AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 23 AUGUST 2016

 

6.30pm

 


Pre-Registration to Speak at Council Meetings

 

Council is encouraging members of the public to pre-register their interest to speak at Council Meetings as the Meeting venues have a maximum number they can hold. Members of the public can pre-register up until 2pm of the day of the Meeting.

If you wish to register your interest please fill in a Register to Speak Form, available from the Inner West Council website, including:

·      your name;

·      contact details;

·      item on the Agenda you wish to speak to; and

·      whether you are for or against the recommendation in the agenda.

 

Members of the public who pre-register will be asked to show photo ID upon entry to verify the pre-registration application.

 

What happens after I submit the form?

Your request will then be added to a list that is shown to the Chairperson on the night of the meeting.

 

Are there any rules for speaking at a Council or Committee Meeting?

The following rules apply when addressing a Council or Committee meeting:

·      keep your address to the point, the time allowed for each speaker is limited to three minutes with one extension of not more than three minutes with the approval of the Council/Committee. This time limit applies, no matter how many items are addressed by the speaker;

·      when addressing the Meeting you must speak to the Chairperson;

·      the Chairperson may curtail public participation where the information being presented is considered repetitive or irrelevant.


Where Items are deferred, Council reserves the right to defer speakers until that Item is heard on the next
occasion.

 

Accessibility

Inner West Council is committed to ensuring people with a disability have equal opportunity to take part in Council and Committee Meetings. If you have any access or disability related participation needs and wish to know more ring 9335 2222.

 

 

 

Persons in the public gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, a person may NOT tape record a Council meeting without the permission of Council.

 

Any persons found recording without authority will be expelled from the meeting.

 

“Record” includes the use of any form of audio, video and still camera equipment or mobile phone capable of recording speech.

 

An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the minutes.

 

 

 


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

 

INDEX

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

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

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                          Page

Minutes of 26 July 2016 Council Meeting                                                                          4

4          Administrator’s Minutes

 

Nil at time of printing.

5          Staff Reports

 

C0816 Item 1      Minutes of Local Representation Advisory Committee and Implementation Advisory Group Meetings held in August 2016                                                                            9

C0816 Item 2      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016                               26

C0816 Item 3      Development Application - 2-32 Smith Street Summer Hill                            46

C0816 Item 4      Development Application - 317-331 Liverpool Road, Ashfield                      152

C0816 Item 5      Development Application - 75 Milton Street, Ashfield                                   263

C0816 Item 6      Development Application - 2-20 Weston Street, Balmain East                     320

C0816 Item 7      Development Application - Longport Street, Lewisham (2 - 32 Smith Street, Summer Hill)     392

C0816 Item 8      Development Application - 23 Croydon Street, Petersham                          456

C0816 Item 9      Amendment to Approved Voluntary Planning Agreement - Grove Street, Dulwich Hill   509

C0816 Item 10    Seasonal Allocation of Sports Grounds in the former Marrickville Area for the 2016/17 Summer Season                                                                                            653

C0816 Item 11    Tempe Reserve Sydney Olympic Park Redevelopment                             658

C0816 Item 12    Affordable Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt                           695

C0816 Item 13    Application for Road Closure and Sale - Part White Creek Lane behind 84 Ferris Street Annandale                                                                                                      703

C0816 Item 14    Proposed Easement - Elkington Park, Balmain - Cockatoo Island Service Upgrade       711

C0816 Item 15    Restaurant/Café at 107 Elliott Street, Balmain                                              714

C0816 Item 16    Club Grants Allocations and Community Grants Program 2016                  762

C0816 Item 17    Endorsement of Floodplain Risk Management Committee Charter             791

C0816 Item 18    Elkington Park Cottage, Balmain - Possible Conversion to Cafe                 802

C0816 Item 19    Whites Creek Community Orchard Management Plan                                886

C0816 Item 20    Inner West Council Investments as at 31 July 2016                                     900

 

6          Reports with Confidential Information                                                                           

 

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

 

The confidential information has been circulated to Council separately.

 

C0816 Item 21    Proposed Airspace Lease Smidmore Street Marrickville                             940

C0816 Item 22    SSROC Tender for the Provision of Tree Pruning Services                        942

C0816 Item 23    Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates                                                                      944

 

 


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

 

Minutes of Council Meeting

held at Ashfield Service Centre on Tuesday 26 July 2016

 

Meeting commenced at  6.30pm

 

Present:

 

Richard Pearson

Administrator

Vanessa Chan

Interim General Manager

Nellette Kettle

Director Innovation and Strategy

Simone Schwarz

Director Service Delivery

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Director Public Works

Peter Gainsford

Director Major Projects and Engineering

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Ian Naylor

Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt

Helen Tola

Manager Customer Service and Corporate Planning, Leichhardt

Tanya Whitmarsh

Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville

Rad Miladinovic

Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

Katerina Maros

Governance Officer, Leichhardt

 

 

Public speakers:    see last two pages of these minutes.

 

 

Apologies:              Matt Phillips, Director Corporate Services

 

 

1.         Acknowledgement Of Country By Chairperson

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

 

 

2.         Disclosures Of Interests:       Nil

 

 

3.         Confirmation Of Minutes:

 

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 17 May 2016, Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Thursday, 30 June 2016 and  Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 be confirmed.

 

 

4.         Minutes of Committee Meetings:

 

C0716 Item 1      Minutes of Implementation Advisory Group Held on 14 July 2016

 

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Implementation Advisory Group held on 14 July 2016 be received and the recommendations adopted.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 2      Minutes of Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting Held on 12 July 2016

 

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee (JLRAC) meeting held on the 12 July 2016 be received and the recommendations adopted.

 

5.         Staff Reports:

 

C0716 Item 3      WestConnex - Status Update - July 2016 and Determination of Applications/Notices for Project Works

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council:

1.       not grant approval for geotechnical investigations to occur at the Cove Street Depot, Cove Street, Haberfield;

2.       staff review and provide technical comments in response to the Technical Report –Flood Mitigation Strategy: Project Wide – Permanent Works Final Design (FD) (M4E-AEH-TR-00-120-100001_D_00);

3.       staff review and provide technical comments in response to the Technical Report – Flood Mitigation Strategy: WS – Temporary Works Final Design (FD) (M4E-AEH-TR-40-120-100001_D_00);

4.       officers continue to liaise with Sydney Motorway Corporation in an effort to protect the interests of the Inner West Community and continue to demonstrate the resolute position of the Inner West Council on the WestConnex Motorway project;

5.       reiterate to the Joint Venture that Vehicles exiting the Northcote Street site (C7) must not utilise Wattle Street and Dobroyd Parade. They must exit the site directly onto Parramatta Road, in a westerly direction;

6.       staff review and provide technical comments in response to the Technical Report – Stormwater Drainage Report: Wattle Street Temporary Works Site Final Design (FD) (M4E-AEH-TR-40-120-106001_D_00);

7.       staff review and provide technical comments in response to the Technical Report – Stormwater Drainage Report: Parramatta Road Temporary Works Site Final Design (FD) (M4E-AEH-TR-50-120-106001_D_00);

8.       remain opposed to the closure of footpaths on Parramatta Road, Dobroyd Parade and Wattle Street;

9.       in relation to those notices inviting Council comment, Council lodged a submission outlining its expectations for the protection of infrastructure, specifications for infrastructure restorations and traffic management;

10.     Council does not approve the applications submitted for approval.  Comments provided by officers be submitted to the SMC and Joint Venture to safeguard Council’s infrastructure; and

11.     Council not approve the road opening permit for new electricity main for Westconnex interchange site at St Peters.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 4      Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council:

 

1.       provide feedback to UrbanGrowth NSW prior to finalisation of the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy highlighting key issues with the proposed Strategy as it affects the Inner West LGA;

 

2.       demand that UrbanGrowth NSW re-exhibit the draft Strategy prior to it being presented to the NSW Government for endorsement;  and

 

3.       advise that Council does not propose to finalise rezonings associated with the Parramatta Road Strategy during the period under Administration.

 

C0716 Item 5      Street Tree Pruning by Ausgrid - Update

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council’s arborists provide oversight of Ausgrid’s street tree pruning in the Inner West area over the final few weeks of their current program of works;

2.       Council works collaboratively with Ausgrid to develop a fit for purpose agreement to manage future urban tree pruning and associated works in the Inner West Council area, including a review of the guidelines and improved notification and consultation with the community;  and

3.       Council seeks an urgent meeting with the Minister for Energy to raise concerns with the extent of pruning works undertaken by Ausgrid.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 6      Development Application - 230 Victoria Street, Ashfield

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

PART A

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. 10.2016.53.1 for the carrying out of alterations to the existing building for use as a cafe on Lot: 11 DP: 1002099, known as Yeo Park 230 Victoria Street, Ashfield subject to conditions outlined in Attachment 6.

 

PART B

THAT Council investigate and consider the following:

1.       the erection of signage in Yeo Park notifying users of Council’s smoking policy within parks;

2.       the erection of additional signage in Yeo Park outlining leash requirements for dog owners and the provision of additional litter bins; and

3.       the erection of speed limits signs outside Yeo Park Infants School.

 

 

C0716 Item 7      Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 July 2016

 

The Administrator determined that the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 July 2016 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 8      Operational Land Classification

 

The Administrator determined that Council classifies land at Lot 70 at 362-370 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill as operational land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 9      Marrickville Arts and Culture Grants 2016

 

The Administrator determined that Council endorses funding for 19 grant applications as outlined in Attachment 1, totalling $65,000 for the 2016 Marrickville Arts and Culture Grants Program.

 

C0716 Item 10    Marrickville Independent Artist Grants 2016

 

The Administrator determined that Council endorses funding for the 10 applications as outlined in Attachment 1, totalling $30,000 for the 2016 Independent Artist Grants Program.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 11    Marrickville Recreation Grants 2016

 

The Administrator determined that Council endorses funding for 17 grant applications as outlined in Attachment 1, totalling $30,000 for the 2016 Marrickville Recreation Grants Program.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 12    Draft Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG and LRAC Committee Members

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       the Draft Expenses and Facilities Policy for LRAC/IAG committee members as shown attached to the report, be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act; and

2.      after the conclusion of the public exhibition period, Council receive a further report on submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 13    Inner West Council Investments as at 30 June 2016

 

The Administrator determined that the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

The Administrator moved into closed session at 11.02pm to consider items of business containing confidential information.

 

The Administrator returned to open session at 11.12pm to resolve as follows in relation to Items 14, 15, 16 and 17.

 

 

6.         Reports with Confidential Information

 

C0716 Item 14    Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre - Mechanical Works Tender

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council resolves that Confidential Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993  as it would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and

 

2.       Council declines to accept any Tenders and that, in accordance with clause 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council enter into negotiations with any person with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the Tenders.

 

 

C0716 Item 15    Tender 07/16 Security Surveillance, Patrols and Services

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.    Council resolves that Confidential Attachment 1 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they relate to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(c) & (d) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.    the report be received and noted; and

3.    Council adopts the recommendation contained in the Confidential Attachment 1 for the duration of the contract.  

 

 

 

 

C0716 Item 16    Hiring Agreement for the Wests Tigers to use Leichhardt Oval No. 1

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.    Council resolves that Confidential Attachments 1 and 2 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (2) (c) and (2) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993; and

 

2.    that authority is delegated to the General Manager to make any minor amendments that may be required and to sign the hiring agreement on behalf of Council.

 

 

 

C0716 Item 17    ADMINISTRATOR'S MINUTE:  WESTCONNEX LEGAL ADVICE - INITIAL ADVICE

 

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.      Mr Robertson’s first memorandum of advice be further considered by Council but it is noted that the prospect of successful challenge on the basis of the advice received is low;  and

2.      the Department of Planning and Environment Compliance Officer be requested to further consider and advise Council whether the conditions of approval relating to heritage salvage are being properly implemented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting closed at  11.15pm.

 

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON

 

 


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 1

Subject:         Minutes of Local Representation Advisory Committee and Implementation Advisory Group Meetings held in August 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/91180.16         

Prepared By: Ian Naylor - Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The Local Representation Advisory Committee and Implementation Advisory Group Meetings were held in August 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 Meetings and the Implementation Advisory Group Meeting held in August 2016 be received.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

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

The minutes of the meetings are attached as follows:

 

Attachment 1 - Minutes of the Ashfield Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 9 August 2016.

Attachment 2 - Minutes of the Leichhardt Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 2 August 2016.

Attachment 3 - Minutes of the Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee held on 3 August 2016.

Attachment 4 - Minutes of Implementation Advisory Group held on 15 August 2016.

 

It is recommended that the Minutes of the Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee's and the Implementation Advisory Group held in August 2016 be received.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Ashfield LRAC Meeting held 9 August 2016

2.

Minutes of Leichhardt LRAC Meeting held 2 Aug 2016

3.

Minutes of Marrickville LRAC Meeting held 3 August 2016

4.

Minutes of Implementation Advisory Group Meeting - 15 August 2016

  


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

 


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 2

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/88403.16         

Prepared By: John Stephens - Traffic Manager, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Wal Petschler - Director, Major Projects and Engineering

 

SUMMARY

To present the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The second meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 4 August 2016 at Leichhardt. The minutes of the meeting are shown at Attachment 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Members of the public attended the meeting to address the committee on specific items.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016

  


Council Meeting

23 August 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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 3

Subject:         Development Application - 2-32 Smith Street Summer Hill  

File Ref:         16/4718/93444.16         

Prepared By: Brian Kirk - Consultant Planner

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This application seeks development consent for Stage 3 (DA1) of the Concept Plan approval for the Summer Hills Flour Mills development issued for the site under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (MP10_0155 as modified).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council determine whether it wishes to make a submission to the Panel in relation to the proposal, and if so, the contents of such submission.

 

 

 

 

Overview of Report

The proposal involves Part 1 of Stage 3 of the approved concept plan for a total of 135 new dwellings (11,750m2), 1 new retail tenancy (66m2) and 672m2 of publicly accessible open space.

This application proposes the construction of three (3) new residential flat buildings (with one ground floor retail tenancy) (Buildings 3A, 3B and 3D) over a new 2 level basement car park; plus the adaptation, refurbishment and conversion of an existing grain silo building into a residential flat building over 14 levels, known as the four pack Building 3C.

