitioner:

K. Ruschen

9 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

 

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

Vehicular access for the development via the southern part of Wetherill Street will unacceptably increase traffic in the local residential streets.

A deferred commencement condition has been recommended requiring the applicant to relocate the median in Wetherill Street so that vehicular access to the development is not via the low density southern part of Wetherill Street.

4 storeys instead of 2.

The proposal is for a 3 storey building which is consistent with Council’s planning controls for the site.

It is to be built to the boundaries in Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street.

The proposal provides for setbacks of at least 3 metres from both Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street.

Overshadowing of 15 Wetherill Street private open space.

The private open space of 15 Wetherill Street will receive more than the minimum amount of solar access required by the AIDAP 2013.

Overshadowing of 15 Wetherill Street north facing windows.

The north facing windows will receive between one and almost four hours solar access at mid-winter depending on the location of individual windows on the north façade. This is considered generally acceptable.

Location of driveway entry will be noisy for 15 Wetherill Street.

The driveway is located towards the street frontage and is enclosed within the building structure as it enters the site and is also separated from the boundary by screen planting.

Adverse privacy impacts on 15 Wetherill Street.

Agreed. The location of two balconies and various windows would enable overlooking of the private open space of 15 Wetherill Street. Conditions will be applied to address this issue.

Removal of covered balcony structures would increase solar access to the south.

The rooftop pergola structures are not a source of any overshadowing of adjacent properties.

Roof terrace will overlook adjacent low density residential properties and create a noise nuisance.

The communal roof terrace has been located to the front of the site and well away from the boundary with the low density residential zone. Due to the separation, it will not be possible for users of the roof terrace to obtain any view into adjacent properties to the south. The degree of separation should minimise the chances of noise issues arising.

Garbage should not be collected from the southern side of the median barrier in Wetherill Street.

The development will not be permitted to place its bins for collection in front of any other property. Consequently, rubbish collection would only be from Liverpool Road or the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

Street tree should not be removed.

The street tree must be removed as there is no other realistic option available for the location of the driveway entry. A condition has been recommended requiring the applicant to provide substitute street tree planting using an advanced specimen of the same species in an adjacent location.

Development is on flood prone land.

The proposal has been designed to adequately take account of the flood hazard.

The proposed tree planting along Liverpool Road associated with the development would block view of the Caltex fuel price sign to passing motorists resulting in a contravention of the NSW Fair Trading Regulation 2012. Plantings along Liverpool Road within 10m of the common boundary should be limited to 1m in height or the applicant required to pay for the relocation of the sign.

It is noted that tree planting of any size and density can occur without development consent at any time.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that an appropriate urban design outcome would only be achieved with significantly sized canopy tree planting in the Liverpool Road setback and a condition will be imposed requiring the planting of advanced specimens of canopy trees which would grow to a mature height of at least 8.5m. Nevertheless, it will take some time for these specimens to reach a height which might obscure any signage.

The site plan suggests that the driveway exits into the northern end of Wetherill Street rather than the southern end as is proposed.

The site plan clearly shows the driveway entering into Wetherill Street on the southern side of the median. The misunderstanding may arise from a graphical difference between the location plan (which appears to show the street tree intact - although it notes that it is to be removed) and the ground floor plan which shows more clearly that the tree is to be removed and that access is proposed to the southern part of Wetherill Street. The site plan, on the other hand, appears to suggest that there is an opening leading to the northern part of Wetherill Street; in fact, this is not an opening but the median strip. This is simply a difference in the graphical standards used on the drawings.

Notwithstanding this, the concern is clearly that the application proposes vehicular movements through the southern low density portion of Wetherill Street. To address this, conditions will be applied to ensure that all traffic exits the northern end of Wetherill Street and then into Liverpool Road without passing through the low density section of Wetherill Street under any circumstances.

Extension requested to period for submissions.

All submissions made up until the writing of this report have been considered.

Number of storeys and height is unclear.

The height of the building and number of storeys is clearly legible on the notification plans.

Location of trees to be removed is unclear.

This is clearly shown on the notations on the notification plans and is consistent with normal architectural graphic standards.

Location of bins not shown on notification plans.

The presentation point for garbage bins will be dictated by conditions of consent.

Traffic report is not accurate.

Council’s engineers have made their own independent assessment of the traffic impacts.

Notification plans appear to show a four storey building rather than a three storey building.

The “fourth storey” the objector refers to appears to be the lift and stair core which provides access to the roof as well as the rooftop pergola. It is noted that these elements are both permitted and encouraged under Council’s planning controls for the B4 zone.

Potential damage to adjacent properties from excavation.

This concern will be addressed by way of conditions of consent.

Site contamination concerns.

This will be addressed by conditions.

Lack of community consultation.

Community consultation is built into the development application process of which the notification process is a part.

 


 

6.8       The public interest

 

The proposal is therefore subject to the provisions of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013. A summary compliance table follows below:

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C1: Access, Adaptability and Mobility

Summary Compliance Table

(Design Checklist 2)

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Part C1

Access, Adaptability and Mobility

2.3(iii)

Universal Accessible Design

Residential flat building or shop top housing, 3 storeys or higher with lifts, which may or may not be part of a mixed development, must have all their apartments complying with universal accessible design principles as required by Design Checklist 2.

Residential flat building

Noted

2.4

Adaptable Housing

10%

14%

Yes

2.5

Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements

Site conditions

No variations proposed under this clause.

N/A

7.2

Universal Accessible Design

Residential flat buildings higher than 3 storeys with ground level commercial and lifts, shall be “accessible” as required in the Building Code of Australia and in addition have a universal accessible design for the interior design of the dwellings that meets the requirements of Section 7.

All apartments are accessible.

Yes

7.3

Construction

In order to achieve an implementation principle”, that considers design issues at Development Application stage in sufficient detail to ensure that at construction certificate stage and during construction compliance is achieved

Adequate detail provided.

Yes

7.4

Access from street to dwelling entry

Access from the street into the lift lobby area, to lifts and to apartments entries requires:

(a) A continuous path of accessible travel from the street to lift lobbies.

(b) Lift shafts sizes minimum required to take a lift which is large enough to accommodate a person in a wheelchair.

(c) The lift lobby shall have a minimum clear finished circulation width of 1500mm, and which takes into account wall finishes and building tolerances.

(d) An intercom at the visitor parking level and external ground level entry point.

All dimensions are consistent with these requirements.

Yes

7.5

Interior dwelling design

The interior elements of all apartments shall be adequately sized to allow wheelchair circulation.

No apartments (except the adaptable units) are adequately sized to allow wheelchair access in respect of:

·   Corridor widths

·   Bathrooms

·   Kitchens and

·   Laundries

No but  can be a condition of approval.

7.6

Access to private balcony

(a) Balcony dimensions shall accommodate a person in a wheelchair being able to turn on the balcony including allowing an area for a small table and have a minimum internal width of 2.0m and minimum length of 3m.

All private balcony areas are accessible.

Yes

7.7

Access to car parking

Access to and from the car parking area for people with a disability by lift.

Lift access with waiting area outside lift provided.

Yes

7.8

Access to communal garden space

Where there is communal open space on the site, it must be accessible from all dwellings required to have a universal accessible design, and by all visitors to the site.

All communal open space is readily accessible.

Yes

7.9

Access to Ground Level Commercial areas and circulation within Commercial

Levels

Access must be compliant with the BCA.

Compliant access is provided to the ground level commercial.

Yes

 

 

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C4: Ashfield West

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

2

Building Height and Location

2.1

Maximum Building Height

3 storeys

3 storeys

Yes

2.2

 

Design to maximise separation with neighbouring houses.

3m rear setback

Yes

2.3

Building Locations

6m front setback Liverpool Road

6m front setback to face of building and 3m front setback to front of balconies.

 

The dimensions provided will provide a suitable streetscape appearance with scope for landscaping on the street frontage to contribute to the streetscape and moderate noise impacts of traffic on the amenity of residents. The setbacks proposed are considered to provide an acceptable urban design outcome and will set a suitable precedent for adjacent future development.

Acceptable

2.4

Building Scale Relationship with Neighbouring Residential Properties

Building heights to reduce in scale on southern boundary to be sympathetic to building heights on adjacent properties.

Scale relationship on southern boundary satisfactory.

Yes

2.5

Maintaining northerly solar access for adjoining properties

Maintaining northerly solar access for adjoining properties

Proposal maintains adequate solar access to property to the south with the north facing windows progressively receiving full solar access between noon and 3pm.

Yes

3

Landscape

3.1

Main road frontage and building structure setbacks for front gardens and trees

3m deep soil zone along frontages.

3m

Yes

3.2

Communal Open Space

Must comply with SEPP 65 requirements: 25% - 30% of stie area

34%

(409m2)

Yes

3.3

Rear/Side Landscape Buffer Areas

3m deep soil zone along rear boundary for dense tree planting.

3m deep soil zone provided (expect for small intrusion for driveway).

Yes

3.6

Trees

Trees to be planted along the frontage of the site:

·   Min. 1.8m high

·   Approved species

·   Regular intervals

Planting of 6 canopy trees is proposed along the Liverpool Road frontage.

Yes

4

Pedestrian Amenity and Safety

4.1

Active Street Frontages

Active street frontages to both street frontages.

Lobby entrances and unit entries provided.

Yes

4.2

 

Upper levels must provide surveillance of the public domain.

All units overlook the street with windows and balconies.

Yes

4.3

Visibility to Street

Residential lobbies to be min 5m wide.

3.6m wide – this is considered acceptable.

Acceptable

4.4

Location of Parking

Any at grade parking to be located behind any active street frontage.

All parking in basement.

N/A

4.5

Street Awnings

Street awnings for weather protection to be provided where 0m setbacks are required.

No 0m setbacks required on this site.

N/A

4.7

Security

Residential development facing rear lanes must have windows along that frontage to ensure passive surveillance.

No rear lane associated with subject site.

N/A

4.8

 

Minimum requirements for security devices.

To be a condition..

Condition

5

Residential Amenity

5.1

Acceptable noise levels

Maximum noise levels in apartments not to exceed:

·   40dBA for living areas

·   35dBA for bedrooms

Achievable if recommendations of supplied acoustic report implemented by condition of consent.

Condition

5.2

North side of Liverpool Road

N/A

N/A

N/A

5.3

South side of Liverpool Road

Living rooms should be cross-through in design to allow access to the quieter southern side.

Windows to living rooms must comply with requirements of acoustic report.

Acceptable

5.6

Landscaped Buffer Areas

3m width of deep soil tree planting to southern boundary.

Buffer provided.

Yes

7

Social Considerations and Residential Development

7.1

Smaller apartments

A minimum of 20% of the dwellings should be 1 bedroom or studio apartments.

18%

Acceptable

8

Development Servicing

8.1

Vehicle Access Points

Driveway access must be provided from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

Access provided via the southern end of Wetherill Street.

Deferred commencement conditions will be applied requiring the applicant to relocate the traffic island so that vehicular access is via the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

No

8.2

Driveways to underground parking

Must be designed to minimise noise impact on adjacent residential rooms.

Driveway ramp is completely enclosed.

Yes

8.4

Loading Areas

Adequate provision for loading/unloading.

No commercial component.

N/A

8.5

Service Areas

Garbage areas to be located out of public view ideally in basement with adequate access.

Garbage room located in basement with suitable access.

Yes

8.7

Service doors

Must be adequately screened from frontage.

No significant service area doors in this proposal.

N/A

8.8

Mail Boxes

Located adjacent main entrance in accessible location and integrated properly into design of building.

Yes

Yes

 

 

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C11: Parking

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

3.3

Parking Credits

Do not apply if more than 50% of the building is being demolished.

100% of the existing buildings are to be demolished and as such no parking credits are applicable.

N/A

4.1

Car Parking for People with Disabilities

5% of required parking spaces to be accessible.

TOTAL = 2.5 spaces

3 spaces

Yes

4.2

Bicycle and Motor Cycle Parking

Bicycle spaces:

·   1 space per 10 units = 5

 

Motor cycle spaces:

·   1 space per 25 spaces = 2.56

Bicycle spaces:

·   1 space per 10 units = 16

 

Motor cycle spaces:

·   1 space per 25 spaces = 3

Yes

4.3

Parking Rates for Specific Land Uses

Residential spaces:

·   1 space per unit = 22

 

Visitor spaces:

·   1 space per 4 units = 6

 

Car wash bay:

·   1 space = 1

Residential spaces:

·   1 space per unit = 24 (incl. 3 disabled spaces)

 

Visitor spaces:

·   1 space per 4 units = 6

 

Car wash bay:

1 space = 1 (to be nominated by condition)

Yes

5.0

Design Requirements

Compliance with relevant Australian Standards and detailed requirements of the Part.

Satisfactory or capable of compliance.

Yes

 


 

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C12: Public Notification

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Section 2

Notification Process

 

The application was notified in accordance with this part.