 

Executive Summary

The site of the approved Concept Plan is located on a large area of land of 24,738m2 bounded by Smith and Longport Streets to the north, Edward Street to the west, the Inner West Light Rail line to the east and Old Canterbury Road to the south. The land straddles the Hawthorn Canal and is located primarily in Summer Hill but the small portion of the site to the east of the canal is located in Lewisham and is the subject of a separate development application under assessment by the Inner West - Petersham.

Stage 3 of the development which is the subject of this application is located on Lot 14, DP 315 which is bound by Smith Street to the north, Old Canterbury Road to the south, the Inner West Light Rail line to the east and adjacent lots fronting Edward Street to the west. The subject application occupies the southern wedge of this lot.

Compliance of the proposal with the approved Concept Plan is generally satisfactory. The application also performs adequately when assessed against both Council’s controls and relevant Environmental Planning Instruments to the extent that they apply.

The proposal is considered to be positive contribution to the locality which successfully balances the appropriate adaptive re-use of this heritage listed site with residential, retail and commercial uses, ready access to public transport, public open space and the amenity of the existing surrounding population.  The development is recommended for deferred conditional approval.

The development application relates to a type of development that the Minister of Planning has categorised as being of regional significance. The Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel is the consent authority for the purposes of determining the application.

 

Council officers have carried out an assessment of the application and the report is to be forwarded to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the Panel’s consideration. A copy of the Council officer’s report on the development application, which recommends approval of the proposal, is attached.

The SEJRPP will be holding a meeting at 3 Spring Street, Sydney, Wednesday, 15 September 2016 to consider the matter.

Council needs to determine whether it wishes to make a submission to the panel in relation to the proposal, and if so, the contents of such submission.

 

Council representation to a Joint Regional Planning Panel

Section 4.6 of the Department of Planning’s ‘Procedures for the operation of Joint Regional Planning Panels’ relates to Council representation to the Regional Panel. That section reads as follows:-

4.6 Council representation to the Regional Panel

A council may make a submission on a development application that is to be determined by a Regional Panel during and up to seven (7) days before the Panel Meeting. The applicant may consider it appropriate to provide a briefing to council prior to the council framing its submission to the Panel.

The council submission should be forwarded to the Panel Secretariat. A Regional Panel will give consideration to a council submission in its determination of the application. A council submission, however, is not a matter that must be specifically addressed in the assessment report or recommendations prepared by the council staff.”

 

Conclusion

Council needs to determine whether it wishes to make a submission to the Panel. Given the short timeframe between Council’s consideration of the matter and the Panel meeting, any comments that the Council does make will be both forwarded and presented to the Panel.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Council Officer's Report on the Development Application

  


Council Meeting

23 August 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




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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 4

Subject:         Development Application - 317-331 Liverpool Road, Ashfield 

File Ref:         16/4718/93146.16        

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

This proposal for construction of an 8 storey mixed use development consisting of 6 retail tenancies at ground level complies with the provisions of Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (ALEP 2013) and all other planning provisions applicable to the site with the exception of floor space ratio and street setback requirements of ALEP 2013. The variations sought are minor in nature and will not compromise the objective of the controls. Furthermore, due to site amalgamation, it provides a coherent urban design response to its location and effectively activates three street frontages including a side pedestrian lane and the rear lane where it will also interact positively with the development currently under construction at 5 Markham Place.

The proposal provides a 3m wide pedestrian right of way along the Markham Place frontage to allow safe pedestrian circulation where none existed previously. The proposal also provides a high level of residential amenity for future occupants and avoids adverse impacts upon adjacent properties.

There are some minor engineering issues which require further detailed resolution, but these can be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions of consent.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

 

 

 

REPORT OVERVIEW

 

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 all existing structures;

·    Construction of an 8 storey mixed use development consisting of 6 retail tenancies at ground level;

·    Provision of a total of 28 residential apartments above ground level comprising of:-

4 X 1 bedroom units;

16 X 1 bedroom plus study units;

6 X 2 bedroom units;

1 X 2 bedroom plus study units;

1 X 3 bedroom unit; and

·    Construction of 3 basement car parking levels accommodating 43 vehicles.

 

2.0       Application Details

Applicant                                 :           Ganghui Pty Ltd

Owner                                     :           Ganghui Pty Ltd

Value of work                          :           $10,243,986

Lot/DP                                     :           Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, DP 10284

Date lodged                             :           4.5.2016

Building classification              :           2 & 6

Application Type                     :           Local

Construction Certificate          :           No

3.0       Site and Surrounding Development

The subject site is located on the northern side of Liverpool Road in Ashfield and faces directly onto Markham Place to its rear. Markham Lane is located to the east, and Cavill Avenue to the west.  The site consists of the following individual lots:-

 

Street Address

Lot No.

Deposited Plan

Title System

Total Site Area (by title)

317 Liverpool Road

1

10284

Torrens

199.3m2

319 Liverpool Road

2

10284

Torrens

175.1m2

319 Liverpool Road

3

10284

Torrens

176.2m2

331 Liverpool Road

4

10284

Torrens

177.4m2

TOTAL AREA

728m2

 

Surrounding development includes commercial and retail uses along Liverpool Road while mixed use residential and commercial developments are located along Markham Place at the rear. The site is serviced well by public transportation including the Ashfield Railway Station which is located to the rear of the site.

Council recently approved a mix use development located on 5 Markham Place which is directly opposite to the subject site. The 5 Markham Place approval incorporates a public plaza that is accessible 24/7. The proposal provides a 3m wide pedestrian right of way along the Markham Place street frontage to allow safe pedestrian circulation where none existed previously.

The proposed 3.0m wide public pedestrian right of way will interact positively with the proposed public plaza located at 5 Markham Place development currently under construction to create street activation and improved pedestrian amenity. From an urban design perspective the proposal in connection with 5 Markham Place will create an interesting and vibrant public space and will positively add to Council’s future vision to improve the public domain in this locality.

 

4.0       Development History

4.1       Previous building and development applications

 

317Liverpool Road

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

10.2008.114.1

08.07.2008

Change of use from florist to restaurant

Approved

21.06.2011

21.06.2011

Alterations and additions to mixed use building

Approved

 

319-321 Liverpool Road

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

6.1968.6881.1

20.08.1968

Cool room for  funeral parlour

Approved

6.1968.6881.1

17.09.1968

Internal alterations to funeral parlour

Approved

6.1975.9960.1

09.12.1975

Alterations to Undertakers

Approved

10.2014.230.1

25.11.2014

Shop top housing

Refused

 

Parts of 319-321 have been used as funeral home for a significant period of time.

 

4.2       Previous DA and Land & Environment Court Appeal

DA 10.2014.230 seeking approval for the construction of shop top housing located at 319 – 331 Liverpool Road, Ashfield was refused by Council on 25 November 2014 and was also subject of a Land & Environment Court appeal. During the appeal process it was discussed that development of 319 to 331 would isolate the adjoining lot at 317 Liverpool Road, Ashfield and that site amalgamation should occur with a view to incorporate 317 Liverpool Road.

The current DA, subject of this report, now incorporates 317 Liverpool Road, Ashfield thus resolving site isolation issues.

 

4.3       Background to the current application

 

Application Milestones

Date

Event

File no

12.04.2016

Provisional development application submitted.

17.2016.85

04.05.2016

Development Application lodged “As-is”

10.2016.89.1

 

5.0       Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

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

The property contains a heritage item, being 317 Liverpool Road, Ashfield and is located within the Ashfield Town Centre.

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

The proposal involves total demolition of heritage listed item located at 317 Liverpool Road, Ashfield. Council’s heritage advisor has reviewed the proposal and submitted heritage management document and is of the view that in this instance it is considered to be acceptable to demolish the heritage item for two main reasons, firstly the item’s retention is not considered worthy and secondly, a better urban design outcome is facilitated by its demolition.

During the LEC appeal, detailed investigation was carried out of the significance of the heritage item. It was revealed that the heritage item suffered significant damage to the internal fabric and there was no element worthy of retention. The only heritage significance was its detailing to the external front portion of the building where it displayed a moderate heritage value.  In the circumstances of the case it was considered that that a better planning and urban design outcome can be achieved if the sites were amalgamated and redeveloped in its entirety. The external detailing to the front portion of the existing item is not unique and is represented in other more significant heritage buildings in the locality.

 

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    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

Shop top housing (mix use development)

Yes

2.3(2)

Zone objectives and land use table

The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in the zone when determining a development application in respect of land within that zone.

 

Zone B4 Mixed Use

Objectives of Zone:

·   To encourage the orderly and efficient development of land through the consolidation of lots.

The site consolidates four lots into one and avoids the isolation of any adjacent sites.

 

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

728m2

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

Max 23.0m if no affordable housing proposed

 

Max 30.0m if affordable housing proposed

29.18m (affordable housing proposed)

Yes

(relies on cl. 4.3A)

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:

 

Therefor in this case the max height is 27.0m for the reason affordable housing is proposed

25.5m

Yes

(relies on cl. 4.3A)

4.3A

Exception to maximum height of buildings in Ashfield town centre

Overall max building height is 30.0m if affordable housing is proposed.

29.18m affordable housing is proposed.

 

Yes

Maximum habitable building height is 27.0m measured to the top of habitable floor & must have 25% of the top 2 levels allocated to affordable rental housing.

25.5m to top of habitable floor and must have minimum of 2 units allocated to affordable rental housing

Yes condition imposed

4.3B

Ashfield town centre – maximum height for street frontages on certain land

Max 12.0m building height at Liverpool Road street frontage with a 12.0m setback for podium level.

12.0m building height at Liverpool Road street frontage however 11.5m setback for podium level

No

(see cl. 4.6)

4.4

Floor space ratio

3:1

3.18:1

No

(see cl.4.6)

4.6(3)

Exceptions to development standards

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

Written requests submitted for variations to cl. 4.3B & cl. 4.4.

Yes

4.6(3)(a)

Exceptions to development standards

That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Demonstrated in both cases that compliance is unnecessary:

·   Cl. 4.3B (Street Wall Height): The height non-compliance results from the intrusion of a blade wall façade element on the tower section into the 12m setback zone by about 0.5m. This is a minor and incidental intrusion that does not impact on the appropriate perception of a street wall height of 12m and is consistent with the objectives of the standard. Therefore strict compliance is unnecessary.

·   Cl. 4.4 (FSR): The contravention results from the adoption of the height bonus in cl. 4.3A to provide affordable housing which cannot be implemented without a variation to the FSR standard; this variation is specifically envisaged by cl. 2.3, Part C3, Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy. As such, it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and strict compliance is unnecessary.

Yes

4.6(3)(b)

Exceptions to development standards

That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Demonstrated in both cases:

·   Cl. 4.3B (Street Wall Height): The contravention results from minor decorative blade wall elements on the tower section that improve the articulation of the building and its architectural presentation. This is a desirable planning outcome and is considered sufficient environmental planning grounds.

·   Cl. 4.4 (FSR): The contravention results from the adoption of the height bonus in cl. 4.3A to provide affordable housing which cannot be implemented without a variation to the FSR standard; this variation is specifically envisaged by cl. 2.3, Part C3, Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy. As such, this is a desirable planning outcome and is considered sufficient environmental planning grounds.

Yes

4.6(4)

Exceptions to development standards

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

4.6(4)(a)

Exceptions to development standards

The consent authority is satisfied that:

4.6(4)(a)(ii)

Exceptions to development standards

The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub-clause (3), and

Demonstrated.

Yes

4.6(4)(a)(iii)

Exceptions to development standards

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

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of both the development standards and of the zone.

Yes

4.6(4)(b)

Exceptions to development standards

The concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

Concurrence has been granted to Council by the Director-General.

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Part of site contains:

·  Heritage Item No. 214 (317 Liverpool Road, Ashfield)

 

This building is to be demolished in its entirety.

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 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).

Heritage management document has been submitted.

 

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.

Heritage management document has been submitted.

Assessed as satisfactory by Council’s Heritage Advisor – in particular the heritage item on the site is not considered worthy of retention and a better urban design outcome is facilitated by its demolition.

Yes

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development satisfies all the provisions of ALEP 2013 except for:

·   Clause 4.3B, Ashfield town centre – maximum height for street frontages on certain land; and

·   Clause 4.4, Floor space ratio.

 

In both instances, however, a request to vary the development standard has been submitted which satisfactorily demonstrates that compliance would be unnecessary as the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard and that there are sound environmental planning grounds for the variation.

 

6.2       Regional Environmental Plans

6.2.1    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.

6.3       State Environmental Planning Policies

6.3.1    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of land

The applicant has submitted a Stage 1 (Preliminary) Environmental Site Assessment which concludes that:

·    a further detailed contamination assessment is not required; and

·    the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

As such, remediation of the site is not required prior to the carrying out of the proposed development.

 

6.3.2    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 particular, it:

·    Successfully terminates the street wall against Markham Lane;

·    Activates not only Liverpool Road but also Markham Lane at the side and Markham Place at the rear;

·    Adopts a massing which creates a suitable model for future development in the strip which can connect to it.

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 is appropriate for the three dimensional built form intended for this site and this section of the town centre generally.

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 generally consistent with the FSR nominated for the site by ALEP 2013. Despite a small exceedance, this is envisaged by AIDAP 2013 in order to facilitate the additional height permitted for the provision of affordable rental housing.

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.

Due to the locality in the town centre, the landscaping, is, by necessity, limited to the rooftop of the podium level. Notwithstanding this, it provides: 

·    in excess of minimum communal open space areas on the roof of the podium facing Liverpool Road;

·    open space directly accessible from the main vertical circulation areas of the building;

·    generous rooftop planting.

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 optimised due to:

·    Significantly increased passive surveillance of Markham Lane and Markham Place where none existed previously;

·    Activation of Markham Place and Markham Lane by both retail tenancies and the residential lobby.

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 1 to 3 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 sophisticated, well resolved and suitable for the evolving streetscape character of Liverpool Road.

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:   182m2

39%

(286m2)

Yes

 

 

Solar access to communal open space

Adequate solar access to rooftop communal open space.

Yes

3D-3

Communal open space is designed to maximise safety

Safety

Podium rooftop level communal open space is open and well observed by units above.

Yes

3E-1

Deep soil zones

7% min dimension 3m:

51m2

0%

(0m2)

 

This is considered acceptable given the built up urban town centre context of the site.

Acceptable

3F1

Building Separation

(5-8 storeys)

9m between habitable rooms/balconies and side boundaries

 

4.5m between non-habitable rooms

South (Liverpool Road):

·   12m

Yes

North (Markham Place):

·   3m (but in excess of 18m from adjacent tower across Markham Place)

Yes

East (Markham Lane):

Blank walls or with high-light windows only. These require a 4.5m separation.

·   3m (but 6m to centerline of laneway).

Any future tower on the facing building could be expected to be set back similarly from the laneway and would consequently exceed the total separation distance of 9m.

Acceptable

West (Markham Lane):

·   0m

Blank wall designed to tie in with blank wall on adjacent development and is appropriate in the town centre context.

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

Guide to Traffic Generating Developments prevails:

Residential:

·   0.6/1 Bed unit = 12

·   0.9/2 Bed unit = 6.3

·   1.4/3 Bed unit = 1.4

TOTAL: 20

Residential Visitors:

·   Spaces: 1/5 units = 5.6

TOTAL: 6

 

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 26

Residential:

·   29 (incl. 3 accessible)

Residential Visitors:

·   6 (incl. 1 accessible)

 

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 35

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.

79%

Yes

4A-1(3)

Solar & daylight access

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

7%

Yes

4B-3(1)

Natural ventilation

Natural cross ventilation: min. 60% of apartments

75%

Yes

4B-3(2

Natural ventilation

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

12m

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 deg 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

No ground floor units are proposed.

N/A

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)

28

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 addressed through 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 lower level apartments directly address the street.

Yes

4L-2

Ground floor apartments

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

No ground floor units are proposed.

N/A

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 of the podium level has been utilised for a large area of communal open space which also includes landscaping, eating areas, sitting areas and general open space.

Yes

4N-3

Roof design

Roof design incorporates sustainability features.

The roof includes planting 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 the rooftop terrace.

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.

3 of the units are adaptable & consistent with Council’s policy.

Yes

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.

Suitably integrated.

Yes

4T-1

Awnings and signage

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

Awnings are suitably designed.

Yes

4T-2

Awnings and signage

Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.

No signage proposed at this stage – 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.

The proposal is finished in painted render and metal cladding which is suitable for upper levels. Painted render is not appropriate, however, at street level & conditions of consent will require the use of more durable materials of either face brick, stone or tile.

Yes

 

As identified in the above table, the proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the SEPP.

 

6.3.3    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. Note that under the terms of the SEPP, Council is not required to refer this application to RMS.

 

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 off Markham Place.

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

Council’s engineer has not raised concerns with the design of the access in relation to the classified road.

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

Council’s engineer has not raised concerns with the volume of traffic in relation to the classified road.

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.

Being a residential development, the proposal is one which is inherently sensitive to traffic noise.

Nevertheless, adequate measures have been implemented in the form of louvres and winter gardens on the balconies to protect the inhabitants from excessive traffic noise. In addition, any recommendations of the acoustic report will be included as consent conditions.

Yes

 

Given the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the SEPP.

 

6.4       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.

 

6.5       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

The Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy IDA specifically addresses how the ADCP 2007 is to be interpreted in the context of ALEP 2013. Please see Section 7.8 below.

 

6.6       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.

 

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

The proposal would not result in any adverse impacts upon the surrounding locality.

 

6.8       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.

 

6.9       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 Councilors from 10 May 2016 until 3 June 2016. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.

No submissions were received during the notification of the development application.

 

6.10     The public interest

The proposal is considered to meet the aims and objectives of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013. Specifically to the following Parts:

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Part C1

Access, Adaptability and Mobility

2.3

Universal Accessible Design

i.   Villas and townhouses:

ii.  Low rise Flats

iii.  Residential Flat Buildings

Part of proposal is classed as a residential flat building.

Yes

2.4

Adaptable Housing

10%

11%

Yes

2.5

Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements

Site conditions

No variations proposed due to site conditions.

N/A

7.4

Visitability

All apartments must be visitable from the street and the basement car park.

All apartments are visitable.

Yes

7.5

Interior dwelling design

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

Adequate circulation area provided except for bathrooms. Each unit is to have at least one bathroom which can be used by a person in a wheelchair.

A condition will be applied to the consent requiring this.

Condition

7.6

Access to private open space

Private open space shall be accessible and adequately sized to allow wheelchair access and use.

Private open space areas are accessible.

Yes

7.7

Access to car parking

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

Suitable lift access is provided to and from the car park.

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.

The communal open space is accessible and suitably proportioned for use by wheelchairs.

Yes

Part C3

Ashfield Town Centre

1.1

Building Appearance

mixed developments shall be of a traditional architectural language:

·   basic tripartite arrangements to facades, employing symmetry and proportion

·   punctuated extremities, which signal the boundaries of the building.

·   solid walls, which have punched openings for balconies and windows, and have vertically emphasized proportions.

·   expression of architectural detailing, such as expression of datum lines and string courses, and a colour palette of materials of medium to dark monotone face brickwork and rendered coloured surfaces.

Building is of a contemporary aesthetic but follows traditional architectural compositional practice in that:

·   It adopts a base, middle and top;

·   It expresses the extremities;

·   It has a strong pattern of solid and void;

·   It expresses the form of the building with architectural expression of the facade elements.

Yes

1.3

 

buildings employing contemporary or non-historic building styles shall achieve a high compositional standard.

The architectural expression is considered to be of a high compositional standard.

Yes

1.4

 

Shopfront Design to be compatible with the existing townscape.

The shopfront design is appropriate to the context.

Yes

1.5

 

Blank side wall facades without windows be modelled to provide an articulated and attractive appearance.

The western side wall which is built on the boundary has been designed to be publicly visibly until such time as an adjacent development conceals it.

Yes

1.6

New Main Street Building Facades

Front facades above ground level to:

·   Be predominantly masonry;

·   contain openings of proportions found in the existing townscape;

·   take architectural cues from the existing townscape.

The façade along Liverpool Road, although in a contemporary aesthetic, is appropriately configured and presented.

Yes

1.7

 

Alterations to existing front facades above ground level to be sympathetic to the existing architectural composition and townscape.

N/A

N/A

1.8

Human Building Scale

Development to comply with the “street wall height zone” in accordance with Clause 4.1AA of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

The proposal is generally consistent with the street wall height zone.

Yes

1.9

Public Open Space

Development identified in Section 3 – Landscape to contribute to the provision of public open space.

N/A

N/A

1.10

 

Sites identified in Section 4 to provide weather protection for pedestrians over public open space.

Not required.

N/A

1.11

Vibrant and Safe Town Centre

Maximize public safety and create a lively Town Centre with shopfront & building design & ground floor commercial uses.

Ample active frontages have been provided by way of retail spaces on all three exposed ground floor frontages.

Yes

1.12

Signage

Signage to be subservient to existing architectural composition.

No signage proposed at this stage. Will be the subject to future DA if necessary.

N/A

2.1

Maximum Building height

Max. number of storeys:

6 + 2 bonus=8

8

Yes

2.2

Site Amalgamations

Site amalgamation may be necessary to achieve adequate site area to achieve maximum heights.

4 lots have been amalgamated to achieve a coherent and efficient development site which yields high quality urban design benefits.

Yes

2.3

Exceptions to maximum permitted height of buildings

A height bonus of up to 7 metres available for development within Area 1 subject to Clause 4.3A of Ashfield LEP 2013.

The application proposes the required proportion of affordable housing to activate the height bonus.

Yes

2.4

Solar access for adjoining properties

Must not compromise ability of adjacent sites to build to full floor space ratio potential and maintain solar access.

Does not overshadow adjoining properties unacceptably as high rise element overshadows public open space and the road surface.

Yes

2.5

Street Wall Height Zones

Area 1 “street wall height zone”, maximum street wall height of 12 metres for 12 metres from the main street frontage.

Council will consider variations where suitable.

Complies with the street wall height zone of 12m except for minor decorative façade elements on the tower which serve to improve its aesthetic presentation.

Yes

2.6

Facades parallel to Street

External facades of buildings, including buildings above the street frontage height, are to be parallel with the primary street boundary of the property.

Facades are parallel where appropriate.

Yes

3.1

Setbacks for public open space

Development specified in Clause 4, and shown on Map 4 shall provide “development setbacks” in accordance with clause 2.

Complies.

Yes

3.2

 

“Development setback” means that the development allotment is reduced in size in order to create a “residue lot” to be dedicated for public open space in accordance with clause 3. The land area dedicated to Council will be included when calculating allowable floor space ratio and as a credit towards any required Section 94 contributions.

N/A

N/A

3.3

 

A “residue lot” is an allotment created for:

·   enabling a public verge /footpath area wide enough for external public seating tree planting, and pedestrian flow.

·   the residue lot is dedicated to Council at the completion of development.

N/A

N/A

3.4

 

Development types listed below, and which are identified on the areas designated on Map 4 are required to provide a “development setback”.

Development setbacks will be required for:

·   - mixed use development such as ground floor businesses and upper level apartments buildings up to 8 storeys in height.

·   site development areas larger than 1000 m2

N/A

N/A

3.6

Security

Communal open space requirements identified in Residential Design Flat Code:

Residential flat developments/mixed developments on sites areas greater than 2000 sqm. Are to provide a minimum of 25 percent communal open space pursuant to the Residential Flats Design Code.

 

Development affected by Clause 8 below and which provides a development setback may provide a smaller communal open space area.

Communal open space exceeds minimum requirements.

Yes

3.7

 

Communal open space required pursuant to clause 6 may be located in the following positions:

·   on the roof of the residential flat building

·   at ground level where it abuts or will abut a major civic public open space identifies in this Part or Public Domain Strategy and is be designed to integrate with that space.

The communal open space is located as follows on the podium roof and is considered satisfactory.

Yes

Yes

 

3.9

 

Planter boxes shall:

·   provide soil depth, soil volume and soil area appropriate to the size of the plants to be established, in accordance with Table 1;

·   provide appropriate soil conditions and irrigation methods; and

·   providing adequate drainage, including water drainage spouts.

Planter boxes comply.

Yes

4.1

Active Street Frontages definition

Active frontage uses are defined as one of a combination of the following at street level:

·   entrance to shops and commercial premises

·   shop front,

·   clear glazed entries to commercial and residential lobbies,

·   café or restaurant if directly accessed from the street,

·   active office uses, such as reception areas, if visible from the street,

·   public building or community facilities if directly accessed from the street.

Active frontages satisfy these criteria.

Yes

4.2

Active Street Frontages - required location

Active street frontages are required in the areas shown on Map 7

Provided in excess of requirements.

Yes

4.3

Visibility of street

Sites affected by Clause 2 shall have shopfronts which are predominantly glazed, in order to ensure that adequate visibility of the street occurs, with the minimum amount of glazed area being as follows :

Shopfronts shall have as part of their ground level façade, a glazed area which is a minimum of 80 percent of the width of the shopfront, measured vertically from ground level to a minimum of 2.1 metres above ground level. The glazed area shall be transparent, so as to enable visibility of the street from the interior of the building.

Active frontages satisfy these criteria.

Yes

4.4

Location of parking

Any on grade (ground level) car parks are to be set back behind an active street frontage, and

designed in accordance with the controls set out in Part C11, Clause 5.3.

No at grade parking provided.

N/A

4.5

Street address

‘Street address’ is defined as:

·   entries, lobbies, and habitable rooms with clear glazing overlooking the street, and

·   excludes car parking areas.

Noted.

Noted

4.6

 

A street address is required on ground level of all areas identified in Map 5.

Street address consisting of the main lobby is located as required and activates Markham Lane.

Yes

4.7

Street Awnings

Awnings along street frontages are to be provided for all new developments as indicated in Map 5.

Awnings are to be designed to be in accordance with the following:

·   constructed out of metal framing and steel roofing material;

·   have a minimum ground level clearance of 3m,or which matches approximately the height of existing or adjacent awnings;

·   lighting installed to the underside in accordance of the awning in accordance with Council requirements

Suitable awnings are provided on all three frontages of the proposal.

Yes

4.8

Access ( people with disabilities)

Refer to Part C1 of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy for requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.

Some minor non-compliances. Conditions proposed to achieve compliance.

Condition

4.9

Safety

Residential development along rear lanes is specified to ensure that windows contained in

residential flat building are positioned to ensure that surveillance occurs of those lane areas.

The rear facing upper levels have been set back the same distance from the rear boundary as the ground floor which provides the ability for passive surveillance and increases safety.

Yes

4.10

 

The following security devices shall be required in Residential Flat Buildings :

·   Ground and first floor levels shall have fitted security devices which comply with the Australian Standard.

Condition of consent proposed.

Condition

6.1

Proportion of ground level commercial space

In mixed development majority of ground floor area of should be business use. Service functions to be kept to a minimum.

The entire ground floor has been allocated to retail use except for the necessary access and service elements to the residential component above.

Yes

6.2

Car parking

Car parking to be below ground, for substantial developments.

All car parking is located below ground level.

Yes

6.3

Servicing requirements

Service Areas for commercial development to be provided.

Service areas have been provided as necessary.

Yes

6.4

Minimum ground floor ceiling

Ground floor commercial use, as a minimum 3m - 3.6m and adequate height between the ceiling and the first floor slab for installation of services.

3.0m

Yes

6.6

Shopfront composition

The minimum amount of glazed area.

Shopfronts are predominantly glazed.

Yes

6.7

 

Shopfronts not to have “roll-a-door” grille or opaque security shutters, unless predominantly transparent.

Not proposed.

Yes

6.8

 

Ground level shopfronts to complement the building style of the façade.

Yes

Yes

6.9

Awnings

Awnings to be provided in the locations stipulated on Map 6.

Awnings have been provided on all three frontages in excess of minimum requirements.