Yes

 

 

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

PartD1: Planning for Less Waste

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

 

Bin Numbers

 

Residential (50 dwellings):

·   1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=11 bins

·   1 x 240L recycling bin/2 dwellings=11 bins

·   TOTAL: 22 bins

Residential:

·   22 x 240L garbage bins

·   25 x 240L recycling bins

TOTAL: space for 19 bins

 

No but can be enlarged to a suitable size. Condition recomm-ended

 

Bin Presentation

 

Adequately resolved.

Yes

 

 

It is considered the application complies with the relevant parts of the Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy as indicated and achieves the aims and objectives of the AIDP 2013.

 

 

8.0       Referrals

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Support

Building Surveyor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Traffic Engineer

Supported subject to conditions including the relocation of the Wetherill Street median strip to ensure access to the development is only via the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

 

Note that Roads and Maritime Services was advised of the intention to apply this condition and did not raise any objection.

Yes

Drainage Engineer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Heritage Advisor

Since this matter was in the Court, the proposal has been greatly improved in its contextual response, and it would appear that the main heritage concern which now remains is the manner and relationship of vehicle entry to Wetherill Street. The amenity and cohesion of the HCA will be adversely affected if the vehicle traffic generated by this development can only arrive and leave through the conservation area.

 

The development opposite across Wetherill Street will be similar in impact and in my opinion, Council’s road closure to the conservation area must remain. A redesign of the closure incorporating simple bollards and revised tree planting should be possible and should accommodate both this and the opposing development – when that occurs. Vehicle access to both (access and egress) should be only from Liverpool Road.

Yes

Environmental Health Officer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

SEPP 65 Advisor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Waste Management

Supported.

Yes

 

 

 

External Referrals

Referral Body

Comments

Support

Roads and Maritime Services

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

NSW Police

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

 

7.0       Building Code of Australia (BCA)

Construction Certificate has not been lodged with the development application.  However, a referral of the proposal to Council’s building surveyor, revealed no objections to the proposed development, subject to conditions (refer conditions of development consent).

A Construction Certificate will be required to be applied for by condition of consent.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposal will attract a section 94 contribution payment of $288,375.86.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

See 7.0

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

See 6.7

 

 

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) having been taken into consideration.

The proposal complies with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013 and achieves general compliance with the planning provisions applicable to the site. Although the balconies fronting Liverpool Road intrude into the nominal 6m setback zone by up to 3m, it is considered that this provides a better urban design outcome given the scale of the building and the context of the locality and that this will set a suitable precedent for future development on adjacent sites.

The driveway access is located at the south west corner of the site and provides vehicular access via the section of Wetherill Street in the low density zone. This is contrary to the provisions of AIDAP 2013 and would create increased traffic flow through the low density zone and has been the source of considerable neighbour objection. To address this, Council’s traffic engineer has recommended a deferred commencement condition of consent requiring the applicant to relocate the traffic island in Wetherill Street so as to redirect traffic flow so that access to the site is from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.

Although the privacy impacts are generally satisfactory, the upper level south western units (Nos. 102 & 202) include balconies which are located facing south and would overlook the private open space of 15 Wetherill Street. To address this, a deferred commencement condition has been recommended requiring the relocation of these balconies to the northern side of the unit to face into the inner courtyard. This will address the privacy concern and provide these units with improved solar access to their living rooms.

The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plans

2.

Locality Map

3.

Heritage Advice

4.

RMS Comments

5.

Traffic Engineer's Comments

6.

Conditions

7.

Submissions

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 7

Subject:         Development Application - 132 Church Street, Croydon (Centenary Park)  

File Ref:         16/4718/73236.16         

Prepared By: Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

A Section 96 application has been lodged seeking approval to modify development Consent No 10.2014.94.1 to:-

 

·    Relocate approved amenities block 15 metres to the west and 2 metres to the north from the current approved location;

·    Swap/flip the female and male toilets inside the proposed amenities block;

·    Reduce the length of the eaves to the rear (south elevation) of the building to 450mm;

·    Inclusion of a grease trap to serve a larger cooker in the canteen;

·    Installation of a roof cowl; and

·    Construct a 500mm high retaining wall to the rear (north) of the amenities block due to the new building location.

 

This modification application involves a former Ashfield Council project.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Development application No. 10.2014.94.1 for the demolition of the existing amenities building, erection of new amenities building at 132 Church Street, Croydon be modified in accordance with section 96(1a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

 

An application pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, seeks Council’s approval to modify an existing development consent as described in the above summary.

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

 

2.0       APPLICATION DETAILS

 

Applicant                                 :           Mr B Inwood

Address                                   :           PO Box 442 PETERSHAM NSW 2049

Owner                                     :           Ashfield Council

Lot/DP                                     :           LOT: 1 DP: 237006 & LOT: 2 DP:

Date lodged                             :           20/04/2016

Date of last amendment         :           30 May 2016

Building classification              :           9B            

Application Type                     :           Local

Construction Certificate          :           No

 

3.0       SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Church Street, bounded by Lang Street to the west and Queen Street to the south. The subject site has a boundary to Burwood Council LGA which is part of Lang and Queen Street.

 

The subject site has an area of approximately 3.363 hectares. The site is currently improved by:-

 

·    An existing sportsground, which consists of 2 full sized soccer fields;

·    Two mini soccer fields;

·    Children playground area;

·    Cricket area; and

·    Amenities building comprising of toilets, canteen and change rooms.

 

Surrounding development comprises residential dwellings and West’s Sports club located east of the site.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

4.0       DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

 

Development application No. 10.2014.94 seeking approval for the following was approved by Council at its meeting held on 22 April 2014:-

 

·    Demolition of the existing amenities building;

·    Erection of new amenities building including:-

improved toilet facilities;

improved male & female change rooms;

accessible bathroom,

two storerooms;

improved canteen; and

a new meeting room;

·    Attached verandah;

·    New sports field lighting; and

·    New fencing along the south of the site being Queen Street.

 

5.0       ISSUES

 

5.1       Impact on existing pedestrian path

 

A new pedestrian pathway will be built behind the proposed relocated building thus maintaining pedestrian access. The new pedestrian pathway will be designed so that it links with the existing pedestrian pathway either side of the building providing continuous access. Refer to the ground floor plan for the layout in Attachment 1. A condition of consent has been recommended requiring the link to be provided prior to issue of the occupation certificate.

 

5.2       Use of the canteen area

 

In order to ensure the canteen operates as per the adopted Plan of Management, a condition has been recommended requiring the operation of the canteen to be consistent with the adopted Plan of Management for Centenary Park and for it to be used in association with approved sporting clubs and organised groups that use the sporting facilities.

 

5.3       Reason for relocation of the amenities building

 

The amenities building is proposed to be re-located because its former location was found to be too close to the sporting fields, particularly when used for rugby. The re-location of the amenities building will allow for greater clearance to the fields.

 

 

5.4       Heritage

 

The subject site is a heritage listed property and located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items and heritage conservation areas. The application was referred to Council’s heritage advisor who has indicated that from a heritage view point of the relocation of the amenities building is acceptable subject to the cowl/vent being of a domestic scale as shown on the plans. A condition of consent has been recommended to ensure compliance.

 

6.0       ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

 

·    The site is zoned RE1-Public Recreation under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.

·    The property is a heritage item.

·    The property is located within the vicinity of number of heritage conservation areas identified as Lang Street Conservation Area, Bridges Avenue Conservation Area, Birriga Road Conservation Area, Rathgael Estate Conservation Area and the following heritage items - 93 Church Street, Croydon and 95 Church Street, Croydon.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

7.0       SECTION 96(1A) ASSESSMENT

 

"Is the proposed modification of minimal environmental impact."

 

The proposed modifications are not considered to adversely impact the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties as they do not seek to increase the scale and bulk of the development or change the building’s use.

 

"Is the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified."

 

The proposal will result in substantially the same development as it only involves the relocation of the building and minor internal and external changes.

 

"Has the application been notified in accordance with the regulations, if the regulations so require, or a development control plan."

 

The proposed modifications were notified - refer to Part 8.7 and 8.7.1 of this report for details.

 

"Has Council considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification."

 

Refer to part 8.7.1 of this report for details.

 

 

 

SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT

 

The following is an assessment of the application with regard to the heads of consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

7.1       The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

7.1.1    Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

2.2

Zoning

Zone RE1 Public Recreation

Section 96 amendment to DA 10.2014.94.1

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

No standard applicable

3.363 Hectares (or 33630square metres). The proposal does not seeks to subdivide the land

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

No standard applicable.

Amenities building – 5.1m at highest point

 

Sporting Light poles – 20m or 23m as noted on plans. (no alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application)

 

Wire open mesh style fence (No alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application)

N/A

4.4

Floor space ratio

No standard applicable

0.01:1 (No alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application)

N/A

5.10

Heritage Conservation

The subject site is a Heritage Item (413)

 

Located in the vicinity of:

·  Lang Street Conservation Area (C33);

·  Bridges Avenue Conservation Area (C27);

·  Birriga Road Conservation Area (C26);

·  Rathgael Estate Conservation Area (C35);

·  93 Church Street, Croydon (371); and

·  95 Church Street, Croydon (372).

5.10(4)

Effect of proposed development on heritage significance

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

Council's Heritage Advisor has not raised any objections to the proposed modifications and the proposal is not expected to detract from the character or significance of heritage items or the conservation areas within the vicinity of the subject site.

Yes

5.10(5)

Heritage Assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

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

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

(c)        on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

Considered as part of the heritage assessment of the proposed modification.

Yes

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.

 

7.1.2    Regional Environmental Plans

 

Not applicable.

 

7.1.3    State Environmental Planning Policies

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant SEPPs.

 

7.2       The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority.

 

Not applicable.

 

7.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013.

 

7.4       Any matters prescribed by the regulations that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

 

Not applicable.

 

7.5       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed alterations will have no significant adverse environmental impacts in the locality.

 

7.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application. There are no natural hazards or other site constraints that are likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the proposed development.

 

7.7       Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations.

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, Councillors, objectors and Burwood Council from 26 April 2016 until 18 May 2016. The application was re-notified from 03 May 2016 until 26 May 2016 as revised plans were submitted.

 

7.7.1    Summary of submissions

 

At the time of preparing this report seven (7) submissions (Attachment 3) were received by Council in respect to the proposal:-

 

Submissions

Guy Redden

91 Church Street

CROYDON NSW  2132

Leon Civitella

121 Church Street

CROYDON NSW  2132

Rene Holmes

3 Church Street

ASHFIELD NSW 2131

*Abraham Tannous

75 Lang Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

Nick Murdocca

101 Church Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

*Craig Bevins

69 Lang Street

CROYDON NSW  2132

*George Romiz

28 Queen Street

CROYDON NSW  2132

 

*These objectors are located within the Burwood Council Local Government Area.

 

The matters raised in these submissions are detailed below in italics, followed by a response from the assessing officer:-

 

Fencing:

 

Additional fencing to be installed along Lang Street side of the park and the Lang Street corner of Queen Street to prevent young children chasing the balls onto the road, people crossing close to the junctions and stop balls going into the street.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The original application only sought consent for fencing along the southern boundary of the park. This Section 96 application does not seek any changes to the fencing approved in the original development application.

 

Parking/Traffic:

 

Rather than the construction of such a large amenities block it is more practical to build car parking spaces along the Queen Street embankment first?

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The original development sought approval to upgrade the existing facilities to Centenary Park to meet the demands of the users of the Park and there was no approval sought for additional car parking facilities. The section 96 application does not seek to intensify the existing use and therefore contribute to an increase in the demand for car parking.

 

Re-location of amenities building/pedestrian pathway:

 

I disagree with your new proposal as it will make the open high elevated part of Church Street unattractive, blocking parkland views and to the community. I object to the amenities block being moved as it will be off centre of the playing fields and will take away spectator access. The relocation will also impact on existing pedestrian pathway.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The amenities building is being re-located as the original location was impeding on the football field, which is used as for rugby. Therefore, the re-location of the amenities building will create a greater clearance to the football field for improved safely of players and spectators.

 

The re-location of the amenities building will not obstruct access to or around the park. The pathway around the building will remain. The levels and width of the path do not change and will comply with accessibility requirements (as per AS 1428.1).

 

Church Street footpath

 

There is not provision for a footpath along Church Street.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The originally approved application did not propose the construction of a sealed pedestrian footpath along Church Street. The section 96 application does not involve any modifications to Church Street.

 

Breezeway

 

The breezeway needs to have locked gates to stop unsavoury behaviour occurring here.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The breezeway will be locked in the evenings and unlocked in the mornings. The section 96 application does not involve changes to the approved breezeway other than incorporating a gate which will improve safety and security. In addition, the breezeway will be well lit.

 

Meeting room

 

There doesn’t need to be a meeting room in this facility. I presume this room is to replace the room that is being removed from Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The Section 96 application does not seek to modify the meeting room which formed part of the original approval. The proposed modification also does not seek to intensify the use.

 

Commercial cooking/Café/intensification/hours

 

Commercial cooking facilities are a cause of concern. A café should not be in this location. There is no need for any commercial venture here. I am opposed to any commercial use of the amenities other than soccer clubs and local schools. We do not support any daily use of the block as a café.

Appropriate and reasonable time of use restrictions being imposed upon use of cooking facilities.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

The canteen will not be used independently or leased out for commercial gain. The approved plan of management stipulates that the canteen and cooking facilities will be used in conjunction with the approved use of sporting clubs and organised group users. A condition of consent has been recommended to reinforce this arrangement and use.

 

Sprinkler system/Fire safety measures

 

Will there be a sprinkler system installed. The plans do not indicate increased fire-fighting measures.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

Advice from Council’s Building Surveyor is that a sprinkler system would not be required in the amenities building, however, the matter of fire safety measures will be addressed during preparation of the construction certificate as part of compliance requirements with the BCA.

 

Additional bathroom facilities:

 

Council needs to look at building a toilet near the playground and BBQ’s. The amenities block is too far from this area.

 

Officer’s Comment:

 

This is outside the scope of this Section 96 application and would require submission of a new development application.

 

 

 

 

Flood lights:

 

The newly installed flood lighting is visually obtrusive, and although not switched on as yet I am sure that excessive light will shine onto my property and affect my amenity. The floodlighting as installed in different to the DA approval 8 poles in lieu of 10.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The original approved application included a report from a lighting and electrical consultant that proposed a lighting scheme suitable for ‘Amateur Level’ club competition and was deemed to be adequate. The proposed light level was designed to minimise impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents in terms of light spill. The consultant’s report also indicated that the luminance around Lang, Church and Queen Streets would be below the maximum allowance value of 10 lux.

 

The section 96 application does not seek to make any modifications to the previously approved flood lights. The existing redundant flood lights are expected to be removed by late July/early August 2016.

 

Grease trap:

 

An assurance that odour seals will be installed around the grease trap enclosure.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

A condition has been recommended which requires the installation of appropriate mechanical ventilation in order to minimise odours from the grease trap.

 

Wheelchair parking and access:

 

No dedicated wheelchair parking is nominated on plans. The wheelchair entry in Lang Street seems inadequate.

 

Officer’s comment:

 

The proposed amenities facilities will comply with AS1428 and Disability Discrimination Act requirements. As stated previously, the original approval did not proposed any changes to the existing car parking area.

 

Issues not taken into account during consideration of the original application

 

Mr Tannous, a resident of Lang Street, has indicated that his previous concerns were not addressed in the Council report during consideration of the original application. This was because the submission was received by Council after the Council report had been finalized. In any event, his submission supported the comments made in another submission which was included in the Council report.

 

7.8       The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposed changes are minor and warrant support.

 

8.0       REFERRALS

 

Heritage: No objections raised to the proposed modifications. Comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor are included in Attachment 4.

 

Building: No objections raised to the proposed modifications.

 

Engineering: No objections raised to the proposed modifications

 

Health: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

 

9.0       BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

 

The proposed changes do not alter compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

10.0     CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended with all matters specified under Section 79C (1) Clauses (a) to (e) and Section 96(1A) have been taken into consideration. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

A         General Conditions

 

(1)        Approved plans stamped by Council

 

The development must be carried out only in accordance with the plans and specifications set out on drawing numbers

 

DA01A                                    30 May 2016

DA02C                                    27 June 2016

DA03A                                    03 May 2016

DA04A                                    03 May 2016

DA05A                                    03 May 2016

D1 Issue A                  30 May 2016

D2 Issue A                  30 May 2016

D3 Issue A                  30 May 2016

D4 Issue B                  30 May 2016

E1 Issue A                   30 May 2016

 

and any supporting documentation received with the application, except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.

 

The following conditions shall be added:-

 

(3)        Grease Trap-Installation

 

A grease trap shall be installed to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

(4)        Roof Cowl

 

The roof cowl to be installed shall be of a domestic scale and size.

 

(5)        Pathway

 

A pathway shall be maintained to the rear (northern side) of the amenities building that complies with AS1428 and Disability Discrimination Act requirements. Details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) indicating compliance with AS 1428 and Disability Discrimination Act at the construction certification stage.

 

 

 

E          Conditions that must be complied with during construction or demolition

 

(17)     Work to comply with Ashfield Council’s “Guidelines for Food Premises”

 

All work shall comply with Ashfield Council’s “Guidelines for Food Premises” and Australian Standard 4674-2004 “Design, construction and fitout of food premises”.

 

(18)                  Inspection of premises – health standards

 

Council shall inspect the premises. An application for inspection shall be made on the appropriate form together with payment of the prescribed fee.

 

G         Conditions that must be complied with before the building is occupied

 

(2)        Grease Trap Room

 

An appropriate mechanical ventilation system is to be installed to eliminate odours from the grease trap room.

 

(3)        Pathway installation

 

The pathway to the rear (northern side) of the amenities building shall be provided and constructed in accordance with AS1428 prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.

 

H         Conditions that are ongoing requirements of development consents

 

(5)        Use of Canteen

 

The canteen within the amenities building shall only be used in-conjunction with approved use of the park by sporting clubs and organised groups.

 

(6)        Odour Control Operation

 

The canteen facility within the amenities building shall be operated so as to ensure that odour impacts are controlled to not cause unacceptable impacts at surrounding residences.

 

(7)        Odour Control Maintenance

 

All mechanical ventilation and extraction systems shall be operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specification to ensure that odour impacts are controlled to not cause unacceptable impacts at surrounding residences.

 

(8)       Plan of Management

 

The canteen use must be operated at all times in accordance with the Plan of Management adopted by Council for Centenary Park.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plans of Proposal

2.

Locality Map

3.

Submissions

4.

Heritage Advice

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 8

Subject:         Development Application - 76 Alt Street, Ashfield  

File Ref:         16/4718/73263.16         

Prepared By: Daisy Younan - Development Assessment Officer, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This application is for a Torrens title subdivision of the existing lot into two lots, the demolition of rear portion of the existing dwelling and construction of a new detached dwelling with attic accommodation on the proposed new lot.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council as the consent authority pursuant to Clause 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) approve Development Application No. 10.2015.188, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.0       Description of Proposal

Pursuant to Clause 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 (as amended) this application seeks Council’s consent for the following:

1.   Torrens title subdivision of the existing lot into two lots, 500m2 for the lot fronting Taringa Street and 669.8m2 for the lot fronting Alt Street;

2.   Demolition of rear portion of the existing dwelling and a detached structure; and

3.   Construction of a new detached dwelling with attic accommodation on the proposed new lot.

 

Plans of proposed development are included in Attachment 1.

 

1.1       Background

The proposed development was considered by Council at its meeting held on 8 March 2016. Council resolved that the development application be deferred for discussions to take place with the applicant to address the concerns raised by the residents of 2 Taringa Street.

Following the Council meeting, a further submission was received on 11 March 2016 from the residents of 2 Taringa Street raising concerns regarding privacy, location of the first floor level, loss of natural light, car parking, heritage and nature of the subdivision.

On 27 April, a meeting was held between Council officers, the property owner and project architect to discuss amendments to the proposal to address the concerns raised by the objector. As a result of the discussion, the following changes were made:-

a.   Fixed obscure glazing to a height of 1.5m for the first floor bedroom window facing objector’s property; and

b.   Introduction of a new upper level bedroom window facing Taringa Street.

 

Amended plans showing the above modifications were received on 02 May 2016 and are included in Attachment 1.

On 03 May 2016, a meeting was held between Council officers and residents of 2 Taringa Street to view the amended plans. The residents were of the view that the proposed modifications were not satisfactory and advised that they would provide a consolidated submission to Council. A further submission was received and is included in Attachment 3.

 

2.0       Site and Surrounding Development

The subject site is located on the northern side of Alt Street, bounded by Taringa Street to the east and John Street to the west. The site area is approximately 1169.8 square metres.  An existing single storey dwelling house and detached structures are located on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential development of various types. Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

 

3.0       Objector’s submission and officer comments

3.1       Concerns raised regarding subdivision of the subject site:

§ May result in multi-dwellings which may set precedent for other similar development in the area 

§ Will result in negative impact on the streetscape due to the scale and proportion of the proposed double storey dwelling which does not respect local context or street pattern, is out of character and detriment to local environment.

 

Officer comments

It is acknowledged that the proposed subdivision creating two lots could permit a dual occupancy or other permitted uses on each lot. This is also a possible scenario with the existing site. Should this occur, applications would be assessed on their merits against Council’s planning controls.

The proposed Torrens title subdivision of the existing 1169.8m2 lot into two lots (each of which is greater than 500m2 in area) complies with the lot area requirements of Clause 4.1(2) of Ashfield LEP 2013 (LEP). Each lot resulting from the proposed subdivision is similar in area to other established lots within Taringa Street and will have direct street frontage. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision pattern in the area.

The proposed dwelling complies with the height, FSR and landscaping area controls and its scale is in character with other residential development in the locality. Council’s heritage advisor has not raised any concerns over streetscape impacts.  

 

3.2       Concerns raised regarding heritage impact:

§ Will be at odds with surrounding development and no heritage impact statement has been submitted discussing the impact of proposed development on the heritage significance of the site and the area.

§ Will result in an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the adjoining properties and would be in breach of Council’s controls related to building scale.

§ Creates a view of a brick wall to the residence of 2 Taringa Street due to the first floor level being strategically placed to provide a greater separation distance between this floor level and the existing dwelling located on the subject site than that provided between the proposed first floor level and the property located at 2 Taringa Street.

 

Officer comments

A heritage impact statement has been submitted with the application. This statement, along with other documentation, has been reviewed by Council’s heritage advisor and no issues have been raised with respect to heritage impacts. Heritage comments are included in Attachment 4.

The proposed new dwelling provides a setback of 1200mm from the common boundary located between the subject site and the objector’s property. Council’s controls require a minimum side setback of 900mm for dwelling houses. The proposed development complies with the setback requirements providing a similar separation distance from the side boundary to other residential development in the locality.

In addition, the placement of the first floor of the proposed dwelling towards the objector’s property enables the private open space of the existing dwelling, located on the subject site, to receive sunlight while not causing any impact on the solar access of the objectors’ property.

The side wall of the new dwelling is not excessively long at 15 metres and similar in depth to the objector’s dwelling. There is also adequate separation between the two buildings – over 3 metres.

 

3.3       Concerns raised regarding privacy and overlooking:

§ Does not comply with Council’s controls relating to privacy given the proposed first floor rear and side bedroom windows which directly looking onto the kitchen window, lounge room window and backyard of 2 Taringa Street impacting on the privacy and security of its residents.

 

Officer comments

The objectives of Clause 5.5 of Part C15 of AIDAP 2013 (referred to by the objector) are to minimise impact of new developments on adjoining neighbour’s privacy.                               

Such impact can also be achieved by employing other privacy measures that achieve the same objectives. It is considered that the opportunity of overlooking of the objector’s kitchen and living room windows is minimal given the single storey scale of the objector’s property and the obscure glazing with fixed lower panels proposed for upper floor master bedroom window (W15) fronting the objector’s property.

Nonetheless, a condition has been included requiring upper level windows W13 and W14 fronting the rear yard of the proposed dwelling to have privacy screens installed and W15 fronting the objector’s property to have obscured glass with fixed panels to a height of 1.6m above finished first floor level and for the first floor bedroom window fronting the street being deleted.

 

3.4       Concerns raised regarding overshadowing/loss of natural light:

§ Will limit natural light received by residents.

§ Will create a view to a brick wall instead of an open space/sky currently enjoyed by the residents.

 

Officer comments

Given the orientation of the subject site and location of the objector’s property to the north, the proposed dwelling will not cause any overshadowing impacts. 

The separation distance of approximately 3m to 3.2m between the two dwellings is adequate to allow natural light into south facing windows of the objector’s dwelling.

 

3.5       Concerns raised regarding parking in Taringa Street:

§ Will only add to the car parking problem in Taringa Street due to the large number of people that reside in 76 Alt Street with more than three cars that are parked in the street.

§ The number of people that will be residing in the proposed dwelling and how the proposed dwelling will be used has not been indicated.

 

Officer comments

One additional dwelling is proposed in this development application. The proposal includes construction of a double garage for the new dwelling and a car parking space for the existing dwelling and complies with Council’s planning controls.

The proposal is for a detached dwelling and the expectation is that it would be used for residential purposes. 

 

3.6       Concerns raised regarding acoustic impacts:

§ Will result in an increased household noise, traffic noise via drive way use and more cars accessing one property given the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the property at 2 Taringa Street.

Officer comments

The proposed double garage and driveway is located away from the boundary with 2 Taringa Street. Noise generated by a single detached dwelling is unlikely to be excessive.

 

3.7       Other concerns:

§ Unauthorised building works identified in officer’s report of 08 March 2016 being the enclosure of the front veranda and its use for storage purposes and minor reconfiguration to the internal layout.

§ Possible future unauthorised building works for existing and proposed dwellings.

 

Officer comments

A condition of consent has been included in the recommendation requiring a separate development application to be submitted to Council to in relation to these works.

As to future unauthorised building works or use, Council can take appropriate enforcement should this occur.