Yes

6.11

Air-conditioning units and satellite dishes

Air-conditioning units and satellite dishes:

a) not located on front façade and positioned at the rear.

b) at least 1.5 m from all adjoining property boundaries.

c) Use non-reflective materials.

d) diameter must not exceed 1.8 m on roof.

Not proposed.

Yes

6.12

Strata subdivision of offices

Strata subdivision of offices must address wall partitioning and fire egress, allocation of bathroom and kitchen facilities, waste storage locations, business signage and parking.

Not proposed at this stage.

N/A

8.1

Location of driveways

Driveways to be provided from lanes and secondary streets identified on Map 8.

Located from Markham Place.

Yes

8.2

Access ways to underground parking

Access ways to underground parking to minimise noise impacts on adjacent or nearby habitable rooms, including bedrooms.

Access driveway is suitably designed and is not directly adjacent any bedrooms.

Yes

8.3

Location of parking

Car parking shall be located below ground level for major development.

All parking is located below ground level.

Yes

8.4

Amount of Parking

Car parking to be as per Part C11 - Parking.

See Part C11.

Noted

8.5

Waste (garbage) storage, collection and location requirements

An area to be provided to accommodate bins for garbage collection and recycling of waste, with waste storage and collection areas (see Clause 6).

A waste generation management plan is to show the waste to be generated on a weekly basis, how it will be transferred to the waste storage area, and this is to be reflected on the plans and sizes for the waste storage area and ancillary areas.

Garbage collection facilities are located on ground floor service areas and also in chute deposit hatches on each floor.

Yes

8.6

Loading/unloading areas

Adequate facilities to be provided for the loading and unloading of service/delivery vehicles (see Clause 7).

A loading bay is provided off the rear lane.

Yes

8.7

Design of service areas

Vehicular access to parking areas, waste collection, loading and unloading, are to be minimised but functional. This shall be demonstrated by a “service area function plan” (see Fig 3), to show:

·   Waste collection room areas, including garbage bins, recycling bins, other bins, using the data in Information Sheet No 1.

·   Required truck manoeuvring areas, and parking areas, shown in plan and section for the emptying of bins onto trucks and the manoeuvring of bins to and from Waste collection room areas, using Council’s truck turning templates on Information Sheet No 1. (see Part C11 - Section 5).

Suitably designed.

Yes

8.8

 

Service doors and loading docks are to be adequately screened from street frontages and from overlooking by existing development.

All service areas are well screened.

Yes

8.9

Mail boxes

Mail boxes to be provided in one accessible location adjacent the main entrance and be integrated into a wall where possible and be of materials compatible with the building. Mail boxes shall be secure and large enough to accommodate articles such as newspapers.

Mail boxes are centrally located in the lobby area.

Yes

8.10

Communication structures, air conditioners and service vents

Satellite dish and telecommunication antennae, air conditioning units, ventilation stacks and any ancillary structures should be located:

·   away from the street frontage,

·   integrated into the roof design and not to become a skyline feature at the top of any building, and

·   adequately setback from the perimeter wall or roof edge.

Not proposed at this stage.

Yes

9.4

Clothes Drying Locations

Balconies are to accommodate an area for clothes drying and screen the drying area from view from the street.

Not proposed at this stage but can be included as condition of consent.

Condition

9.5

Reflectivity

Avoid glare that causes discomfort or threatens safety of pedestrians or drivers.

Proposal consists of low reflectivity materials.

Yes

9.6

 

Light reflectivity from building materials used on the facades of new buildings should not exceed 20%.

Proposal consists of low reflectivity materials.

Yes

9.7

 

A Reflectivity Report that analyses potential solar glare from the proposed development on pedestrians or motorists may be required.

Not necessary given the nature of materials proposed.

N/A

9.8

Waste and recycling, amount of bins, truck sizes

A “waste generation schedule” should show g the amount of waste day to day activities will generate, and a description of how occupants of the development will transfer their waste to waste collection areas on the site.

Schedule has been provided.

Yes

Part C11

Parking

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 designated spaces per 100 required spaces = 1.3

4

Yes

4.2

Bicycle and Motor Cycle Parking

Residential:

· Spaces: 1/10 units =3

Residential Visitors:

· Spaces: 1/10 units = 3

Retail:

· Spaces: 1/20 staff = 1

Retail Visitors:

· Spaces: 1/250m2 = 1

TOTAL: 8

TOTAL: 12

Yes

Motor Cycle

·   Spaces: 1/25 car parking spaces = 1

Motor Cycle

·   Spaces: 1

Yes

4.3

Parking Rates for Specific Land Uses

Resident spaces:

Defer to SEPP 65 rates:

·   TOTAL: 26 spaces

TOTAL: 35 spaces

Yes

Commercial spaces:

·   1/40m2 = 4

 

Commercial spaces:

·   8

Yes

 

Courier spaces:

·   1 courier space/200m2 = 1 space

Courier spaces:

·   1 space (loading bay)

Yes

Carwash:

·   1

Carwash:

·   1

Yes

5.0

Design Requirements

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

Can be modified to comply by way of condition of consent. See comments by traffic engineer.

Condition

Part C12

Public Notification

Section 2

Notification Process

 

The application was notified in accordance with this part.

Yes

Part D1

Planning for Less Waste

 

Bin Numbers

 

Residential (28 dwellings):

· 1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=14 bins (x 50% for compaction) = 7

· 1 x 240L recycling bin/2 dwellings=14 bins

· TOTAL: 21 bins

Residential:

·   7 x 240L garbage bin

·   14 x 240L recycling bin

TOTAL: 21 bins

Yes

 

 

Retail (166m2):

·50L/100m2/day=581L garbage/week=3 bins

·25L/100m2/day=291L recycle/week=1 bins

· TOTAL: 4 bins

Retail (166m2):

·   6 x 240L garbage bin

·   3 x 240L recycling bin

TOTAL: 9 bins

Yes

 

Bulky Goods Storage

Bulky goods storage area is required.

Bulky goods storage area provided in garbage room.

Yes

 

Bin Presentation

 

Adequate space along Markham Place frontage for placement of up to 14 recycle bins once a fortnight and 7 waste bins once a week (different days). Full bins will be held in bin holding room in the interim.

Condition

 

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

 

7.0       Referrals

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Support

Building Surveyor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Traffic Engineer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Drainage Engineer

Supported subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Yes

Heritage Advisor

No objection.

Yes

Environmental Health Officer

No objection.

Yes

SEPP 65 Advisor

No objection.

Yes

Waste Management

No objection.

Yes

 

8.0       Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

9.0       Financial Implications

 

Section 94 contribution applies to the development. A total contribution amount of $309,479.75 applies to the proposal.

 

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) having been taken into consideration.

Although the proposal breaches two development standards, these are minor in nature. In all other respects, the proposal complies with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013 and all other planning provisions applicable to the site. Furthermore, due to site amalgamation, it provides a coherent urban design response to its location at the end of a street wall and effectively activates three frontages including a side pedestrian lane and the rear lane where it will also interact positively with the development currently under construction at 5 Markham Place. It will also provide a 3m wide pedestrian right of way along the Markham Place frontage to allow safe pedestrian circulation where none existed previously.

The proposal also provides a high level of residential amenity for future occupants and avoids adverse impacts upon adjacent properties.

As noted in the report, there are some minor engineering issues which require further detailed resolution, but these can be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions of consent.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plans of Proposal

2.

Locality Map

3.

Clause 4.6 Variation

4.

Heritage Advice

5.

Conditions

  


Council Meeting

23 August 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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 5

Subject:         Development Application - 75 Milton Street, Ashfield  

File Ref:         16/4718/91467.16         

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

This application seeks Council’s consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey residential flat building comprising 8 dwellings with basement parking. The proposal is generally compliant with the planning controls applicable to the site, has acceptable amenity impacts, and results in a well-mannered insertion into a diverse streetscape. Although it orientates the majority of its units towards the north side boundary potentially creating privacy issues with the adjacent residential flat building, particularly at the upper level, this has been managed by way of a combination of adjustable privacy screens and landscaping. There are, however, some outstanding issues in respect of stormwater drainage which require further resolution which should be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the application be granted a deferred commencement consent.

 

 

 

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 2 storey residential flat building comprising 8 dwellings with basement parking.

 

2.0       Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :           Arkivis Design Studio

Owner                                     :           Mr A Talarico

Value of work                          :           $2,462,772

Lot/DP                                     :           LOT: 31 DP: 707858

Date lodged                             :           16/12/2015

Building classification              :           2

Application Type                     :           Local

Construction Certificate          :           No

 

3.0       Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Milton Street, bounded by Arthur Street to the South and Summerville Avenue to the North. An existing dwelling house is located on the site.  Surrounding development comprises dwelling houses and residential flat buildings.  Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map. The site consists of the following individual lots:

 

Street Address

Lot No.

Deposited Plan

Title System

Total Site Area (by title)

75 Milton Street

31

707858

Torrens

928.7 m2

TOTAL AREA

928.7m2

 

4.0       Development Application History

 

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

 

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

06.1952.958

02.06.1987

Unknown

Unknown

 

The following table shows the background to the current application:

 

Application Milestones

Date

Event

File no

02.02.2015

Provisional Development Application submitted to Council

17.2015.16

30.09.2014

Letter sent to applicant raising the following issues:

·   Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised the following concerns.  Please amend your application to resolve these issues.

 

Two heritage items are located in Cromwell Street and at the rear of the subject site.  The proposed building presents a plain, largely undeveloped elevation to the rear where the separation distance from the boundary is substantial and would support adequate screening.  The manner in which the proposed loft floor (second floor) of the building would exceed the 8.5m maximum permitted building height would accentuate the scale and visibility of the building and conformity with the envelope limit would seem a reasonable request. 

 

Adjacent to the south side of the property is a substantial Federation cottage with a notable front bay window.  The design of the proposed development includes a screen / shelter element formed by extension of the floor line of the first floor laterally to the south boundary.  This element visually constricts the space between the development and the Federation cottage and should be deleted.  This omission would mean that the floor line / edge line is similar at both sides.

 

·   The proposal fails to comply with the maximum FSR requirement of Ashfield LEP 2013.  Whilst a Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development Standards request has been submitted, Council will not support any variation to the FSR.  Please also note that the semi open breeze with privacy screen is also to be included in the FSR calculations. As the FSR is excessive, the proposal must be modified to comply as no variation from the development standard will be supported.  Please provide a plan showing the gross floor area areas included for the purpose of FSR calculations.

·   The proposal fails to comply with the Height control of Ashfield LEP 2013.  Whilst a Clause 4.6 – exception to Development Standards has been lodged Council will not support any variation to the standard.  In addition Council is of the view that compliance can be achieved without materially altering the substance of the design.

·   The proposed landscaped area fails to meet the required 35% of the overall site area.  The proposal should be amended to comply.

·   The upper balconies are undersized and should be at least 2m in depth.

·   The semi open breezeway despite the privacy screens would have adverse privacy impacts upon the adjacent property to the south and should be fully enclosed with any outlook controlled by translucent glazing or suitable screening.

·   A correct design verification statement has not been provided.

·   Please provide more detail regarding the masonry structure located on the southern boundary immediately adjacent to unit 1.

·   The driveway gradients in particular1 in 20 transition immediately at the driveway entrance inside the property do not comply with the relevant Australian Standard and should amended to comply.

·   The car parking layout in particular the space dimensions i.e. blind aisle appear not comply with AS2890.1.

·   Elevational shadow diagrams showing the northern walls of both the proposed development and the adjacent property to the south (no. 77 Milton Street) are to be submitted which show both existing and proposed shadows as well as the use of the rooms served by any north facing windows.  Please note that solar access must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013.

17.2015.16

21.04.2015

Meeting held at Council with applicant. The owner of the site explained that he wanted to discuss the height and FSR of the proposal and that it is appropriate in this instance to vary the FSR and height control for the reason that the building is existing.

 

The owner/applicant was requested to further justify as to the reasons and appropriateness from a planning view point why Council’s height and FSR control should be varied.

 

The owner/applicant indicated additional details would be provided for Council to consider.

 

It was agreed that Council would wait for the applicant/owners revised plans and that a 3 week period be given to provide the information.

17.2015.16

25.06.2015

7 day reminder letter sent to applicant.

17.2015.16

01.10.2015

Submission returned to applicant due to lack of response.

17.2015.16

16.12.2015

Development Application lodged “As-is” which failed to address a number of the issues originally raised.

10.2015.255.1

08.03.2016

Reported to Council meeting of 8 March with a recommendation for refusal.

10.2015.255.1

08.03.2016

Council resolved that the matter be deferred in order for the proponent to address the deficiencies noted in the report.

10.2015.255.1

07.04.2016

Reminder letter sent to applicant regarding amended plans.

10.2015.255.1

11.04.2016

Amended plans prepared.

10.2015.255.1

16.06.2016

Meeting regarding deficiencies in amended plans.

10.2015.255.1

25.07.2016

Further amended plans received.

10.2015.255.1

 

The above issues have been generally addressed in the submitted plans except as noted in this report.

 

5.0       Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.

The property is located within the vicinity of heritage items.

 

The proposed works for a residential flat building would ordinarily be prohibited in the R2 zone but are rendered permissible with Council consent by virtue of Ashfield LEP 2013, Schedule 1, Additional permissible uses, Clause 3: residential flat building permissible.

 

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 R2 Low density residential

 

(Schedule 1, Additional permissible uses, cl. 3: residential flat building permissible)

Residential flat building

Yes

4.3

Height of buildings

8.5m

6.95m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.58:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in the vicinity of:

·  Heritage Item I-422 (69 Milton Street);

·  Heritage Item I-378 (24 Cromwell Street);

·  Heritage Item I-376 (22 Cromwell Street);

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 area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared

under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

No comment provided.

 

N/A

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.

No heritage management document has been submitted, however, impacts on items in vicinity of the subject land are considered acceptable.

 

Acceptable

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development generally satisfies the provisions of ALEP 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

 

Due to long standing established residential use on the site, there is no cause to suspect that contamination exists on the land.

 

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.

 

Not applicable.

 

 

6.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy IDAP specifically addresses how the ADCP 2007 is to be interpreted in the context of ALEP 2013. A summary compliance table follows below:

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C1: Access, Adaptability and Mobility

Summary Compliance Table

(Design Checklist 1)

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Part C1

Access, Adaptability and Mobility

2.3(ii)

 

Universal Accessible Design

Low rise flats without lifts must have all ground level apartments must comply with universal accessible design principles in design checklist

Low rise flats.

 

Yes

2.4

Adaptable Housing

10%

10%

 

Yes

2.5

Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements

Site conditions

The site conditions are not such that they could be relied upon to justify any variations to the requirements.

N/A

6.2

Universal Accessible Design

All buildings referred to in clause 6.1 of this Part, 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 6 of this Part.

All ground floor units are accessible.

Yes

6.3

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

Inadequate detail provided.

Condition recommended.

 

Condition

6.4

Access from street to dwelling entry

Access from the street into the entry area of each ground floor unit by a person with a disability.

All ground floor units can be accessed.

 

Yes

6.5

Interior dwelling design

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

 

(f) All ground floor levels of townhouses must contain an area which contains a toilet and which is visitable by a person with disabilities.

Only Unit 01 complies. Compliance of other ground floor units can be addressed by way of condition of consent.

 

 

Condition

6.6

Access to private open space

(a) Private open space garden dimensions shall be wide enough to be able to accommodate a path accessible by wheelchair users.

(b) Garden dimensions shall be wide enough to allow tree planting and also meet the requirements of clause (a).

(c) Any balconies or verandahs shall be accessible.

Acceptable.

Yes

6.7

Access to car parking

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

A chair lift is proposed to the basement car park.

Yes

6.8

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.

The communal open space is accessible.

Yes

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C5: Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

3

Preferred Development

3.2

Ashfield’s Housing Character

Developments must meet the following criteria:

a) the defining characteristics of the site, its streetscape, community, and neighbourhood locality are understood;

b) the proposed architectural style is suitable for the site;

c) the proposed development has the potential to contribute to Ashfield’s housing heritage.

The form and character of the proposal is consistent with the diverse architectural character of the surrounding buildings.

Yes

3.5(a)

Building Appearance and Neighbourhood Character

Buildings at the front must be orientated to the principal street frontage, and dwellings adjacent to a public street must address the street by having a front door or living room or kitchen windows facing the street;

The form and character of the proposal is consistent with the diverse architectural character of the surrounding buildings.

Yes

3.5(b)

 

The building generally conforms with the building line on adjoining land and in the immediate locality;

The front setback is consistent with those of adjacent properties.

Yes

3.5(c)

 

Building facades are to have:

·   a clearly defined base-middle-top;

·   well-balanced vertical and horizontal proportions;

·   modulation, including breaking up large horizontal facades into smaller articulated sections, which are also compositionally integrated with the whole building;

·   architectural features which give human scale at street level, such as entry porches, pergolas and fences.

The building is well articulated.

Yes

3.5(d)

 

Building design, roof form, detailing and materials visible from public areas and adjoining properties should not be in strong visual contrast with any positive and characteristic features of neighbouring properties. Generally the materials and finishes of the building to be similar to the traditional finishes predominating in Ashfield. Buildings to usually be in bi-chromatic (two colour) face brick with gabled/hipped terra cotta tiled pitched roof forms with no reflective materials that may cause glare.

As noted previously, the finishes and materials are consistent with the diverse architectural character of the surrounding buildings.

 

Yes

3.5(e)

 

Building design enables individual dwellings to be identified from public streets.

The front units are identifiable from the street.

Yes

3.5(f)

 

Carports and garages to be compatible with the building design and not dominate the

street frontage.

All parking located in basement garage.

Yes

3.5(g)

 

Entries to underground parking not to be visible from the street front.

The visibility of the basement ramp has been minimised with the use of dark recessive finishes. This will be reinforced by consent conditions.

Condition

3.6

Fences and walls

 

 

 

3.6(a)

 

Front fences and walls to be compatible with the streetscape.

The proposed front fence is appropriate in the context.

Yes

3.6(b)

 

Front fences and walls to be no more than 1.2m high if solid and forward of the building line. Height may be increased to 1.8m if the fence has openings which make it not less than 50% transparent;

The front fence exceeds the maximum height. A condition has been recommended to reduce its height to 1.2m.

Condition

4

Housing Density

4.3

Floor Space Ratios

0.7:1

0.58:1

Yes

4.10

Subdivision

Strata subdivision size will be considered on its merits

Satisfactory.

Yes

4.11

Maximum dwelling size

Maximum gross floor area of a dwelling should not exceed 125m2. Smaller apartments are encouraged.

No dwellings exceed this size.

Yes

5

Siting, Building Height and Solar Access

5.4

Front Setback

To be consistent with the predominant setback of the buildings in the street.

Front setback is consistent with adjacent properties.

Yes

5.6

Orientation and Siting

Side and rear setbacks to be determined by amenity and urban design.

Development should not significantly affect adjoining property or resident amenity by:

a) increased overshadowing,

b) reduction in the level of privacy,

c) obstruction of views,

d) reduction in levels of daylight and ventilation.

Privacy and overshadowing issues have been adequately addressed.

Yes

5.8

 

Rear setbacks to allow adequate provision of green space between adjoining properties

The rear setback provides the required amount of communal open space.

Yes

5.9

Building Height

Defer to ALEP 2013

6.95m

Yes

5.9(a)

 

Not applicable in R2 zone

N/A

N/A

5.9(b)

 

Maximum roof pitch of 30 degrees may contain a 4th attic storey,

No fourth storey proposed.

N/A

5.11

 

Not applicable in R2 zone

N/A

N/A

5.12

 

Not applicable in R2 zone

N/A

N/A

5.13

 

Not applicable in R2 zone

N/A

N/A

5.15

Solar Access

80% of units to have at least one living room window with a northerly aspect

100%

Yes

5.16

 

Maximum amount of overshadowing:

5.16(a)

 

Sunlight to at least 50% (or 35m² with minimum dimension 2.5m, whichever is the lesser area) of the principal private area of ground level private open space of adjacent properties not to be reduced to less than three (3) hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Where existing overshadowing by buildings and fences is greater than this, sunlight is not further reduced by more than 20% at any one time.

Acceptable.

Yes

5.16(b)

 

Private courtyards within a development to receive 3 hours of sunlight over 50% of area, between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The courtyard to Unit 2 would not receive adequate sunlight due to the large residential flat building located on the site to the north. This is considered acceptable given the difficult site constraints.

Yes

5.16(c)

 

Existing solar access should be maintained to at least 40% of the glazed areas of any neighbouring north facing living room/dining room windows, for at least 3 hours between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (on 21 June). If existing solar access is already less than this standard, it should not be further reduced by more than 20% at any time.

The building to the south is already completely overshadowed at these times by the existing development. The proposal would not alter this situation.

Yes

5.16(d)

 

North facing windows within a new development should achieve the same standard of solar access.

The majority of north facing windows will receive adequate solar access except those to Unit 2 due to the large residential flat building located on the site to the north. This is considered acceptable given the difficult site constraints.

Yes

6

Privacy, Views and Outlook

6.3

Visual privacy

Visual privacy is required to meet the following standards, both within developments as well as across boundaries:

6.3(a)

 

Ground level direct facing windows to be a minimum of 9 metres apart or, where screening devices or planting is used, 6 metres apart. Direct facing includes an arc of 45º on either side of a window. If screening is used, the view of the area overlooked must be restricted within 9 metres and beyond an angle of 45º from the plane of the wall containing the opening, measured from a height of 1.7m above floor level.

The context of the site which includes a large carriage style walk up flat building to the north is very challenging. This has been addressed with the provision of privacy screens to the north facing balconies of the proposed building. While some overlooking would still be possible, this is considered acceptable given the provision of:

·   sliding privacy screens on balconies;

·   Screen planting along the boundary.

Yes

6.3(b)

 

As an alternative to 6.3 (a), windows to have minimum sill heights of 1.7m above floor level, or have fixed obscure glazing in any part of the window below 1.7m above floor level.

N/A

N/A

6.3(c)

 

Balconies, terraces and decks to be placed a minimum 12 metres away from any facing window or other balcony.

Balconies are 5.5m away from facing windows but suitable privacy measures compensate for this.

No

6.3(d)

 

Windows and balconies not to overlook adjoining areas of private open space. An outlook from windows, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks or other private, communal or public areas within a development to be obscured or screened where a direct view is available into adjoining areas of private open space.

Screening provided to southern elevation. In addition, a

condition has been recommended requiring south facing upper level windows to consist of translucent glass up to a height of 1.65m above floor level.

Yes

6.3(e)

 

no screening is required where:

·   windows are in bathrooms, toilets, laundries, storage rooms or other non-habitable rooms and they have translucent glazing or sill heights of at least 1.7m;

·   windows are in habitable rooms and they have sill heights of 1.7m or more above floor level or translucent glazing to any part of a window less than 1.7m above floor level.

These measures are applied where necessary.

Yes

6.4

 

these standards must be achieved within developments, as well as across boundaries.

Privacy is considered adequate.

Yes

6.5

Acoustic Privacy

The level of acoustic privacy is required to meet the following standards, both within developments as well as across boundaries:

6.5(a)

 

bedroom windows are to be at least 3 metres from shared streets, driveways and parking areas of other dwellings.

Complies.

Yes

6.5(b)

 

bedrooms of one dwelling are not to share walls with living rooms or garages of adjacent dwellings.

Complies.

Yes

6.8

Views and outlook

Distant views available from neighbouring properties should be maintained where possible, in keeping with principles of view sharing.

Complies.

Yes

6.9

 

High walls in close proximity to neighbours’ windows or open space should be reasonably set

back, irrespective of shadowing or privacy impacts.

Setbacks are appropriate to the streetscape and consistent with those on the adjacent properties.

Yes

6.10

 

All dwellings should have an open outlook to an area of landscaping

or open space not compromised by privacy measures.

Considered acceptable given the local context.

Yes

8

Open Space and Landscaping

8.6

Private and Communal Open Space

Each dwelling to have a private outdoor area which:

a) does not encroach upon the front setback;

b) is directly related to a main living area;

c) is private and protected from overlooking;

d) meets solar access standards;

e) minimises overlooking of neighbours;

f) accommodates various uses;

g) is accessible by someone with a disability.

Complies.

Yes

8.7

 

If at ground level,

·   Minimum area: 35m²

·   Minimum width 3m:

All ground level units comply.

Yes

8.8

Balcony Size

If no private outdoor area at ground level, to be provided by a balcony or deck, with a minimum area of 10m², and a minimum dimension of 2m.

All balconies comply.

Yes

8.9

Communal Open Space

Communal open space exclusive of any drying or service areas to include a single open area with minimum dimensions of 10 metres by 12 metres.

If more than 6 units, the area to be increased by 5m2 per unit. Area should be adapted for active and passive recreation and may include children’s play areas, barbeque areas and the like.

 

Required: 130m2

177m2

 

 

Yes

8.10

Landscaping Standards

Minimum landscaped area:

35% of the site area.

To be at finished ground level with a minimum width of 2 metres.

35%

 

Yes

8.11

Tree Preservation

A Tree Preservation Order covers all trees over 5 metres in height with a trunk girth of 350mm at ground level, (excluding Leyland Cypress Pine, privet, oleander, umbrella trees, cotoneaster, rubber trees, citrus and mulberry trees.

No significant tree removal proposed.

Yes

8.13

 

Retain sufficient curtilage around existing trees to ensure their retention.

No significant tree removal proposed.

N/A

8.14

 

Avoid removal or significant modification of any existing street tree along the frontage of the site.

No significant tree removal proposed.

N/A

9

Safety and Security

9.2

Security

Buildings adjacent to public or communal streets or open space to have at least one habitable room window with an outlook to that area.

All buildings overlook all communal circulation areas.

Yes

9.3

 

Visitors should be visible without the need to open the front door.

Would require intercom system or eye hole.

Condition

9.4

 

Shared entries to serve a maximum of eight dwellings and be lockable.

Single entry path serves 11 dwellings but this is not unusual/problematic for this type of layout.

Acceptable

10

Design for Climate

10.1

Energy Conservation

BASIX Certificate must be provided.

BASIX Certificate has been provided.

Yes

10.2 – 10.7

Water Conservation

BASIX Certificate must be provided.

BASIX Certificate has been provided.

Yes

10.8

Air movement

Harness breezes and provide fresh air indoors

All units have excellent cross ventilation.

Yes

10.11

Services, lighting and appliances

Dwelling design should encourage energy efficiency.

BASIX Certificate has been provided.

Yes

10.16

Noise on rail/traffic routes

Where road or rail noise is an issue, buildings to be sited to:

· minimise the infiltration of noise into the buildings and the lot;

· provide an acoustic barrier for private and communal open space;

· reduces reflection of noise on to other buildings;

· ensure affected windows are acoustically treated from road or rail noise.

The development is well separated from the road and rail line and as such should experience minimal road or rail noise.

Yes

11

Stormwater Drainage

11.1

Objectives

a) to provide safety for the public in major storm events, and protect property from damage by flooding;

b) to ensure adequate stormwater detention and run-off controls are provided for site drainage;

c) to improve urban amenity through maintenance of natural drainage lines;

d) to protect and maintain existing infrastructure of the LGA.

The stormwater plans are not satisfactory but can be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions.

 

Condition

12

Site Facilities

12.8

Storage

Must be adequately screened from frontage.

Storage in basement.

Yes

12.9

Mailboxes

To be located close to each ground-floor dwelling entry or close to the major pedestrian entrance to the site.

Mailbox location has not been nominated.

Condition

12.10

Clothes drying

Communal clothes drying facilities to be easily accessible to all residents and screened from streets and communal recreational areas.

Location of clothes drying facilities has not been nominated.

Condition

12.11

 

External clothes-drying area shall to be provided at the rate of 1.5 square metres per unit.

Location of clothes drying facilities has not been nominated.

Condition

12.12

Television aerials

Only one television reception device per strata title development screened from public view.

Not nominated.