 

3.8       Concerns raised regarding original report:

§ Was inadequate and incorrect on many counts or at least flawed. An issue was raised to a statement provided by the officer on page 8 of the report, which reads as follows:

“The proposal has one upper floor bedroom window which faces the objector’s property. This window overlooks the side roof area of the objector’s dwelling and given its low use as a bedroom it is not considered to result in any significant privacy impacts”.

The residents of 2 Taringa Street indicated that “this statement cannot have any weight as it is only an assumption by the author of the report and it can be argued that many people’s bedrooms are of high use”.

§ It was also indicated that the two windows located within the two bedrooms at the rear of the new dwelling which will be overlooking into our backyard were not mentioned in the report.

 

Officer comments

The objector’s comments are noted. The opportunity for overlooking the objector’s kitchen and living room windows is minimal given the single storey scale of the objector’s property and the obscure glazing with fixed panels proposed for the side facing upper level window (W15).

As mentioned previously in this report, to address privacy concerns, conditions have been included in the recommendation requiring the upper level side facing window (W15) to have fixed panels with obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.6m from the finished floor level, rear facing upper level windows (W13 and W14) to have privacy screens installed and for the first floor bedroom window fronting the street to be deleted.

 

Conclusion

The amended proposal is considered acceptable subject to the imposition of additional conditions of consent to address the concerns raised by the objector. It is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plans of Proposal

2.

Locality Map

3.

Heritage Advice

4.

Submissions

5.

Conditions

6.

Report to Council Meeting 8 March 2016

  


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 9

Subject:         Development Application - 30 Llewellyn Street, Marrickville 

File Ref:         DA201600053/10/67866.16        

Prepared By: Albert Madrigal - Development Assessment Officer, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling.  The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 2 submissions from the same property were received.

 

The proposal exceeds the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard prescribed by Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011. The development amounts to an FSR departure of 97.75sqm or 29.5%.  A written submission under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the FSR departure accompanied the application.

 

The proposal is considered to be a good design outcome for the site and the Clause 4.6 Objection demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds in the particular circumstances of the case to justify the FSR departure.  The proposal generally complies with the aims, objectives and design parameters contained in MLEP 2011 and Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011.

 

The application is referred to the Administrator for determination in view of the extent of the departure from the FSR development standard, which exceeds officer’s delegation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions in accordance with Part E of this report, and including endorsement of actions B and C contained therein.

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

            Location:        Eastern corner of Llewellyn Street and Juliett Street, Marrickville

 

Image 1: Location Map

 

 

 

D/A No:                        201600053

 

Application Date:        18 February 2016. Additional information submitted on 12 May 2016.

 

Proposal:                               To carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling.

 

Applicant:                    Demetrios Stavropoulos

 

Estimated Cost:          $220,000

 

Zoning:                        B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

 

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

                                     

Improvements:                      2 storey mixed use development containing a ground floor café, 3 residential units (ground and first floor) and 3 outdoor car parking spaces


                                                                                    Image 2: The Site

 

Current Use:                                      Mixed-use

 

Prior Determinations:                      Determination No. 201200061, dated 18 May 2012, approved an application to demolish part of the premises, enlarge the ground floor commercial tenancy and use the tenancy as a café with outdoor seating on the footpath area adjacent to the premises, erect an awning, erect associated signage and erect a first floor addition, over the single storey section of the property fronting Llewellyn Street, containing a one bedroom dwelling. That application was subsequently modified on 26 August 2015.

 

                                               Determination No. 201300219, dated 26 August 2015, granted deferred commencement consent to an application to carry out alterations to the ground floor shops to allow the existing café in Shop 1 to expand into the adjoining tenancy (Shop 2). Determination No. 201300219.01, dated 30 May 2014, approved an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to delete the deferred commencement matters issued under the original determination. The consent was further modified on 25 August 2015.

 

Environment:                        Predominantly residential with a number of commercial developments in the surrounding area.

 

 

 

PART C - REQUIREMENTS

 

1.       Zoning

Is the proposal permissible under zoning provisions?              Yes

 

2.       Development Standards (Statutory Requirements):

Type                                       Required                      Proposed

Height of Buildings (max)      9.5 metres                     7.44 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)       0.85:1                            1.1:1

 

3.       Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type                                       Required                      Proposed

Bicycle Parking                      2                                    Nil

Private Open Space              8sqm                             7.37sqm

 

4.       Community Consultation:

Required:             Yes (newspaper advertisement, on-site notice and resident notification)

Submissions:       2 submissions from the same property

 

5.       Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation:                                                                        20- 25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014:              $20,000

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.      The Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the eastern corner of Llewellyn Street and Juliett Street, Marrickville. The site contains a two storey mixed use development with a ground floor café, 1 x 2 bedroom apartment on the ground floor and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment and 1 x 2 bedroom apartments on the first floor. The site has an area of approximately 389sqm. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Llewellyn Street to a parking area at the rear of the building.

 

The adjoining property to the east contains a 2 storey dwelling that fronts Llewellyn Street.  The adjoining property to the south contains a single storey Victorian dwelling house built to the common boundary with the site and fronts Juliett Street.

 

The surrounding development is predominantly residential in character however there are commercial premises in the vicinity of the site.

 

 

2.      The Proposal

 

Approval is sought to carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling. The first floor dwelling is located on the southern end of the building, adjacent to the Juliett Street frontage and contains 2 bedrooms.

 

A copy of the site plan and elevations of the development submitted with the application are reproduced below:

 

      Image 3: Site Plan

 

Image 4: Existing Ground Floor Plan

Image 5: First Floor Plan

 

Image 6: Roof Plan

Image 7: West/Juliett Street Elevation

 

Image 8: East Elevation

 

                                              Image 9: South Elevation

 

 

 


               Image 10: Photomontage of apartment, Juliett Street Perspective

 


                             Image 11: Photomontage Llewellyn Street Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application indicating the proposal achieves full compliance with the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the BASIX Certificate commitments are implemented into the development.

 

4.      Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

(i)      Land Use Table and Zone Objectives (Clause 2.3)

 

The property is zoned B1 - Neighbourhood Centre under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011). The proposal is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land.

 

The development is considered acceptable having regard to the objectives of the B1 - Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

(ii)      Demolition (Clause 2.7)

 

Clause 2.7 of MLEP 2011 states that the demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent.  The application seeks consent for demolition works.  Council’s standard conditions relating to demolition works are included in the recommendation.

 

(iii)     Height (Clause 4.3)

 

A maximum building height of 9.5 metres applies to the property under MLEP 2011. The development has a maximum building height of 7.44 metres which complies with the height development standard.

 

(iv)    Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 applies to the land under MLEP 2011.

 

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 428.4sqm which equates to a FSR of 1.1:1 on the 389sqm site. This represents an FSR departure of 97.75sqm or 29.5%.

 

A written request, in relation to the development’s non-compliance with the FSR development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011, was submitted with the application. That request is discussed below under the heading “Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)”.

 

(v)     Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

 

Clause 4.6 contains provisions that provide a degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development.  Under Clause 4.6(2), Development consent may be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument.

 

As detailed above, the proposed development exceeds the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard prescribed under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011.

 

A written request in relation to the contravention to the FSR development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011 was submitted with the application. The applicant considers non-compliance with the FSR development standard to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposed dwelling will provide a good urban design outcome by balancing the massing of the building on both street frontages (Llewellyn Street and Juliett Street) by replicating the massing of the previously approved unit on the Llewellyn Street frontage;

·        The dwelling provides an appropriate transition in scale and height from the higher RL ridge height of the existing corner roof parapet of the period building and the single storey dwellings to the east of the site on Juliett Street;

·        The new dwelling is subordinate to the main body of the period building. The dwelling comprises of contemporary, light-weight materials which makes the newer element recessive to the dominant form of the original building;

·        The proposal is well within the maximum height of 9.5 metres as prescribed under Clause 4.3 of MLEP 2011;

·        The development is consistent with the B1 - Neighbourhood Centre zoning objectives prescribed under MLEP 2011 and compatible with the scale of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood;

·        The proposal is consistent with the mixed use nature of the corner building and the Neighbourhood Centre zoning;

·        The development achieves the building form objectives for mixed use buildings under MDCP 2011 by creating a strong corner element;

·        The proposed development does not impact negatively on the heritage conservation area;

·        The additional dwelling does not result in any adverse amenity impacts for residents of adjoining properties; and

·        The additional dwelling is in a suitable location as the site is well serviced by public transport.

 

The justification provided in the applicant’s written submission is considered to be well founded and worthy of support.  It is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds as to why the FSR development standard should be varied in this particular circumstance based on the outcomes of planning law precedents such as those contained in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827, Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC90 and Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016]

 

As demonstrated in the assessment provided in this report, the additional dwelling does not result in any adverse amenity impacts for residents of adjoining properties and the architectural form proposed responds appropriately to the existing period building.  The proposal does not detract from the existing period building and balances the massing of the building on both street frontages (Llewellyn Street and Juliett Street) by replicating the massing of the previously approved and constructed unit on the Llewellyn Street frontage.

 

It is considered that the contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State and regional environmental planning, and that there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard for the proposed development.

 

(vi)    Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

 

The site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area under MLEP 2011 (Heritage Conservation Area C14 – Llewellyn Estate).

 

Adjoining to the west of the site is Juliett Street which has paving that is identified as a heritage item (Item 98) under Schedule 5 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The significance of the street relates to the well preserved remnant brick paving which was laid as part of the depression relief scheme of the 1930's.

 

The proposed development is reasonable having regard to the objectives and controls outlined for the Llewellyn Estate Heritage Conservation Area under MLEP 2011 in that the development retains the period building and significant elements of the fabric of this building.

 

It is noted that the ridge height of the dwelling is set lower than the roof parapet of the original corner shop and matches the ridge height of the recently constructed dwelling addition fronting Llewellyn Street to maintain the prominence to the corner features of the period building and provide a gentle transition in scale from the roof parapet of the original corner shop front to the single storey period dwellings to the rear of the site that front Juliett Street.

 

The new addition responds to the height and proportion of the existing structures in a manner which is recessive to the main Victorian style building, and matches / mirrors the recently constructed first floor dwelling in the same building that fronts Llewellyn Street. Contemporary external finishes (fibre cement cladding) are used for the unit. This provides a complementary contrast to the period features of the building and maintains the legibility between the contemporary and historical architectural aspects of the built form.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor who raised no objection to the proposal.

 

(vii)    Acid Sulfate Soils (Clause 6.1)

 

The land is identified as land being affected by Class 5 acid sulfate soils on the MLEP 2011 Acid Sulfate Soils Map. The development does not involve work at or below the ground water level and will not lower the ground water table.

 

The development is considered acceptable having regard to acid sulfate soils.

 

(viii)     Development in areas subject to Aircraft Noise (Clause 6.5)

 

The land is located within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (2033) Contour.  The development would need to be noise attenuated in accordance with AS2021:2000.  An Acoustic Report by a qualified acoustic engineer did not accompany the application.  The development could be noise attenuated from aircraft noise to meet the indoor design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS 2021:2000Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the development is appropriately noise attenuated.

 

5.      Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

 

PART 2 - GENERIC PROVISIONS

 

(i)      Urban Design (Part 2.1)

 

The development is considered acceptable having regard to the relevant aspects of the 12 urban design principles.

 

 

 

(ii)      Site and Context Analysis (Part 2.3)

 

A site and context analysis was submitted with the application and is considered acceptable.

 

(iii)     Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

The development complies with the objectives and controls relating to acoustic and visual privacy as contained in Part 2.6 of MDCP 2011 for the following reasons:

·        The windows of the bedrooms and principal living areas face Juliett Street and the internal car parking area within the site and do not present any overlooking concerns;

·        The balcony provided for the dwelling faces the internal car park and does not directly overlook neighbouring private open spaces or windows of principal living areas; and

·        With regard to acoustic privacy, noise attenuation measures are to be incorporated into the development to protect the dwelling from aircraft noise.

 

In view of the above, the development satisfies the privacy objectives and controls of MDCP 2011.

 

(iv)    Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

 

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent residential properties and demonstrate that the development complies with Council’s overshadowing controls.

 

The shadow diagrams illustrate that additional overshadowing from the dwelling will predominantly fall on Juliett Street and the roof of the neighbouring dwelling house at 124 Juliett Street between 9:00am and 3:00pm in mid-winter. 

 

As such, the proposal will not result in any overshadowing of any principal living room windows or areas of private open space and is satisfactory having regard to solar impacts on adjoining development.

 

Solar Access

 

The plans and shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate that the development complies with Council’s solar access controls. The dwelling has principal living room windows that face both east and west that ensure the dwelling will receive in excess of 2 hours of solar access in mid-winter.

 

Given the above, the proposal is satisfactory regarding solar access.

 

(v)     Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

The development is reasonable having regard to community safety in that the dwelling contains bedroom and dining/kitchen widows facing Juliett Street allowing for passive and active surveillance of the street.

 

The development satisfies the objectives and controls contained in Part 2.9 of MDCP 2011.