Condition

 

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 = 1 space

1 space

Yes

4.2

Bicycle and Motor Cycle Parking

Bicycle spaces:

· 1 space per 10 units =1

Motor cycle spaces:

· 1 space per 25 spaces  = 0

Bicycle spaces:   0

Motor cycle spaces:  0

(note: could be easily located in basement).

Condition

4.3

Parking Rates for Specific Land Uses

Residential spaces:

·   1 space per unit , + 1 for every 5 two bed units + 1 per every 2 three bedroom units = 9

Visitor spaces:

·   1 space per 5 units = 2

Car wash bay:

·   1 space = 1

TOTAL:  12

Residential spaces:

·   9

 

Visitor spaces:

·   2

 

Car wash bay:

·   1 space = 1

 

Yes

 

Condition space 13 as car wash bay

5.0

Design Requirements

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

Design is compliant with Australian Standard.

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 (8 dwellings):

·   1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=4 bins

·   1 x 240L recycling bin/2 dwellings=4 bins

·   TOTAL: 8 bins

Residential:

·   4 x 240L garbage bins

·   4 x 240L recycling bins

TOTAL: 8 bins

 

Yes

 

Bin Presentation

 

Adequate kerb space to present 8 waste bins along the kerb.

Yes

 

It is considered the application generally complies with the parts as indicated and achieves the aims and objectives of the AIDAP 2013.

 

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.

 

These matters have been considered as part of the assessment of the development application.  It is considered that the proposed development will not have any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts upon the locality.

 

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 original proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 21 December 2015 until 18 January 2016. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable. It was not considered necessary to re-notify the amended plans given that they lessened the impacts of the proposal and the amendments address the issues raised by objectors.

 

6.7.1    Summary of submissions

 

Three submissions (Attachment 3) were received during the notification of the development application.

 

Submission from

Address

G. Angelopopoulos

Ashfield NSW 2131

A. & T. Scavo

Ashfield NSW 2131

A. Semrani

Kingsgrove NSW 2208

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

Ugly and out of keeping with surrounding period homes.

Although the design is contemporary, the site is not located in a conservation area and the aesthetic is considered acceptable given the local context, which has varying architectural styles.

Inadequate parking.

The number of parking spaces has been increased and is now compliant.

Southern setback is inadequate and would result in privacy impacts on property to rear.

The proposal has been amended to minimise privacy impacts to the rear.

Overlooking of property to rear and its swimming pool and rear garden.

Upper level windows to the rear have been minimised. Notwithstanding this, conditions have been recommended which require the provision of translucent glass on these windows to eliminate any privacy concerns.

 

6.8       The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposal is considered acceptable, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent.

 

7.0       Referrals

 

Internal Referrals

Officer

Comments

Support

Building Surveyor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Drainage Engineer

Supported subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Deferred commencement condition

Traffic Engineer

 

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Heritage Advisor

No objection.

Yes

Environmental Health Officer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Waste Management

Supported subject to conditions:

 

Yes

 

9.0       Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 94 contributions are payable to Council should the application be approved.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

See 7.0.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

See 6.7.1

 

 

 

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 subject land is compromised by the location a substantial residential flat development to the north which both overshadows and creates privacy impacts through extensive overlooking of the site.

 

In this context the proposal is an acceptable development for the site which is compliant with the principal planning controls of building height, floor space, setbacks and other standards. Although it orientates the majority of its units towards the north side boundary potentially creating privacy issues with the adjacent residential flat building this has been managed by way of a combination of privacy screens and landscaping.

 

The outstanding issues in respect of stormwater drainage, which require further resolution, can be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions. The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for deferred commencement approval.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plans of Proposal

2.

Locality Map

3.

Heritage Advice

4.

Conditions

5.

Submissions

  


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 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


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 6

Subject:         Development Application - 2-20 Weston Street, Balmain East  

File Ref:         16/4718/94081.16         

Prepared By: Elizabeth Richardson - Manager Assessments, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

Development Application D/2015/299 seeks consent for the adaptive reuse of Fenwick stone building as a licenced cafe with gallery space including associated accessibility improvements, public toilet facilities, new access path and reconfiguration of car parking in Illoura Reserve.

Council is the applicant and landowner.

The application has been considered by the Leichhardt Planning Panel, and is now referred to an Ordinary meeting for determination.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the application be determined in accordance with the recommendation of the Leichhardt Planning Panel.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The most recent resolution of the former Leichhardt Council on this matter is as follows:

 

C123/15P RESOLVED McKENZIE/ JOBLING

 

1.       That Council consent to the lodgement of a new Development Application for the adaptive re-use of the Fenwick’s Stone Building as a licenced café with gallery space with associated accessibility improvements and public toilet facilities as per the plans produced by Welsh and Major Architects (WMA) DA 01 to DA 11 and Leichhardt Council (LMC) DA 01-02 Accessible Walkway and A1-838 Illoura Reserve Proposed Angled Parking.

2.       That the proposed Development Application for the adaptive re-use of the Fenwick’s stone building be amended to exclude seating on the first floor external western terrace and the first floor external southern balcony.

3.       That tenders for the construction of the fit out works be called after the Development Application has been assessed and approved.

4.       That the seating in the café be restricted to a maximum of 80 persons.

5.       That in order to facilitate linking of parks and to promote biodiversity on the Peninsula there should be 15 native trees and shrubs planted on the Eastern and Southern sides of the site as per recommendation of April 2013.

6.       That Council rescinds its earlier delegation to the General Manager for the development application for Fenwick’s store.

7.       That Council refers the development application for Fenwick’s Store to the IHAP for its consideration.

8.       That Council determines the development application for Fenwick’s Store based on the IHAP recommendation.

9.       That the trading hours of the café be 7am to 7pm.

10.     That within the EOI process consideration be given to Council retaining care, control and management of the gallery space.

 

Report

Development Application D/2015/299 seeks consent for the adaptive reuse of Fenwick stone building as a licenced cafe with gallery space including associated accessibility improvements, public toilet facilities, new access path and reconfiguration of car parking in Illoura Reserve.

Officers consider that section 47E of the Local Government Act 1993 prevents this application being determined by a delegate of the Council (including the Leichhardt Planning Panel).

In accordance with the resolution of Leichhardt Council above, the Leichhardt Planning Panel considered the Development Assessment Report provided at Attachment 1.

The Panel resolved:

The panel recommends that Council determine the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation subject to the following changes;

 

·    Condition 4, reference to the existing building should be replaced with reference to “New Work”

·    Add new condition 3a, prior to release of a Construction Certificate confirmation of the appointment of the Heritage Consultant (referred to in condition 2 is to be received). 

·    Condition 24, to be amended to read: A Landscape Plan generally in accordance with the Tree Planting Concept is to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect or Landscape Consultant must be approved by Council.…(Remainder of condition unchanged).

·    Change Condition 40 to 40A

·    Add Condition 40B, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate the nominated Heritage Consultant is to certify that the work has been carried out in accordance with this approval.

 

Panel Notes: It is recommended that a lockable gate to the public toilet area be considered.

 

The essence of the additional conditions recommended by the Panel are extra oversight by a heritage consultant during the building process; and for the landscape plan referred to in Condition 24 to be generally in accordance with the submitted Tree Concept Plan.

 

No objections are raised by officers to the conditions.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s Manager Urban Design & Project Management, Leichhardt raises no concern or objection to the additional conditions recommended by the Leichhardt Planning Panel.

 

With respect to the lockable gate recommended by the Panel, a lockable security screen is proposed at the threshold into the public toilet area. Whilst 24-hour access to the public toilets is currently proposed, this will be the subject of review and on-going management by Council.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The applicant and all submitters will be advised of the determination of this application.

 

 

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 is considered acceptable and it is recommended that the application be determined in accordance with the recommendation of the Leichhardt Planning Panel.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Development Assessment Report

  


Council Meeting

23 August 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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 7

Subject:         Development Application - Longport Street, Lewisham (2 - 32 Smith Street, Summer Hill)  

File Ref:         DA201500584/90216.16         

Prepared By: Patrick Nash - Town Planner Development Assessment, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to construct a 6 part 9 storey residential flat building comprising 98 dwellings, over 3 levels of basement car parking for a total of 102 car spaces and the creation of a new private access across Hawthorne Canal with associated on-street parking, road works and landscaping.

This application proposes the development of Stage 4 (DA 1) of the Concept Plan (MP10_0155 – originally approved on 7 December 2012 and modified on 10 March 2015 and 16 May 2016) for the former Allied Mills flour mill site located at 2-32 Smith Street, Summer Hill.  

The development application relates to a type of development that the Minister of Planning and Environment has categorised as being of regional significance. The Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel is the consent authority for the purposes of determining the application.

Council officers have carried out an assessment of the application and the Council officer’s report on the application will be forwarded to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the Regional Panel’s consideration. A copy of the Council officer’s assessment report on the development application is provided as Attachment 1. The officer’s report recommends that the application be approved.

The matter has been set down for hearing by the Panel on Thursday 15 September 2016 at the Christie Centre, Level 3, 3 Spring Street, Sydney.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council determine whether a submission to the Panel will be made in relation to the proposal, and if so, the contents of such submission.

 

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

A development application (DA201500584) was submitted to Council on 16 October 2015, seeking consent to construct a 6 part 9 storey residential flat building comprising 98 dwellings, over 3 levels of basement car parking for a total of 102 car spaces and the creation of a new private access across Hawthorne Canal with associated on-street parking, road works and landscaping.

The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 4 submissions were received in response to the neighbour notification.

Council officers have carried out an assessment of the application and the officer’s report on the application will be forwarded to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for the Regional Panel’s consideration. The officer’s report recommends that the application be approved.

A copy of the report on the application for the Joint Regional Planning Panel’s consideration is provided as Attachment 1.

 

2.         Council representation to a Joint Regional Planning Panel

 

Section 4.11 of the Department of Planning and Environment’s “Joint Regional Planning Panels Operational Procedures” relates to “Council representation to the Regional Panel”. That section of the Procedures reads as follows:

 

          4.11      Council representation to the Regional Panel

 

An elected council may make a submission on a DA within their LGA that is to be determined by a regional panel up to seven days before the regional panel meeting. The applicant may consider it appropriate to provide a briefing to council prior to the council prior to the council framing its submission to the panel.

 

After the assessment report has been forwarded to the secretariat, it may be provided to the elected council to assist in its decision as to whether it will be making a submission to the regional panel. The elected council’s submission should not be prepared by persons involved in the assessment of the application, and should be prepared by another council officer, or a consultant.

 

A council submission may not be specifically addressed in the assessment report or recommendations prepared by the council staff. If council makes a submission, a staff representative or individual Councillors may register to address the regional panel at the meeting to express the views of council.

 

Councillors who are also panel members have an independent role because they have been nominated by their council as its nominee to the regional panel. They should declare any interest in a DA for regional development that comes before their council (or council committee) meeting. They should also not remain in the council chamber during council’s deliberations.”

 

 

3.       Conclusion

 

The Panel Secretariat has advised that the matter has been scheduled for hearing by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on Thursday 15 September 2016 in the Christie Centre Conference Centre, 3 Spring Street, Sydney.

 

Council needs to determine whether it wishes to make a submission to the Panel in relation to the proposal, and if so, the contents of such submission. It should be noted that specific time constraints apply to the Council making a submission on a development application that is required to be determined by a Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

Under the Department of Planning and Environment’s “Procedures for the operation of Joint Regional Planning Panels” any submission that the Council make in relation to the proposal should be received by Panel Secretariat no later than Thursday 8 September 2016, on the basis of the matter being considered by the Panel on Thursday 15 September 2016.

 

 

 

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council determine whether a submission to the Joint Regional Planning Panel – Sydney East will be made in relation to the proposal, and if so, the contents of such submission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Officer's JRPP Report

  


Council Meeting

23 August 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


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

23 August 2016

 

Item No:         C0816 Item 8

Subject:         Development Application - 23 Croydon Street, Petersham 

File Ref:         DA201500665/93098.16        

Prepared By: Kaitlin Zieme - Town Planner Development Assessment, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building fronting Croydon Street (Building A) containing 4 dwellings with a communal kitchen and BBQ area and the construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building to the rear (Building B) containing 18 dwellings with basement car parking.

The application was notified in accordance with Council's notification policy and 15 submissions were received. Amended plans were received during the assessment of the application and were not required to be renotified as they had a lesser impact than the original proposal.

The development results in a departure ranging from 1.27 to 1.5 metres (13.4% to 15.8%) from the height of building development standard and 608.75m² (53%) from the FSR development standard prescribed by Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011. The application was accompanied by written requests under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in support of the proposed variations which are accepted 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 proposal incorporates sympathetic adaptation of a contributory building which is an important element of the Croydon Street streetscape and Petersham North Heritage Conservation Area.

The application is referred to Council for determination in view of the extent of the departures from the maximum building height and FSR development standards, 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:                     Southern side of Croydon Street, Petersham between Railway Street and Palace Street.

 

 

Image 1: Location Map

 

D/A No:                        201500665

 

Application Date:        24 November 2015. Additional information submitted on 23 February 2016, 20 April 2016, 6 May 2016, 10 June 2016, 20 July 2016 and 9 August 2016.

 

Proposal:                     To demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building fronting Croydon Street (Building A) containing 4 dwellings with a communal kitchen and BBQ area and the construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building to the rear (Building B) containing 18 dwellings with basement car parking.

 

Estimated Cost:          $6,099,330.00

 

Applicant:                    Ciderstorm Pty Limited

 

Zoning:                        R1 - General Residential

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

 

Improvements:            2 storey residential flat building

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 2: The Site

 

Current Use:               Residential

 

Prior Determinations:          No relevant prior determinations.

 

Environment:              Residential

 

 

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                                11 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)                        0.6:1                                          0.92:1

 

3        Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type                                                       Required                                  Proposed

Car Parking                                            Refer to body of report

Landscaping and Open Space               Refer to body of report

Dwelling Mix                                           Refer to body of report

Site Coverage                                         Refer to body of report

Setbacks                                                  Refer to body of report

 

4        Community Consultation:

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

Submissions:       15 submissions

 

5        Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation:                                                                             20-25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014:                   $308,295.15

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.       The Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Croydon Street, Petersham between Railway Street and Palace Street. The legal description of the site is Lot 15 in Deposited Plan 54392 and Lot B in Deposited Plan 361172, more commonly known as 23 Croydon Street, Petersham.