 

(vi)       Parking (Part 2.10)

 

Car and Bicycle Parking Spaces

 

The site is located in Parking Area 2. The following table summarises the car and bicycle parking requirements for the development:

 

Component

Control

Required

Proposed

Complies?

Car Parking

Residential Car Parking

0.25 car parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit

1 x 1 bed unit

= 0.25 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

0.5 car parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit

3 x 2 bed units

= 1.5 spaces

 

TOTAL:

 2 spaces

 

 

Bicycle Parking

Resident Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 2 units

4 units

= 2 spaces

Nil

No

 

Table 1: Car, Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking Control Compliance Table

 

As detailed above, the entire residential component of the development (including the proposed unit) generates a demand for 2 car parking spaces.

 

The development currently contains 1 commercial parking space and 2 residential parking spaces. As such, the development complies with the parking requirements under Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011.

 

As detailed in Table 1, the residential component of the development requires a total of 2 car bicycle parking spaces. Under Determination No. 201200061, an additional 1 bedroom unit was approved for the site.  With a total of 3 dwellings on the site, at that time the development required 2 bicycle parking spaces under the bicycle parking requirements of MDCP 2011. However, under that determination the requirement for bicycle parking on the site was waived.

 

As the additional dwelling proposed under this application will not generate any additional demand for bicycle parking under MDCP 2011, the non-compliance with the bicycle parking controls is acceptable.

 

In view of the above, the development is satisfactory under the parking objectives and controls pursuant to MDCP 2011.

 

(vii)    Energy Efficiency (Part 2.16)

 

Part 2.16 of MDCP 2011 contains the objectives and controls relating to energy efficiency.  A BASIX Certificate was submitted for the development application that indicates that the proposed new dwelling would comply with the minimum water, thermal comfort and energy efficient targets of the BASIX scheme.

 

(viii)   Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

 

Private and common open space

 

Part 2.18 of MDCP 2011 contains controls for landscaping and private open space for mixed used developments.

 

The existing building is constructed with a nil setback to the street frontages and therefore does not provide any landscaping at the front of the premises.  The area to the rear of the building is dedicated to car parking and its associated manoeuvring area and as such there is negligible opportunity to provide landscaping in this area. 

 

Given the site coverage remains unchanged as a result of the proposal, it is considered onerous to require the provision of landscaping.

 

Control (C23) requires each dwelling to have private open space in the form of a deck or balcony with a minimum area of 8sqm and minimum width of 2 metres.  A balcony is provided for the new dwelling that has a minimum dimension of 2.16 metres and has an overall area of 7.37sqm, which is less than the prescribed criteria.  The variation is very minor and it is assessed that the balcony is of sufficient size and dimension to service the outdoor recreation needs of the residents.

 

(ix)    Site Facilities and Waste Management (Part 2.21)

 

2.21.3  Public utilities

 

The design and provision of public utilities will be required to conform with the requirements of the relevant servicing authority in accordance with the conditions included in the recommendation.

 

2.21.4  Mail boxes

 

Details regarding the location of mail boxes for the development were not submitted with the application. Given the omission of the above details, a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the submission of such details to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

2.21.5  Building identification numbers

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring appropriate numbering to be placed on the site and the application for street numbering be approved by Council before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

2.21.7 Recycling and Waste Management Plan

 

A Recycling and Waste Management Plan (RWMP) in accordance with Council's requirements was submitted with the application and is considered to be adequate.

 

2.21.11 Residential Waste

 

A minimum of 2 x 240 litre recycling bins and 2 x 240 litre general waste bins is required to be provided for the development.

 

A bin storage area is located on the ground floor with a capacity to accommodate the required waste facilities for recycling and general waste. 

 

The application complies with the waste storage requirements under Part 2.21 of MDCP 2011.

 

PART 5 - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

 

Part 5 of MDCP 2011 contains controls for commercial and mixed use developments.

 

General Commercial and Mixed Use Development Controls

 

(i)      Massing and Setbacks (Part 5.1.3.3)

 

Front Massing

Part 5.1.3.3 contains massing and setback controls for commercial and mixed use developments.

 

The proposal complies with the massing and setback controls in the following manner:

 

·        Control (C6) requires the front 6 metres of infill developments with a Height of Building (HOB) standard set as 11 metres or less, to have a maximum height of 9 metres and contain a maximum 2 storeys. The proposed development contains two storeys and has a maximum height of 7.44 metres and thereby complies with the prescribed height and storey controls; and

·        Control (C8) requires the street front portion of the building to be built to the predominant front building line. The new dwelling sits on the first floor of the building and is aligned with the ground floor (west) elevation facing Juliett Street. The development complies with the front setback control.

 

Rear Massing

Control (C14) specifies that the rear building envelope of the development must be contained within the combination of the rear height plane and a 45 degree sloping plane from a point 5 metres vertically above the ground level of the property being developed, measured at the boundary, and contain a maximum of one storey at the rear most building plane.

 

The development complies with this rear massing envelope as contained in MDCP 2011.

 

(ii)      Building Depth (Part 5.1.3.4)

 

The development satisfies the building depth controls in that the overall building envelope does not exceed 22 metres and is more than the minimum required depth of 10 metres.

 

The development is acceptable having regard to the building depth controls as contained in MDCP 2011.

 

(iii)     Building Separation (Part 5.1.3.5)

 

The proposed first floor dwelling provides a 2.8 metre building separation to the adjacent dwelling house at 124 Juliett Street with no windows provided on the southern wall of the proposed dwelling.  The northern wall of the dwelling house at 124 Juliett Street is also a blank wall and sits on the zero lot line to the northern (common) boundary.  According the proposed development will not cause any amenity impacts for the residents of this adjoining dwelling house.

 

In view of the above, the development is acceptable having regard to the building separation objectives and controls as contained in MDCP 2011.

 

(iv)    Corners, Landmarks and Gateways (Part 5.1.3.6)

 

The proposed development satisfies the objectives and controls for corners as contained in MDCP 2011 in that the period building on the corner of the site is retained including the original roof parapet and the roof of the new dwelling is set approximately 2.1 metres below the ridge of the period corner building to be subordinate to the main body of the period building when viewed from the street.  Together with the recently erected first floor dwelling fronting Llewellyn Street, the additions frame and provide a contemporary contrast to the period building. 

 

In view of the above, the development complies with Part 5.1.3.6 of MDCP 2011.

 

(v)     Building Detail (Part 5.1.4)

 

(a)        Building Frontages (Part 5.1.4.1)

 

Part 5.1.4.1 of MDCP 2011 includes objectives and controls relating to building frontages.

 

The development satisfies the building frontage controls in that:

 

·        The street front portion of the building mass reads as a continuous dominant element in the streetscape, with the new dwelling being subordinate to the main body of the period building when viewed from the street.  The RL roof height of the dwelling is set approximately 2.1 metres below the ridge height of the period corner building and contains lightweight, fibre cement cladding material to provide a contemporary contrast to the period building;

·        The dwelling emphasizes the street front portion of the building mass by orienting windows toward the street front and includes contemporary materials and finishes to complement the street front portion of the building;

·        Air conditioning units are not visible in the streetscape; and

 

·        The dwelling addition satisfies Control (C33) in that it fills the void behind the front façade and provides a relatively minor/subordinate addition to the existing building.

 

(vi)    Building Use (Part 5.1.5)

 

(a)        Mixed use development (Part 5.1.5.1)

 

The development is acceptable regarding the objectives and controls for mixed use development in that the development retains the ground floor commercial use (café), thereby maintaining an active shop front at certain times of the day.

 

In view of the above, the development is acceptable under the mixed use development objectives and controls of MDCP 2011.

 

(vii)    Ceiling heights (Part 5.1.5.3)

 

Part 5.1.5.3 of MDCP 2011 prescribes a minimum floor-to-ceiling ceiling height of 2.7 metres for all habitable rooms on all floors, 2.4 metres is the preferred minimum for all non-habitable rooms, however 2.25 metres is permitted.

 

The proposed dwelling has a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres, which complies with the prescribed ceiling heights under MDCP 2011.

 

 

PART 9 - STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

The property is located in the Enmore Park Planning Precinct (Precinct 15) under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

The development is acceptable regarding the desired future character of the area in that the development provides a sympathetic alteration and addition to the existing period building.

 

6.      Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

 

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $20,000 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014.  A condition requiring that contribution to be paid is included in the recommendation.

 

7.      Community Consultation

 

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. Two submissions from the same property were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

 

(i)      Parking;

(ii)      Heritage, including proposed materials and design; and

(iii)     Streetscape.

 

While objecting to the proposed development, one letter of objection commented favourably on the proposed extension to the kitchen exhaust stating that it will assist in alleviating odours from the existing café.

 

 

8.      Conclusion

 

The application seeks consent to carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling. The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposal generally complies with the aims, objectives and design parameters contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. The development will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of adjoining premises and the streetscape.

 

The application is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

 

 

PART E – RECOMMENDATION

 

A.        THAT the development application to carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL

 

1.       The development must be carried out in accordance with plans and details listed below:

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

Job No. 1113

A-00

Site Plan/Erosion & Sediment Control

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-02

First Floor Plan

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-03

Roof Plan

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-04

Elevations

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-05

Elevations

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-06

Sections

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

Job No. 1113

A-12

External Finishes

15/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

A240400

BASIX Certificate

10/02/2016

Design Delta Architects

18/02/2016

 

            and details submitted to Council on 18 February 2016 and 12 May 2016 with the   application for development consent and as amended by the following conditions.

Reason:      To confirm the details of the application submitted by the applicant.

 

2.       Where any plans and/or information forming part of a construction certificate issued in relation to this consent are inconsistent with:

 

(a)  the plans and/or information approved under this consent; or

 

(b)  any relevant requirements of this consent,

 

            the plans, information and/or requirements of this consent (as the case may be) shall             prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

            All development approved under this consent shall be carried out in accordance with        the plans, information and/or requirements of this consent taken to prevail by virtue of            this condition.

Reason:           To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with this                                        Determination.

 

3.       The materials and finishes of the building constructed pursuant to this consent must be strictly in accordance with the materials and finishes identified in Drawing Nos. A-12 dated 15/02/, prepared by Delta Design Architects. No changes may be made to these drawings except by way of an application under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Reason:           To ensure the final built development has an appearance that accords with the approved materials and finishes.

 

4.      Where units or dwellings are provided with separate individual hot water systems, these must be located within the internal area of the unit/dwelling and not on any balcony or terrace.

Reason:           To ensure the aesthetics of the building and architecture are maintained.

 

5.      No injury must be caused to the amenity of the neighbourhood by the emission of noise, smoke, smell, vibration, gases, vapours, odours, dust, particular matter, or other impurities which are a nuisance or injurious or dangerous or prejudicial to health, the exposure to view of any unsightly matter or otherwise.

Reason:           To ensure the operation of the premises does not affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

6.       The use of the premises, including any plant and equipment, must not give rise to:

 

a)      transmission of unacceptable vibration to any place of different occupancy;

b)      a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90) noise level in the absence of the noise under consideration by more than 5dB(A). The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq,15min and adjusted in accordance with Environment Protection Authority guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations and temporal content as described in the NSW Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Noise Control Manual and Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).

 

Reason:           To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

 

7.      Noise and vibration from the use and operation of any plant and equipment and/or building services associated with the premises must not give rise to "offensive noise' as defined by The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). 

Reason:      To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

8.      The developer must liaise with the Sydney Water Corporation, Ausgrid, AGL and Telstra concerning the provision of water and sewerage, electricity, natural gas and telephones respectively to the property.

Reason:               To ensure that the development is adequately serviced.

 

9.      3 off-street car parking spaces must be provided and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking. The parking must be allocated as follows:

a)    A minimum of 2 spaces being allocated to the residential dwellings; and

b)    1 car parking space allocated to the ground floor retail/commercial tenancy.

 

Reason:               To ensure practical off-street car parking is available for the use of the premises.

 

10.    All parking spaces and turning area thereto being provided in accordance with the design requirements set out within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking, and must be used exclusively for parking and not for storage or any other purpose.

Reason:           To ensure adequate manoeuvrability to all car parking spaces and that the spaces are used exclusively for parking.

 

11.     All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

Reason:               To ensure the work is carried out to an acceptable standard and in accordance with the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

 

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent, a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) means a principal certifying authority appointed under Section 109E(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Pursuant to Section 109E(3) of the Act, the PCA is principally responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans, conditions of consent and the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

12.    No work must commence until:

 

a)      A PCA has been appointed.  Where an Accredited Certifier is the appointed, Council shall be notified within 2 days of the appointment; and

b)      A minimum of 2 days written notice given to Council of the intention to commence work.

 

Reason:               To comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

13.    A Construction Certificate must be obtained before commencing building work.  Building work means any physical activity involved in the construction of a building.  This definition includes the installation of fire safety measures.

Reason:               To comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

14.    Sanitary facilities must be provided at or in the vicinity of the work site in accordance with the WorkCover Authority of NSW, Code of Practice ‘Amenities for Construction’.  Each toilet must be connected to the sewer, septic or portable chemical toilet before work commences.

 

Facilities must be located so that they will not cause a nuisance.

Reason:               To ensure that sufficient and appropriate sanitary facilities are provided on the site.

 

15.    All demolition work must:

 

a)                Be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 ‘The demolition of structures’ and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations; and

b)                Where asbestos is to be removed it must be done in accordance with the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and disposed of in accordance with requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

 

Reason:      To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely.

 

16.    Where any loading, unloading or construction is to occur from a public place, Council’s Infrastructure Services Division must be contacted to determine if any permits or traffic management plans are required to be obtained from Council before work commences.

Reason:      To protect the amenity of the area.

 

17.    The site must be enclosed with suitable fencing to prohibit unauthorised access. The fencing must be erected as a barrier between the public place and any neighbouring property, before work commences.

Reason:           To secure the area of the site works maintaining public safety.

 

18.    A rigid and durable sign must be erected in a prominent position on the site, before work commences.  The sign must be maintained at all times until all work has been completed.  The sign is to include:

 

a)                The name, address and telephone number of the PCA;

b)                A telephone number on which Principal Contractor (if any) can be contacted outside working hours; and

c)                A statement advising: ‘Unauthorised Entry To The Work Site Is Prohibited’.

 

Reason:      To maintain the safety of the public and to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations.

 

19.    Where it is proposed to carry out works in public roads or Council controlled lands, a road opening permit must be obtained from Council before the carrying out of any works in public roads or Council controlled lands. Restorations must be in accordance with Marrickville Council's Restorations Code. Failure to obtain a road opening permit for any such works will incur an additional charge for unauthorised openings in the amount as provided for in Council’s adopted fees and charges.

Reason:                                                                                                                                                              To ensure that all restoration works are in accordance with Council's Code.

 

20.    The person acting on this consent must provide details of the means to secure the site and to protect the public from the construction works. Where the means of securing the site involves the erection of fencing or a hoarding on Council’s footpath or road reserve the person acting on this consent must submit a hoarding application and pay all relevant fees before commencement of works.

Reason:           To secure the site and to maintain public safety.

 

21.    All street trees adjacent to the site must be protected at all times during demolition and construction, in accordance with Part 2.20 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Tree Management. Details of the methods of protection of such trees must be submitted to and be approved by Council before commencing works.

Reason:               To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

22.    All approved tree protection measures must be installed prior to commencing any work and must be maintained for the duration of construction.

Reason:               To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

23.    Where scaffoldings or hoardings are to be erected, street trees must be protected during construction works as follows:

a)                Tree trunk and major limb protection must be undertaken prior to or during the installation of any hoarding or scaffoldings. The protection must be installed by a qualified Arborist (AQF 2 or 3) and must include:

 

i)          An adequate clearance, minimum 250mm, must be provided between the structure and tree branches, limbs and trunk at all times;

ii)         Tree trunk/s and/or major branches, located within 500mm of any hoarding or scaffolding structure, must be protected by wrapped hessian or similar material to limit damage;

iii)         Timber planks (50mm x 100mm or similar) must be placed around tree trunk/s. The timber planks must be spaced at 100mm intervals, and must be fixed against the trunk with tie wire, or strapping. The hessian and timber planks must not be fixed to the tree in any instance, or in any fashion; and

iv)        Tree trunk and major branch protection must remain in place for the duration of construction and development works, and must be removed at the completion of the project.

 

b)                All hoarding support columns must be placed a minimum of 300mm from the edge of the existing tree pits. Supporting columns must not be placed on any tree roots that are exposed.

 

c)         Materials or goods, including site sheds, must not be stored or placed:

 

i)          around or under the tree canopy; or

ii)         within 2 metres of tree trunks or branches of any street trees.

 

d)                Any damage sustained to street tree/s as a result of the erection of hoardings, scaffolding, or due to the loading/unloading of vehicles adjacent the site, must be immediately reported to the Council's Tree Management Officer on (9335 2242, in order to determine the appropriate action for maintaining the health and structural integrity of any damaged street tree.

 

Reason:               To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

24.    a)       The consent from Council must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any street tree pruning works. Only minor pruning works will be approved by Council.

 

b)                Any pruning that is required to accommodate hoardings, scaffolding, or to accommodate the loading/unloading of vehicles, and has been approved by Council, must be carried out by a qualified Arborist (AQF3), and must be in accordance with AS4373 Australian Standards 'Pruning of Amenity Trees'.

 

c)                The removal of any street tree approved by Council must include complete stump removal and the temporary reinstatement of levels so that no trip or fall hazards exist until suitable replanting occurs. Those works must be completed immediately following the tree’s removal.

 

Reason:               To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

25.     Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority must verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.

Reason:               To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

 

26.    If a new street number or a change to the street number (this includes unit and shop numbers) is required, a separate application must be made to and approved by Council prior to that street number being displayed.

Reason:               To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

 

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent the Certifying Authority (Council or an Accredited Certifier) is that person appointed to issue the Construction Certificate.

 

27.    a)       This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

b)         Before the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Council must be paid a monetary contribution of $20,000.00 indexed in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (“CP”).

 

The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 21 June 2016.

 

*NB     Contribution rates under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 are indexed quarterly (for the method of indexation refer to Section 2.15 of the Plan).

 

The indexation of the contribution rates occurs in the first week of the months of February, May, August and November each year, following the release of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

            (CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT REFERENCE NO. DC001506)

 

c)         The contribution payable has been calculated in accordance with the CP and relates to the following public amenities and/or services and in the following amounts:

 

·        Community Facilities:                                                 $2,260.94

·        Plan Administration:                                                      $392.16

·        Recreation Facilities:                                                $17,104.04

·        Traffic Facilities:                                                            $242.86

 

d)         A copy of the CP can be inspected at Council’s offices at 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham or online at http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au.

 

e)         The contribution must be paid either in cash, by unendorsed bank cheque (from an Australian Bank only), via EFTPOS (Debit only) or credit card*.

 

*NB     A 1% credit card transaction fee applies to all credit card transactions.

 

Reason:           To ensure provision is made for the increase in demand for public amenities and services required as a consequence of the development being carried out.

 

28.     Evidence of payment of the building and construction industry Long Service Leave Scheme must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. (The required payment can be made at the Council Offices).

 

NOTE:                The required payment is based on the estimated cost of building and construction works and the long service levy rate, set by the Long Service Payments Corporation. The rate set by the Long Service Payments Corporation is currently of 0.35% of the cost of the building and construction work.

 

For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au.

 

Reason:               To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

 

29.    The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water wastewater and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if any requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for:

·    Quick Check agents details - see Plumbing, building and developing then Quick Check agents and

·    Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Plumbing, building and developing then Plan submissions

or telephone 13 20 92.

The stamped plans must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:           To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

 

30.    All plumbing and ductwork including stormwater downpipes must be concealed within the outer walls of the building so they are not visible. Plans and elevations detailing the method of concealment must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Any variation to this requirement requires Council approval.

Reason:           To ensure the aesthetics of the building and architecture are maintained.

 

31.     Letterboxes and mail collection facilities must be provided and adequately protected in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:               To ensure adequate mail collection facilities are provided.

 

32.     Plans fully reflecting the selected commitments listed in BASIX Certificate submitted with the application for development consent must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

NOTE:            The application for the Construction Certificate must be accompanied by either the BASIX Certificate upon which development consent was granted or a revised BASIX Certificate (Refer to Clause 6A of Schedule 1 to the Regulation).

 

Reason:               To ensure that the BASIX commitments are incorporated into the development.

 

33.    Noise attenuation measures being incorporated into the development complying with Australian Standard 2021-2000 in relation to interior design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction), in accordance with details must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

          Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft.

 

34.     Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder must sign a written undertaking that they are responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:           To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

SITE WORKS

 

35.     All excavation, demolition, construction, and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of the development, must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above no work being carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason:           To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

36.     The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction upon completion of the work.

Reason:      To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

 

37.    The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the consent of Council.  The placement of waste storage containers in a public place requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy - ‘Placement of Waste Storage Containers in a Public Place’. 

Reason:               To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

 

38.    All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

a)      compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b)      all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c)      all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d)      sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e)      the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f)       the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g)      suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h)      all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only have access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i)        all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j)        no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k)      the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:               To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

 

39.    The works are required to be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority.  The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA.  The critical stages of construction are:

a)      At the commencement of the building work;

b)      For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c)      Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d)      After the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

 

Reason:               To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

40.     All roof and surface stormwater from the site any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, must be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and must be discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code.

Reason:               To provide for adequate site drainage.

 

 

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

41.    You must obtain an Occupation Certificate from your PCA before you occupy or use the building.  The PCA must notify the Council of the determination of the Occupation Certificate and forward the following documents to Council within 2 days of the date of the Certificate being determined:

 

a)                A copy of the determination;

b)                Copies of any documents that were lodged with the Occupation Certificate application;

c)                A copy of Occupation Certificate, if it was issued;

d)                A copy of the record of all critical stage inspections and any other inspection required by the PCA;

e)                A copy of any missed inspections; and

f)                 A copy of any compliance certificate and any other documentary evidence relied upon in issuing the Occupation Certificate.

 

Reason:           To comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations.

 

42.    Occupation of the building must not be permitted until such time as:

 

a)         All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b)         The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c)         An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

 

Reason:           To comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

43.    The owner of the premises, as soon as practicable after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued, must:

a)         Forward a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and the current Fire Safety Schedule to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Council; and

b)         Display a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule in a prominent position in the building (i.e. adjacent the entry or any fire indicator panel).

 

Every 12 months after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued the owner must obtain an Annual Fire Safety Certificate for each of the Fire Safety Measures listed in the Schedule. The Annual Fire Safety Certificate shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and the Council and displayed in a prominent position in the building.

 

Reason:           To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

 

44.     The Certifying Authority must be satisfied that each of the commitments listed in BASIX Certificate referred to in this Determination have been fulfilled before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (whether an interim or final Occupation Certificate).

Reason:               To ensure that all of the BASIX commitments have been fulfilled and to comply with the requirements under Section 154B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

45.     The Certifying Authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX Completion Receipt within 2 days of the issue of a final Occupation Certificate. Completion Receipts can be applied for at www.basix.nsw.gov.au.

Reason:               To ensure compliance with the requirements under Section 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

46.    a)       Upon completion of the required noise attenuation measures referred to in the “Before the Issue of a Construction Certificate” Section of this Determination, and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a report must be prepared and submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction by an accredited Acoustics Consultant certifying that the final construction meets AS2021-2000 as set down in the subject condition of this consent. Such report must include external and internal noise levels to ensure that the external noise levels during the test are representative of the typical maximum levels that may occur at this development; and

 

b)                Where it is found that internal noise levels are greater than the required dB(A) rating due to faulty workmanship or the like, necessary corrective measures must be carried out and a further certificate being prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with the requirements as set down in Part a) of this condition.

Reason:               To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft and to ensure that the noise attenuation measures incorporated into the development satisfactorily comply with the relevant sections of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

 

47.    Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a street number and identifier of separate occupancies (if applicable) must be clearly displayed in a readily visible location (numbers having a height of not less than 75mm). If any new street numbers or change to street numbers (this includes unit and shop numbers) are required they must have the prior approval of council before being displayed.

Reason:               To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

48.     All works required to be carried out in connection with drainage, crossings, alterations to kerb and guttering, footpaths and roads resulting from the development must be completed before the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Works must be in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”.

Reason:               To ensure that the person acting on this consent completes all required work.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

·        A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) has not been carried out.

 

·        Contact “Dial Before You Dig” before commencing any building activity on the site.

 

·  Useful Contacts

 

BASIX Information

( 1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

 

Department of Fair Trading

( 13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

 

Dial Before You Dig

( 1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

 

Landcom

( 9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

 

Long Service Payments Corporation

( 131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Food Authority

( 1300 552 406

www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

 

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

( 131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

 

Sydney Water

( 13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

 

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

 

( 1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

 

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

 

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

( 13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

 

 

B. THAT the persons who lodged a submission in respect to the proposal be advised of the          Council's determination of the application.

 

C.THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standards:

 

Premises:                                               30 Llewellyn Street, Marrickville

Applicant:                                               Demetrios Stavropoulos

Proposal:                                                To carry out alterations and additions to an existing mixed use building to construct an additional first floor dwelling

Determination:                                       Approval subject to conditions

DA No:                                                   201600053

Lot and DP:                                            Lot A in DP385696

Category of Development:                    9: Mixed

Environmental Planning Instrument:     Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land:                                      B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

Development Standard(s) varied:         Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation:                        Strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unnecessary; The development provides a better urban design outcome than a compliant development; The additional FSR does not contribute to additional adverse amenity impacts on adjacent development; The development is compatible with the bulk/scale and overall character of the area.

Extent of variation:                                 29.5%

Concurring Authority:                             Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary                                                                Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

 

Item No:         C0716 Item 10

Subject:         Development Application - 575 King Street, Newtown 

File Ref:         DA201500750/10/70897.16        

Prepared By: Patrick Nash - Town Planner Development Assessment, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking. The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 2 submissions were received. 