The site is irregular in shape being an inverted L shaped block with a 20.115 metre frontage to Croydon Street and 23.24 metre frontage to the rear of 25 and 27 Croydon Street. The rear boundary is 39.085 metres and adjoins Brighton Street Park.

The front of the site currently contains a 2 part 3 storey residential flat building with vehicular and pedestrian access from Croydon Street, whilst the rear of the site is vacant and contains a centrally located large camphor laurel tree.

The surrounding area is characterised by residential development with single and 2 storey dwelling houses and 2 and 3 storey residential flat buildings and is located in the Petersham Estate Heritage Conservation Area listed under Schedule 5 of Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011. The adjoining site to the east at 21 Croydon Street contains a single storey brick dwelling house and to the west at 25 Croydon Street is a 2 storey brick dwelling house.

 

2.       Background

On 9 February 2016, Council sought additional information from the applicant to address issues outlined by Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Officer, Tree Management Officer and Waste Management Section regarding pedestrian access, architectural expression, ceiling heights the impact of the car park access on neighboring trees, shortfall in replacement planting, and bin storage.

On 23 February 2016, additional information including amended plans was submitted addressing the heritage and urban design and waste management issues.

On 20 April 2016, additional information including amended plans regarding tree management issues was submitted to Council.

On 22 April 2016, Council requested additional information regarding parking and requesting revised Clause 4.6 variation requests.

On 6 May 2016, further additional information was submitted relating to vehicular access and the neighboring properties tree, car parking, and including revised Clause 4.6 variation requests to the height of building control and FSR as a result of the amended plans submitted.

On 10 June 2016, amended plans were submitted including a work method statement for the works proposed to existing retaining walls and tree management.

On 30 June 2016, Council met with the applicant to discuss the application and requested that amendments be made to the western portion of the northern elevation of Building B to comply with Council’s setback controls.

On 20 July 2016 amended plans were submitted increasing the setbacks of the western portion of the northern elevation of Building B behind 25 and 27 Croydon Street. Subsequently revised Clause 4.6 variations were submitted in support of the variations to building height and FSR. The addition of 4 double car stackers to the basement was also included as part of these amended plans. 

On 9 August 2016 revised plans were submitted indicating the in apartment storage areas for the development.

The final version of the amended plans is the subject of this report.

 

3.       The Proposal

Approval is sought to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building fronting Croydon Street (Building A) to comprise 4 dwellings with a communal kitchen and BBQ area to be located in the centre of the site and the construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building to the rear (Building B) containing 18 dwellings with basement car parking.

The development proposes the demolition of the western section and rear wing of the existing residential flat building. The restoration and modification to the existing building results in 4 residential units being retained within the existing building to be known as Building A and construction of a driveway and ramp to the rear of the site along the western boundary. A 3 storey RFB with basement car parking identified as Building B is proposed to be constructed at the rear of the site containing 18 residential units. The development will result in a total of 7 x 1 Bedroom and 15 x 2 Bedroom apartments, with 4 of the 22 apartments being accessible.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 3: Basement Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 4: Lower Ground Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 5: Ground Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 6: Level 1 Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 7: Level 2 Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 8: Roof Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 9: Front Elevation (Croydon Street)

 

Image 10: Rear Elevation (Facing Brighton Street Park)

 

Image 11: Western Side Elevation

 

Image 12: Eastern Side Elevation

 

 

Image 13: Section

 

Image 14: Section

 

 

 

Image 15: Section

 

 

Image 16: Section

 

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) provides planning guidelines for remediation of contaminated land.  Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011) provides controls and guidelines for remediation works. 

Given the residential history of uses on the site, it is considered unlikely that the site would be contaminated and unsuitable for the development.  As such, the proposal satisfies the relevant provisions contained within SEPP 55.

 

5.       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (Amendment 3)

The development is subject to the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65). SEPP 65 prescribes 9 design quality principles to guide the design of residential apartment development and to assist in assessing such developments. The principles relate to key design issues including context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, density, sustainability, landscape, amenity, safety, housing diversity and social interaction and aesthetics.

A statement from a qualified Architect was submitted with the application verifying that they designed, or 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.

In accordance with Clause 30 of the SEPP if the development satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application on the following matters:

·        if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the ADG,

·        if the internal area for each apartment will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the relevant apartment type specified in Part 4D of the ADG,

·        if the ceiling heights for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the ADG.

 

Compliance with the above is discussed in greater detail below. Overall, 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 as follows:

 

Communal Open Space

The ADG prescribes the following requirements for communal and open space:

·    Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site.

·    Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

 

The application proposes 254sqm of communal open space in the form of a landscaped area and communal facility between Building A and B which equates to 13.4% of the site area. The proposed communal open space is considered high quality as it is centrally located on the site between the 2 buildings and would provide for active recreation use and would comprise 50% deep soil. A communal kitchen and BBQ area is proposed with large, medium and small stature trees to be planted for future canopy cover and embellishment. The significant size of the space and use as a main pedestrian thoroughfare to Building B would ensure a high level of surveillance over this area.

Whilst the development does not meet the minimum requirement of 25% of the site being provided as communal open space, all apartments within Building B contain large private balconies, with the ground floor level units having large areas of deep soil landscaping all in excess of the minimum requirements of the ADG. The location of the site sharing a rear boundary with Brighton Street Park provides a unique opportunity for a private link to the public open space and surveillance opportunities for both the development and existing park. It is considered that the communal open space proposed, whilst non-compliant with the numerical requirement of the ADG would be a high quality, useable space and given the size of the balconies proposed to each unit combined with the proximity of the site to the existing park the future occupants of the development would have access to ample public and private open space areas for recreation. 

The communal open space receives solar access from 12pm on 21 June, however due to the orientation of the site and the space being located between the 2 buildings and surrounding developments, only 36% of the space receives a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight access, with this increased to 43% between 2pm and 3pm on 21 June. Whilst the development does not meet the minimum requirement, the area that would receive the 2 hours is 91sqm in size which is considered to provide sufficient area for passive recreation and does not compromise the usability of the communal open space. In addition the proposed covered bbq area and adjoining communal kitchen would be unaffected by solar access and could be utilized in all types of weather providing a high level of usability for the future occupants of the development.

 

Deep Soil Zones

The ADG prescribes the following minimum requirements for deep soil zones:

 

Site Area

Minimum Dimensions

Deep Soil Zone

(% of site area)

Less then 650m2

-

 

 

7%

650m2 - 1,500m2

3m

Greater than 1,500m2

6m

Greater than 1,500m2 with significant existing tree cover

6m

 

The application proposes 4.8% of the site with deep soil landscaping which has a minimum dimension of 6 metres and is not located over the basement car park which does not meet the required 7%. However, the development would include a 3 metre wide deep soil landscaped area is at the rear of Building B adjoining the park providing an additional 95sqm with a or 5% deep soil area which is co-located with the park and considered a consistent transition from public to private open space. The 2 spaces combined provide 9.8% of the site with deep soil landscaping and although the entire area would not meet the minimum dimension of 6 metres, the areas would provide adequate deep soil zones for the provision of landscaping and replacement tree planting and is considered acceptable.

 

Visual Privacy/Building Separation

The ADG prescribes the following minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries:

 

Building Height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12 metres (4 storeys)

6 metres

3 metres

 

Existing Building A will be maintained with the exception of the western side boundary which will be increased from a nil boundary side setback to have a 3.8 metre side boundary setback, whilst habitable rooms are proposed within the existing building and 5 new openings on this elevation, it is considered that the increase to the existing side boundary setback will be an improvement in terms of privacy, solar access and reduction in bulk and scale to the side boundary.

Building B is proposed to have a 3 metre rear (southern) boundary setback to Brighton Street Park along the southern elevation. Whilst habitable rooms and balconies are proposed within the 6 metre required separation, the non-compliance is considered acceptable given that there will be no visual or acoustic privacy impacts to the park. The increase in passive surveillance and active interface between the development and the park is considered acceptable.

The western elevation of Building B is proposed to be setback a minimum of 3.5 metres to the lower ground floor terrace of apartment 5B and 4.5 metres to the terrace and bedroom of apartment 4B. Given the western side boundary adjoins a common driveway servicing townhouses at 31 Croydon Street the actual separation between habitable rooms and balconies of the proposed development and the neighboring development is a minimum of 10.5 metres.

The eastern elevation of Building B is proposed to be setback a minimum 2.4 metres to the lower ground floor terrace of apartment 1B and a 4.5 metre setback to the terrace of apartment 2B. On the upper levels there would be a minimum 4.2 metres setback to the habitable rooms and 4.5metres to the balconies. The eastern side boundary of Building B adjoins the rear boundary of No.46 Railway Street and the rear of No.21 Croydon Street. The subject site experiences a fall to the south towards the rear boundary and as a result the proposed development would be set below the natural ground level of the adjoining properties. The lower ground floor level of Building B has a Finished Floor Level of RL32.250 and ground floor level has an RL of 35.35 whilst the rear yard of 21 Croydon Street has an RL of 34.45 adjacent to the existing outbuilding with the outbuilding at the rear of 46 Railway Street having a roof with an RL of 36.2, meaning that the entire lower ground floor level of the proposal will sit below the adjoining property boundary fencing and would not have any privacy or amenity impacts.

The dwelling house of 21 Croydon Street is setback 10.5 metres from Building B, similarly the dwelling at 46 Railway Street is setback 19 metres from the boundary. Whilst the ground and first floor would be visible from the adjoining properties, the 4.5 metre setback of Building B to the boundary and large setback of the buildings on the neighboring properties to the site and location of outbuildings would restrict sight lines into the adjoining properties and ensure the development has minimal privacy impacts. 

During the assessment of the application the western half of the northern elevation of Building B was amended to provide increased setbacks to the adjoining properties at 25 and 27 Croydon Street. The northern elevation as amended has a minimum 4.779 metre setback to the terrace of the lower ground floor apartment and 6 metres to the habitable room with window of apartment 5B on the lower ground floor level. The terrace of this apartment would have a 4 metre setback, however is screened by a brick wall. Similarly the slope of the site and design of the building stepping down with the slope results in the lower ground floor and terraces having a finished floor level that is at minimum 0.66 metres below the natural ground level of the rear yards of the adjoining properties at 25 and 27 Croydon Street. The existing dwellings at 25 and 27 Croydon Street are setback more than 14 metres to the shared property boundary and this combined with the compliant setback of Building B to the boundary and existing mature vegetation and proposed new tree plantings will provide an acceptable level of privacy between the development and adjoining properties.  

The ADG prescribes the following minimum required separation distances from buildings within the same site:

 

Room Types

Minimum Separation

Habitable Rooms/Balconies to Habitable Rooms/Balconies

12 metres

Habitable Rooms to Non-Habitable Rooms

9 metres

Non-Habitable Rooms to Non-Habitable Rooms

6 metres

 

The proposed development has a minimum 21.212 metre setback between Building A and Building B thereby complying with the separation requirement prescribed.

 

Solar and Daylight Access

The ADG prescribes the following requirements for solar and daylight access:

·   Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm at mid-winter.

·   A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm at mid-winter.

 

18 of the 22 units, i.e. 81% of the dwellings will receive solar access in accordance with the above requirements thereby complying with the solar and daylight access controls, affording good amenity for future occupants. 

 

Natural Ventilation

The ADG prescribes the following requirements for natural ventilation:

·   At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first 9 storeys of the building. Apartments at 10 storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed.

·   Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18 metres, measured glass line to glass line.

 

72% of the apartments proposed will have natural cross ventilation. None of the apartments would have a depth exceeding 18 metres.

 

Ceiling Heights

The ADG prescribes the following minimum ceiling heights:

Minimum Ceiling Height

Habitable Rooms

2.7 metres

Non-Habitable

2.4 metres

For 2 storey apartments

2.7 metres for main living area floor

2.4 metres for second floor, where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area

Attic Spaces

1.8 metres edge of room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

If located in mixed used area

3.3 for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use

 

All of the apartments would have minimum 2.7 metre ceiling heights. The existing garage within building A which would be converted to bicycle parking, bin storage and the communal kitchen have existing ceiling heights of 2.1 metres which do not comply, however as the building is existing and the spaces would not be used as habitable rooms this is considered acceptable.

 

Apartment Size

The ADG prescribes the following minimum apartment sizes:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio apartments

35m2

1 Bedroom apartments

50m2

2 Bedroom apartments

70m2

3 Bedroom apartments

90m2

 

All of the proposed dwellings comply with the minimum internal apartment size requirements. Existing apartments 1A and 4A in Building A have an internal floor area of 48sqm which does not meet the minimum requirement for a 1 bedroom unit. The shortfall of 2sqm is acceptable as these are apartments are existing and maintain a contributory building in the heritage conservation area.

 

Apartment Layout

The existing and proposed apartment layouts comply with the prescribed ADG requirements in the following manner:

 

·        Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.

·        Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height.

·        In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8 metres from a window.

·        Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space).

·        Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3 metres (excluding wardrobe space).

·        Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

§ 3.6 metres for studio and 1 bedroom apartments.

§ 4 metres for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.

·        The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4 metres internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies

The ADG prescribes the following sizes for primary balconies of apartments:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio apartments

4m2

-

1 Bedroom apartments

8m2

2 metres

2 Bedroom apartments

10m2

2 metres

3+ Bedroom apartments

12m2

2.4 metres

Note:   The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1 metres.

The ADG also prescribes for apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space area is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3 metres.

 

All of the proposed apartments within Building B and 2 of the 4 existing apartments within Building A meet the above requirements. Apartment 2A and 3A within Building A do not have any private open space or balconies. The retention of the existing building which does not afford these apartments with private open space is considered acceptable given the nature of the development in maintaining the existing contributory building. The development provides a large communal open space at the rear of Building A and adjoins Brighton Street Park and as a result in this instance the existing non-compliance is considered acceptable.

 

Common Circulation and Spaces

The ADG prescribes the following requirements for common circulation and spaces:

 

·        The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is 8.

·        For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.

                    

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on each single level is 6 which complies with this requirement.