 

The development results in a departure of 126m² (22%) from the FSR development standard prescribed by Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011. The application was accompanied by a written request under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the variation which is supported for the reasons outlined in this report. The extent of the proposed non-compliances is not considered to result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining development and/or the streetscape.

 

The application is referred to the Administrator for determination in view of the extent of the departure from the FSR development standard, which exceeds officer’s delegation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions in accordance with Part E of this report, and including endorsement of actions B and C contained therein.

 

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

Location:                     Western side of King Street, Newtown between Dickson Street and Wells Street.

 

Image 1: Location Map

 

 

D/A No:                        201500750

 

Application Date:        23 December 2015. Additional information submitted on 1 April 2016 and 29 April 2016. 

 

Proposal:                     To demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking.

 

Applicant:                    Jitendra Singh

                                      Reshmi Rita Singh

 

Estimated Cost:          $2,971 587

 

Zoning:                        B2 - Local Centre

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

 

Improvements:            One part two storey brick building

 

                                    Image 2: The Site

 

               Image 3: The Site as viewed from King Lane

 

 

Current Use:               Ground floor retail premises (fruit shop) & first floor used for storage purposes.

 

Prior Determinations:          Determination No.16801, dated 2 December 1996, approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to an existing part 2 storey commercial building including the addition of a dwelling at first and second floor level and continued use of the ground floor as a shop and studio for a gold gilding business.

                                     

                                      Determination No.200100117, dated 21 May 2001, approved an application to carry out alterations to the premises and use the ground floor shop for the sale of groceries and fruit and vegetables.

 

Environment:              Mixed use development along King Street

 

 

PART C - REQUIREMENTS

 

1.       Zoning

Is the proposal permissible under zoning provisions?              Yes

 

2.       Development Standards (Statutory Requirements):

Type                                                          Required                      Proposed

Height of Buildings (max)                         14 metres                      12.3 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)                          1.5:1                              1.83:1

 

3.       Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type                                                          Required                      Proposed

Car parking                                             6                                            4

Rear building envelope                             Refer to comments in body of report

Dwelling mix                                                      Refer to comments in body of report

 

 

4.       Community Consultation:

Required:             Yes (newspaper advertisement, on-site notice and resident notification)

Submissions:       2 submissions

 

5.       Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation:                                                                                    20-25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014                           $74,938.20

          State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.      The Site and Surrounds

 

The site address is 575-577 King Street, Newtown. The property is located on the western side of King Street near the intersection with Wells Street, approximately 250 metres north of St Peters Railway Station. The legal property address is Lot 3 in DP 204608. The site has a frontage to King Street of 12.975 metres and a frontage to King Lane of 14.29 metres and has an area of 376.3m². A one part two storey brick building with a metal roof is located on site. The existing building is occupied by ‘One Stop Fruit Shop’. Parking located at the rear of the building accessed from King Lane.

 

The site is located within the King Street retail strip. The locality is characterised by 2 storey Victorian and Federation era shops, generally with high front parapets and continuous awnings. The exception to the historic development pattern is the subject site, which detracts from the overall character of the precinct. The site is within the King Street and Enmore Road Heritage Conservation Area (C2).

 

The development to the south west beyond King Lane and along Wells and Dickson Streets, is predominately residential, comprising a mix of single and 2 storey terraces and semi-detached dwellings from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. St Peters Railway Station is located approximately 250 metres to the south of the site. King Street is serviced by a number of bus routes that provide access to the city along with surrounding suburbs.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

Approval is sought to demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking. The development is further summarised as follows:

 

§ Ground Floor: commercial tenancy and separate entry to the residential lobby fronting King Street, commercial and residential car parking and bin storage areas at the rear facing King Lane.

§ Level 1: 4 x 1 bedroom apartments, central communal courtyard, lift and fire stairs.

§ Level 2: 2 x studios and 1x 2 bed apartments, void, fire stairs.

 

The application was amended during the assessment process to address concerns raised by Council with respect to apartment layout, quality of external materials and finishes, building composition and appearance from the public domain and visual privacy. Additionally, further information was requested to address land contamination.

 

A copy of the amended site plan, floor plans, elevations and section of the development submitted with the application are reproduced below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 4: Site Plan

 

 

 

Image 5: Ground Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

Image 6: First Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 7: Second Floor Plan

 

 

 

Image 8: Roof Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 9: Front Elevation

 

 

Image 10: Rear Elevation

 

Image 11: Section A

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) and Part 2.24 of MDCP 2011 provides planning guidelines for remediation of contaminated land. SEPP 55 requires that remediation works must be carried out in accordance with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as approved by the consent authority and any guidelines enforced under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

 

The Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) submitted with the application concluded that:

§ The assessment did find information on historical activities that could have resulted in contamination, however the noted industrial uses predate 1962, with the main contaminants of concern being related to petroleum hydrocarbons. If impact to the surface soils did occur, there would have been more than 50 years for this organic impact to naturally attenuate such that it no longer posed a risk to human health and the environment. Hence the risk posed from the main contaminant of concern (petroleum hydrocarbons) is considered low;

§ Use of a portion of the site by a panel beater and car paint sprayer between circa 1951 – 1961 would have been done inside a building and over a hardstand. Hence potential migration of associated chemicals into underlying soil/groundwater would likely have been blocked by the slab;

§ Some potential filling of the site may have occurred during development of the site however the likelihood of significant contamination being present in soil is considered low;

§ It is likely that based upon the age of the building, ACM or other hazardous materials may be present within the structure. The risk posed by any such hazardous materials is currently considered HIGH and must be appropriately managed, if not already done so, using a site HAZMAT register; and

§ No further Stage 2 detailed assessment would be required and contamination would not pose unacceptable risk to current or future human users of the site and the environment. Hence contamination risk should not preclude proposed redevelopment.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Services Section who raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which have been incorporated into the recommendation. Subject to compliance with those conditions, the application satisfies the requirements of SEPP 55.

 

4.      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (Amendment No. 3)

 

The development is subject to the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

A statement from a qualified Architect was submitted with the application verifying that they designed/directed the design of the development. The statement also provides an explanation that verifies how the design quality principles are achieved within the development and demonstrates, in terms of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), how the objectives in Parts 3 and 4 of the guide have been achieved.

 

The development is generally acceptable having regard to the 9 design quality principles.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

The ADG contains objectives, design criteria and design guidelines for residential apartment development. In accordance with Clause 6A of the SEPP the requirements contained within MDCP 2011 in relation to visual privacy, solar and daylight access, common circulation and spaces, apartment sizes and layout, ceiling heights, private open space and balconies, natural ventilation and storage have no effect. In this regard, objectives, design criteria and design guidelines set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG prevail.  

The development has been assessed against the relevant design criteria within Part 3 and 4 of the ADG and is generally considered to be acceptable. The following summary points are noted:

·    The size of all proposed apartments achieve the minimum internal areas for apartments within Part 4D of the ADG;

·    Due to the site restrictions resulting in apartments facing east and west, the three apartments at the front facing slightly north of east will receive good direct sunlight for more than 3 hours in midwinter between 9am and 3pm; the northern second floor rear apartment will receive some direct sunlight via the central open space. All the apartments facing King Lane will receive direct sunlight in the late afternoon up to 3pm for approximately 1.5 hours and also beyond 3pm. All the apartments are well served by daylight;

·    Despite the relatively small size of the development, a functional and well-designed communal area (courtyard) is provided in the centre of the site;

·    The development does not provide the required deep soil zones required by the ADG. However, this is considered to be acceptable within a highly urbanised commercial centre and is characterised of surrounding mixed use development within the B2 – Local Centre zone;

·    All of the apartments are naturally cross ventilated due to the inclusion of the central courtyard, complying with the ADG minimum of 60%;

·    The development provides minimum 2.7 metre floor to ceiling heights for the residential component. A 4.3 metre floor to ceiling height is provided for the ground floor commercial tenancy which is considered to be acceptable and would enable flexibility for a range of future uses;

·    Storage facilities are provided for each apartment in accordance with the ADG requirements; and

·    All balconies with the development meet the minimum area/depth requirements outlined in the ADG.

 

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

 

A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application indicating the proposal achieves full compliance with the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the BASIX Certificate commitments are implemented into the development.

 

6.      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The site has a frontage to King Street which is a classified road.

 

Vehicular access to the property is provided from King Lane and as such is provided by a road other than the classified road. The development would not affect the safety, efficiency and on going operation of the classified road.

 

The development is a type of development that is sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions. The application was accompanied by an acoustic report which includes recommendations to ameliorate road noise impacts.

 

7.      Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

(i)      Land Use Table and Zone Objectives (Clause 2.3)

 

The property is zoned B2 - Local Centre under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011). Shop top housing is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land. The development is considered acceptable having regard to the objectives of the B2 - Local Centre zone.

 

(ii)      Demolition (Clause 2.7)

Clause 2.7 of MLEP 2011 states that the demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent. The application seeks consent for demolition works. Council’s standard conditions relating to demolition works are included in the recommendation.

(iii)     Height (Clause 4.3)

 

A maximum building height of 14 metres applies to the property under MLEP 2011. The development has a maximum building height of 12.3 metres which complies with the height development standard.

 

(iv)    Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4) and Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.5:1 applies to the land under MLEP 2011.

 

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 691.87m² which equates to a FSR of 1.83:1 on the 376.97m² site which does not comply with the FSR development standard. This represents a breach of 126.35m² or 22%.

 

A written request, in relation to the development’s non-compliance with the FSR development standards in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011 was submitted by the applicant. The applicant considers the FSR breach to be acceptable for the following reasons: 

§ The proposed development is wholly consistent with objectives 1(a)(b)(c) and (d) of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of MLEP 2011;

§ The development meets the other applicable standards under MLEP 2011 – height and land use;

§ The residential component above the rear garage is consistent with the applicable objectives, principles and controls of MDCP 2011 as demonstrated in the statement of environmental effects accompanying the application;

§ The non-conformity with the 1.5:1 FSR standard is 22% over (including the internal courtyard and bicycle parking) and less when excluding the internal courtyard and bicycle parking. Therefore it is not of a significant magnitude, given the compliance of the proposed development with all the envelope controls of MLEP 2011 and MDCP 2011;

§ The design of the addition is consistent with the two story shop and high parapet building typology of the conservation area in King Street;

§ The proposed built form is a sensitive infill design in a heritage context replacing an intrusive element that created a gap tooth effect in the streetscape;

§ The proposed development does not create any adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring development; and

§ Whether the central courtyard and bicycle parking area are included in the FSR calculation or not has no impact on the overall bulk or scale of the proposed development.

 

Further to the applicant’s justification above, the following comments are made:

§ The justification provided in the applicant’s written submission is considered to be well founded and worthy of support.  It is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds as to why the FSR development standard should be varied in this particular circumstance based on the outcomes of planning principles such as contained in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827, Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC90 or Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016];

§ Council has through numerous decisions accepted variations to the FSR development standard prescribed under MLEP 2011 where the proposed development satisfied the maximum height development standard. Council has acknowledged that there is a disconnect between the height of buildings and FSR development standards that apply under the provisions of MLEP 2011 and as a consequence, a breach of the FSR development standard is common and in some cases such as this proposal, is considered appropriate. Given the variations that have been accepted by Council in the past and the diminished importance of compliance being achieved with the numerical component of the standard, compliance with the standard is considered to be unnecessary and unreasonable in this circumstance; 

§ The proposed built form is consistent with the anticipated outcomes for adjoining sites given that the development is generally within the prescribed building envelope (i.e. – front and rear massing and the building height); and

§ The contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State and regional environmental planning, and there is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the standard.

 

(v)     Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

 

The site fronts onto King Street and backs onto King Lane. It has a site area of 376.3sqm and contains a two storey commercial building built in the 1960s. In accordance with the Marrickville Contributory and Period Building Assessment and Mapping Project, the site is not identified as a heritage item nor a period building or contributory building. However, the site falls within the MLEP/MDCP 2011 King Street and Enmore Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA 2). The site is surrounded by remarkably intact twostorey commercial buildings dating from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which are characterized by narrow shopfronts, vertically proportioned fenestration, well detailed parapets, suspended awnings, etc.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor who raised various concerns with the proposal relating to apartment layout, quality of external materials and finishes, building composition and the appearance of the development from the public domain.  Amended plans were submitted by the applicant who satisfactorily addressed the concerns that were raised subject to some further and relatively minor design amendments. Conditions requiring these changes have been incorporated into the recommendation.

(vi)    Acid Sulfate Soils (Clause 6.1)

 

The site is not identified as land being affected by acid sulfate soils on the MLEP 2011 Acid Sulfate Soils Map.

 

(vii)    Earthworks (Clause 6.2)

 

The development does not involve any extensive excavation works.

 

(viii)   Development in areas subject to Aircraft Noise (Clause 6.5)

 

The land is located within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (2033) Contour.

 

The development is likely to be affected by aircraft noise.

 

The carrying out of the development would result in an increase in the number of people affected by aircraft noise.

 

The development would need to be noise attenuated in accordance with AS2021:2000. An Acoustic Report was submitted with the application which details that the development could be noise attenuated from aircraft noise to meet the indoor design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS2021:2000.  Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the requirements recommended within the acoustic Report are incorporated into the development.

 

8.      Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

 

PART 2 - GENERIC PROVISIONS

 

(i)      Urban Design (Part 2.1)

The development is considered acceptable having regard to the relevant aspects of the 12 urban design principles.

 

(ii)      Site and Context Analysis (Part 2.3)

 

A site and context analysis was submitted with the application and is considered acceptable.

 

(iii)     Equity of Access and Mobility (Part 2.5)

 

Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 specifies the minimum access requirements in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards for mixed use developments.

 

Residential Component

 

The development provides 2 adaptable dwellings, accessible entry and continuous path of travel within the development in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011. The matter of accessible car spaces is discussed below in this section of the report under the heading ‘Parking (Part 2.10)’.

 

Commercial Component

§    Appropriate access is provided for all persons through the principal entrance to each tenancy in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011;

§    A Continuous Accessible Path of Travel (CAPT) to and within the premises is provided which allows a person with a disability to gain access to all areas within the building in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011; and

§    Accessible sanitary facilities are provided for the ground floor tenancies in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011.

 

Further assessment of the application under the Premises Standards will occur at Construction Certificate stage. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance.

 

(iv)    Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

The development would maintain an acceptable level of acoustic and visual privacy for the surrounding properties and ensure a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for future occupants of the development itself. The following points are noted:

 

§ Concern was raised with the rear balcony provided for Unit 21 and its potential to cause overlooking impacts towards the private open space at the rear of No.1 Wells Street. The applicant amended the plans in response to this matter and made the following comments:

 

“Visual privacy was raised as a concern during the assessment process, specifically in

relation to the rear balcony provided for Unit 21. Consideration was given to Council’s

recommendation to provide a privacy screen; however, an alternative solution has been devised involving the installation of a permanent planter box. The planter box proposed is 500mm wide, providing separation between the balustrade and anyone using the balcony. This will prevent people from being able to get close to the balustrade, thereby reducing overlooking. In addition, the planter box will provide the opportunity to plant shrubs which may extend beyond the balustrade thereby improving the privacy.”

 

The modifications made in the amended plans are considered to be sufficient.

 

§ Balconies provided on the King Street elevation would generally overlook the street;

§ Reciprocal privacy impacts between apartments within the development have generally been minimised; and

§ A condition of consent has been included requiring any noise from plant and equipment (i.e. – air conditioning units) to not exceed 5dBa above background noise.

 

(v)     Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

 

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent properties. The development would not result in the unreasonable loss of sunlight to main internal living areas and/or private open space areas of surrounding residential properties as the additional overshadowing would predominately fall across the roofs of nearby development and the public road.  

 

Solar Access

The SEPP 65 requirements prevail over the requirements prescribed by MDCP 2011.

 

(vi)    Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

Part 2.9 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives and controls relating to community safety. The proposal provides clear visible entrances to the building from King Street and King Lane, secure parking, separate entrances to the residential component and design features which would allow for casual surveillance of along both street frontages.

 

To minimise opportunities for vandalism and anti-social behaviour a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the rear elevation to be treated with anti-graffiti treatment. Also to ensure safety and security a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the provision of lighting within the entry areas.

(vii)    Parking (Part 2.10)

 

Car Parking

The property is located in Parking Area 1 under Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011. The following summarises the car parking requirements for the development:

 

Non-adaptable resident car parking required = 2 spaces

Non-adaptable visitor car parking required = Nil

Adaptable resident car parking required = 2 spaces

Adaptable visitor car parking required = Nil

Retail = 2 spaces

TOTAL = 6 spaces

 

The development provides a total of 4 car parking spaces, being 2 commercial parking spaces and 2 residential parking spaces, 1 of which is designed as an accessible space. As such the proposal presents a shortfall of 2 car parking spaces, one of which is required to be accessible.

 

Notwithstanding this, the site is well linked by public transport facilities (both train and bus) and is within the B2 – Local Centre wherein one of the MLEP 2011 zone objectives is “To constrain parking and reduce car use”. The development also provides bicycle storage facilities and a condition has been incorporated into the recommendation stating that owners and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area.

 

On the basis of the above, the shortfall in car parking spaces is supported.  

 

(viii)   Energy Efficiency (Part 2.16)

 

Part 2.16 of MDCP 2011 contains the objectives and controls relating to energy efficiency.

 

As stated earlier in this report, a BASIX Certificate was submitted for the development that indicates that the proposed new dwellings would comply with the minimum water, thermal comfort and energy efficient targets of the BASIX scheme.

 

Council’s standard conditions are included in the recommendation relating to the provision of energy and water efficient fixtures and fittings for the commercial component of the development.

 

(ix)    Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

 

Landscaped/Open Space Area

 

In accordance with Part 2.18 of MDCP 2011, landscaped/open space area for mixed use developments is determined on merit and depends on the overall streetscape and the desired future character of the area/precinct. The development does not include any landscaping/open space on the ground floor which is characteristic of most other commercial sites in the surrounding context and is therefore acceptable.

 

Private Open Space

 

The development provides balconies for each dwelling in accordance with SEPP 65 requirements, which prevail over the requirements prescribed by MDCP 2011.

 

(x)     Site Facilities and Waste Management (Part 2.21)

 

2.21.2.1           Recycling and Waste Management

 

A Recycling and Waste Management Plan (RWMP) was submitted with the application and is considered to be adequate.

 

2.21.2.5           Residential Waste

 

Residential waste facilities have been provided on the ground floor level which can accommodate the required waste/recycling bins under Part 2.21.2.5.

 

2.21.2.6           Commercial Waste

 

Commercial waste facilities have been provided on the ground floor level which can accommodate the required waste/recycling bins under Part 2.21.2.6.

 

 

2.21.3.1           Clothes drying facilities

 

Under the provisions of Part 2.21.2 of MDCP 2011, external clothes drying areas are required at a rate of 3.75m² per dwelling, with a minimum 6 metres of clothes line for each dwelling.

 

The balconies proposed for each dwelling are considered to be capable of accommodating suitable clothes drying facilities for future occupants.

 

2.21.3.2           Public utilities

 

A condition is included in the recommendation advising the person acting on the consent to liaise with the relevant authorities/service providers for public utilities (Sydney Water Corporation, Ausgrid, AGL and Telstra) concerning the provision of water and sewerage, electricity, natural gas and telephones respectively to the property.

 

2.21.3.3           Mail Boxes

 

A condition is included in the recommendation to ensure that suitable letterbox facilities are provided in accordance with Part 2.21.4 of MDCP 2011.

 

2.21.3.4           Building identification numbers

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring appropriate numbering details to be submitted in accordance with Part 2.21.5 of MDCP 2011.

 

2.21.3.5           Telecommunication facilities

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the provision of suitable telecommunication facilities in accordance with Part 2.21.6 of MDCP 2011.

 

PART 5 - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

 

(i)      Building form (Part 5.1.3)

 

(a)        Massing and Setbacks (Part 5.1.3.3)

 

Front massing

 

          For new infill developments, where the Height Of Building standard is set as 14 metres or greater, the street front portion of the building mass in the front 6 metres must have a maximum height (measured from footpath level up to highest point on the front portion of the building) of 12 metres and contain a maximum 3 storeys.

 

          The proposed development complies with this requirement and the proposed form is considered to be sympathetic to the streetscape which contains buildings of a comparable scale.

 

Rear massing

 

The rear building envelope must be contained within the combination of the rear boundary plane and a 45 degree sloping plane from a point 7.5 metres vertically above the lane ground level, measured at the rear boundary, and contain a maximum of 2 storeys on the rear most building plane.

 

There is a proposed breach of the rear building envelope that is generally limited to the balustrades on the upper most level and a portion of the sunhood(s) above the rear balconies.

 

The non-compliance is not considered to add any significant visual bulk to the building and would not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for adjoining properties. The proposed breach is considered to have design merit in that the sunhoods over the upper floor balconies would provide weather protection, thereby increasing the amenity of the unit for future occupants. Compliance with the rear building envelope control in MDCP 2011 is unlikely to offer any appreciable benefit for the streetscape or adjoining properties. The existing building contains large, expansive blank walls presenting onto King Lane (see Image 3). The proposal would provide for a better outcome, replacing the existing bulky building. As such, the development is considered to satisfy Objective O9 within Part 5.1.3.3 of MDCP 2011 and is supported.

 

(b)       Building Depth (Part 5.1.3.4)

 

All of the units proposed would comply with the maximum building depth (22 metres) and internal plan depth (18 metres) specified in Part 5.1.3.4 of MDCP 2011.

 

(ii)      Building Detail (Part 5.1.4)

 

(a)        Building Frontages (Part 5.1.4.1)

 

Whilst the site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area, the existing street façade is not required to be retained. The proposed King Street façade is considered to be of high quality contemporary architecture and will complement the future redevelopment of the adjoining properties. The application is considered acceptable in this regard.

 

(b)       Active street frontage uses and shopfront design (Part 5.1.4.2)

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and controls of Part 5.1.4.2 of MDCP 2011, as summarised below:

 

·          The ground floor commercial tenancy is proposed to be built to the street alignment, contains       shopfront glazing and a clearly identifiable entry door;

·          A separate residential entry is provided adjacent to the northern boundary which is visible, of        sufficient size and contains mail collection facilities; and

·          A condition has been included in the recommendation for the provision of a pedestrian      awning on the King Street frontage to ensure streetscape continuity.

 

(iii)     Building Use (Part 5.1.5)

 

(a)        Mixed use development (Part 5.1.5.1)

 

The ground floor of the development provides a commercial component, therefore satisfying with requirements of MDCP 2011.

 

(b)     Dwelling mix (Part 5.1.5.2)

 

Part 5.1.5.2 of MDCP 2011 prescribes the following dwelling mix requirements for mixed use developments containing 6 or more dwellings:

 

C54  New developments with six or more dwellings must provide the following mix of dwelling types:

i.        Studio                                  5% - 20%

ii.       1 bedroom                           10% - 40%

iii.      2 bedroom                           40% - 75%; and

iv.      3 bedroom or bigger           10% - 45%.”

 

The development contains 7 dwellings and the above control is therefore relevant to the proposal.

 

The residential component of the development includes 2 x studio apartments (28% of the development), 4 x 1 bedroom apartments (57% of the development) and 1 x 2 bedroom dwellings (14% of the development). The development does not comply with the unit mix requirements.

 

It is difficult to achieve compliance with the dwelling mix ratios in a small development such as that proposed. The development contains a spread of dwelling types which is considered to be suitable to meet the demand for the local demographics.

 

(vi)    Vehicle access, parking, loading and unloading (Part 5.1.6)

 

The proposal is considered to achieve the objectives within Part 5.1.6 of MDCP 2011. In particular, vehicle access is provided from the rear lane.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation requiring that all loading and unloading in connection with the development must be carried out from the street or the commercial car parking spaces at the rear of the site during the approved hours of operation of the commercial tenancy in such a manner as not to cause inconvenience to the public.

 

PART 9 - STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

The property is located in the King Street and Enmore Road Planning Precinct (Precinct 37) under MDCP 2011. The development is considered to be consistent with the desired future character statements listed within Part 9.37.2 of MDCP 2011 as the proposal replaces an existing unsympathetic building with a contemporary designed building with adequate proportions and of a style and scale which compliments the locality.

 

9.      Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

 

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $74,938.20 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014.  A condition requiring that contribution to be paid is included in the recommendation.

 

10.    Community Consultation

 

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. 2 submissions were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

 

(i)      Privacy;

(ii)      FSR breach;

(iii)     Number of storeys; and

(iv)    Streetscape.

 

In addition to the above, the submissions raised the following concerns which are discussed under the respective headings below:

 

(i)      Failure of the application to provide information and inaccuracies in the applicant’s claims

 

Comment:

 

The application contains sufficient information to enable a thorough assessment of the proposal against the requirements of Section 79C.

 

(ii)      Structural damage to adjoining buildings

 

Comment:

 

Suitable conditions of consent have been incorporated into the recommendation addressing this concern.

 

The amended plans submitted were not required to be re-notified in accordance with MDCP 2011 because the proposal would result in similar or reduced impacts for surrounding properties and/or the streetscape. All relevant matters raised in the submissions able to be considered under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act have been discussed in the report.

 

11.    Conclusion

 

The application seeks consent to demolish existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking.

 

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application.

 

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 with the exception of the floor space ratio development standard. A Clause 4.6 submission accompanied the application addressing the FSR departure and is considered to be well founded. The proposed FSR non-compliance would not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

The application is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

 

 

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT the development application to demolish existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above, with associated car parking be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL

 

1.       The development must be carried out in accordance with plans and details listed below:

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

DA002, Rev B

Site Plan

01.04.16

CCG Architects

1 April 2016

DA010, Rev B

Ground Floor Plan

01.04.16

CCG Architects

1 April 2016

DA011, Rev B

First Floor Plan

01.04.16

CCG Architects

1 April 2016

DA012, Rev B

Secon