 

Storage

The ADG prescribes the following storage requirements in addition to storage in kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio apartments

4m3

1 Bedroom apartments

6m3

2 Bedroom apartments

8m3

3+ Bedroom apartments

10m3

Note:   At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

 

All of the apartments have storage provided within the unit and the basement car park. The existing apartments within Building A do not have a minimum of 50% of the required storage provided within the unit, however as the apartments are existing this is considered acceptable. The development has a total of 164m3 of storage area within the basement and further storage area within the garbage/storage area of Building A. This combined with the in apartment storage meets the requirements above. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring that each unit be provided with access to an individual storage cage within the development.

 

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

 

A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application indicating that 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.

 

7.       Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

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

 

The site is zoned R1 – General Residential under the provisions of MLEP 2011. The development is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land.

 

The development is acceptable having regard to the objectives of the R1 - General Residential 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 land under MLEP 2011. The development has a maximum building height of 11 metres (existing building height of retained building) which does not comply with the development standard.

 

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

 

(iv)    Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6:1 applies to the development under MLEP 2011.

 

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 1746.38sqm which equates to a FSR of 0.92:1 on the 1896sqm site which does not comply with the development standard.

 

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 later in this report under the heading “Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)”.

 

(v)     Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

 

As detailed earlier in this report, the development exceeds the maximum building height development standard prescribed under Clause 4.3 of MLEP 2011 and floor space ratio development standard prescribed under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011. A written request in relation to the contravention to the building height and floor space ratio development standards in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011 was submitted with the application.

 

Building Height

The application proposes a maximum building height of 11 metres for Building A which is existing and would remain unchanged and represents a 1.5 metre or 15.8% variation to the height of building control. Proposed Building B at the rear of the site would have a maximum building height, of 10.77 metres which represents a 1.27 metre or 13.4% variation. The applicant considers compliance with the development standard to be unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

-     The proposal has been designed with consideration for the building height control, the retention of an existing contributory building and is a reasonable response to the context and setting of the site surrounding residential development and in close proximity to the public park;

-     The development maintains majority of the existing contributory building that makes a positive contribution to the Petersham North Heritage Conservation Area;

-     The height of Building B has been stepped down with the slope of the site as far as practically possible with constraints on the level of excavation for the driveway due to the required retention of the liquid amber tree on the adjoining property;

-     The overall height of Building B is generally lower than the setting created by the existing surrounding buildings;

-     It is highly likely that surrounding properties will be re-developed to higher densities due to the higher bonus density provisions applying to those properties, as a result the height of the development would not be out of character with the future built form or context;

-     The overshadowing on the adjoining property at 25 Croydon Street will be reduced due to the demolition of the western portion of Building A and increase in the side boundary setback of the building by 4 metres;

-     The minor portion of Building B which exceeds the maximum building height will have negligible increased overshadowing over the adjoining park and all adjoining properties will receive the minimum solar access requirements in accordance with the planning controls;

-     The non-compliance of Building B in the form of clerestory windows on the roof of the new building provide natural light to the upper level apartments without creating overlooking impacts to neighbouring properties;

-     The retention of the existing contributory building provides an upper level to the transition in building height within the locality and the siting of Building B will utilise an infill opportunity at the rear of the site without impacting on the streetscape or amenity of adjoining properties;

-     The development meets the objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone by providing upgraded housing in the existing building and new apartments with a variety of sizes and layouts, the residential flat building will complement the existing variety of housing being terraces, townhouses, detached dwelling and small residential flat buildings;

-     Improvements to the existing non-compliant building will retain and enhance the role of the existing building in the HCA;

-     Strict compliance with the height of building control would be counterproductive in terms of heritage integrity, internal amenity, streetscape and impacts to neighbouring properties;

-     The proposal will allow for improved passive surveillance of the adjoining park;

-     The existing building presentation to Croydon Street will be improved through a high quality urban outcome; and

-     The architecturally designed residential flat buildings will provide an improved streetscape presentation and building form that includes good quality finishes and materials and will activate the locality.

 

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 Height 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 detailed in this report, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given that:

·    The site has a significant fall from Croydon Street to the rear adjoining Brighton Street Park, the proposed transition in height from the existing non-compliant residential flat building on the site and surrounding properties to the proposed residential flat building provides an appropriate transition in scale, the 1.27 metre or 13.4% variation is considered appropriate given the context of the site;

·    The non-compliance with the standard does not contribute to adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing, visual impacts or view loss. The reduction in building footprint of the existing building would improve solar access and visual privacy to the adjoining property at 25 Croydon Street;

·    The site is a deep lot and represents a unique opportunity to provide for increased housing density that is contained away from the main street frontage and has active connection with Brighton Street Park; and

·    The high quality architectural design of Building B and high quality restoration works and improvement proposed to existing Building A promotes a high standard of design in the private and public domain in accordance with Clause 1.2 of MLEP 2011.

 

It is considered that the applicant’s written submission has satisfactorily addressed the relevant matters under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 and as such the proposal’s non-compliance with the height development standard is considered acceptable. 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 development.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The application proposes a maximum floor area of 1746.38sqm resulting in an FSR of 0.92:1 on the 1896sqm site and a variation of 608.75sqm or 53%. The applicant contests that the common circulation space/breezeways are not contained by the external walls and are secured by open gates and balustrades and therefore not part of the gross floor area, siting the case of GGD Danks Street Pty Ltd and CR Danks Street P/L v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] (NSWLEC). Council officers do not concur with the interpretation of this judgement, however if the breezeways and open lobbies on all 3 levels of Building B are excluded, the development would have of a maximum floor area of 1588.07sqm resulting in an FSR of 0.83:1 which represents a variation of 450.47sqm or 39.5% which is slightly higher than that calculated by the applicant being an FSR of 0.82:1 and variation of 425sqm or 37%.

The applicant considers compliance with the development standard to be unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

-     The density and built form proposed for the site is compatible with the variety of residential development in the existing and anticipated neighbourhood;

-     The design and layout of the development has given consideration to the dimensions of the site and retention of majority of the existing residential flat building to meet the desired future character of the heritage conservation area;

-     The bulk and scale of the existing residential flat building will be reduced through the demolition of the western wing of the building resulting in increased amenity for adjoining properties and facilitating parking on site through the construction of a driveway to the rear basement;

-     The reduction in floor area and bulk and scale at the front of the site, being the narrower portion of the site is appropriately accommodated at the rear of the site where bulk and scale will be screened from the streetscape and HCA and set on the wider portion of the site;

-     The 3 storey form is highly appropriate given the context of the site and surrounding development, with siting providing adequate separation from adjoining properties;

-     The bulk of the development being building B achieves deep soil plating along the boundaries, when shared with adjoining residential properties further enhances the quality of the separation distance and protect visual amenity for adjoining properties;

-     The rear building complies with the relevant height controls with the exception of a small portion of the south-west corner and therefore the overall building footprint is compliant with the parameters that would be reasonably anticipated for the redevelopment of the site;

-     The subject site has been excluded for no obvious reason from being provided with a bonus FSR of 0.25:1 for the development of a residential flat building which is benefitted by majority of the surrounding properties, in any case the proposed FSR would still be less than those surrounding site at 0.85:1 and would therefore be a smaller scale of development and will not detract from the existing or desired future character of the locality;

-     Whilst the development would result in additional overshadowing, all adjoining properties will continue to receive in excess of the 2 hours of direct sunlight access in mid-winter;

-     All living areas and private open space areas have been orientated to the common open space and front and rear boundary where possible. All lower ground floor level apartments are set entirely below the ground floor level of the surrounding development and therefore would be no direct line of sight between these dwellings and the adjoining properties;

-     Strict compliance with the FSR control would be counterproductive in terms of heritage integrity, internal amenity, streetscape, impacts to neighbouring properties and constraining a high quality residential development in a highly accessible location;

-     The provision of majority of the new floor space within Building B at the rear of the site will protect the curtilage of the existing building, create adequate separation between the building on the site and adjoining properties and provide a central communal open space;

-     The site represents a rare set of circumstances where variation to FSR is warranted as the adjoining properties are envisaged to support a higher density than that proposed on the subject site.

 

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 detailed in this report, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given that:

·    The FSR control bonus applicable to the surrounding sites that also contain existing residential flat buildings provides a context to justify additional floor space;

·    The development is generally compliant with height subject to a minor variation of the existing building to be retained and to provide improved solar access to top floor apartments in Building B, a compliant development would not result in a building of a lower height, if the floor space was to be constrained it would result in a disproportionate form;

·    The non-compliance with the standard does not contribute to adverse environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing, visual impacts or view loss;

·    The retention of the majority of the existing residential flat building and high quality restoration works fronting Croydon Street will result in improved urban design and streetscape activation of the heritage conservation area; and

·    The development of a largely vacant lot of land through the construction of second residential flat building which will largely be screened from the street, has high architectural merit and will provide for increased housing opportunities on a unique site which benefits from direct connections with a public open space.

 

The current development proposes to vary the FSR development standard, however, the outcome is considered to be better than a compliant development. The majority of the additional floor area fits within the building height envisaged by Council’s controls. The height and scale of the buildings proposed are consistent with the desired future character contemplated by Council’s controls. The massing has been appropriately designed in the heritage context of this area of Petersham.

It is considered that the applicant’s written submission has satisfactorily addressed the relevant matters under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 and relevant court principles and as such the proposal’s non-compliance with the FSR development standard is considered acceptable. 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 development.

 

(vi)    Preservation of Trees or Vegetation (Clause 5.9)

 

Clause 5.9 of MLEP 2011 concerns the protection of trees identified under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Officer for comment given the proposed removal of a number of protected trees including a large Camphor Laurel located in the centre of the rear portion of the site and proposed construction near protected trees on the adjoining properties.

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report was submitted as part of the DA.  The removal of all trees on the subject property was recommended and is supported by Council.  Impacts upon trees in neighbouring properties were assessed and unacceptable impacts were identified in relation to trees on the adjoining property at 25 Croydon Street adjacent to the entry driveway ramp and basement due to excavation that encroached majorly into the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ).  

During the assessment of the application and upon advice from the project arborist the ramp was redesigned to minimise excavation and the project arborist confirmed acceptability with respect to the impact upon the trees in the neighbouring property.

The landscape plan was amended to include five Angophora costata and 22 other smaller trees and which are considered to provide adequate and appropriate compensatory tree planting for the trees to be removed on the site.

The proposal is considered acceptable with respect to the removal of existing trees, the appropriate protection of trees on neighbouring properties and the provision of adequate and appropriate compensatory tree planting subject to conditions included in the recommendation.

 

(vii)    Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

 

The site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area under MLEP 2011 (Heritage Conservation Area C3 – Petersham Estate) and within the vicinity of a proposed heritage item being the Electricity Substation at 30 Brighton Street, Petersham. The site contains an adaption of an inter-war style California Bungalow which is currently as a residential flat building.

A Statement of Heritage Impact was submitted with the application and satisfactorily addresses the relevant heritage conservation provisions contained in Clause 5.10 of MLEP 2011. The application was also referred to Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Officer who raised no objection to the proposed development.

The development would involve demolition of the western and southern rear portion of the existing residential flat building to provide for vehicular access to the rear of the site and to increase the side boundary setback of the development to 25 Croydon Street and create an additional open space area. The retention of the majority of the existing contributory residential flat building with restoration and improvement works to the front entry and new side elevation wall would ensure that minimal impacts on the streetscape are incurred.

The proposed new residential flat building at the rear of the site to be known as building B would be setback 35 metres from the front boundary and would not exceed the existing height of the building fronting Croydon Street. The new building would only slightly be visible through the proposed driveway opening on the western side of the site and given the slope of the site to the rear and large setback to the new building there would be a minimal visual impact to Croydon Street.

Having regard to the above, the development would not have any significant impacts on the heritage conservation area or neighbouring draft heritage item and is considered acceptable with regards to Clause 5.10 of MLEP and Part 8 of MDCP 2011.

 

 

 

(viii)   Earthworks (Clause 6.2)

 

Clause 6.2 of MLEP 2011 requires the consent authority to have regard to certain matters where earthworks that require development consent are proposed.  The site contains a downward sloping topography from Croydon Street to the Brighton Street Park.  The development includes excavation for the basement car parking, which subject to conditions included in the recommendation, is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on environmental functions or processes, neighbouring sites, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

 

(ix)    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 and the he carrying out of 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. The report contains recommendations to be incorporated into the development in order to mitigate acoustic impacts.

Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the requirements recommended within the Acoustic Report are incorporated into the development.

 

8.       Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

 

An assessment of the development having regard to the relevant provisions of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011) is provided below.

 

 

PART 2 – GENERIC PROVISIONS

 

(i)      Urban Design (Part 2.1)

 

The development is 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 acceptable.

 

(iii)     Equity of Access and Mobility (Part 2.5)

 

The development proposes 18 new residential units which would require a minimum of 4 adaptable dwellings, 4 accessible resident parking spaces and 1 accessible visitor parking spaces. In addition, all areas of the development are required to be accessible by persons with a disability.

The application proposes 4 adaptable units over the 3 levels of Building B. All of the units would be accessible via the lift within the building and via the pedestrian walkway through the site from Croydon Street. The development also proposes a complaint number of accessible residential parking spaces and accessible visitor parking spaces.

The development is acceptable with regard to Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011.

 

(iv)    Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

Part 2.6 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives and controls relating to acoustic and visual privacy.

To ensure the development maintains acoustic and visual privacy for the surrounding residential properties and for future occupants of the development, the following measures are proposed:

·        The demolition of the western wing of existing Building A would increase the side setback from nil to 3.8 metres which would improve visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the adjoining property at 25 Croydon Street;

·        The new window on the western elevation of Apartment 1 of level 1 would service the living room and would be long and narrow and horizontally proportioned. The window would have a minimum sill height of 1.4 metres. The 2 new windows on level 2 of apartment 4A would service the living room and laundry area/walkway to the bathroom of apartment 4A, and the windows would be long and narrow and vertically proportioned;

·        The new windows on the western elevation of Building A would be setback 3.8 metres from the adjoining side boundary which is considered to provide an appropriate level of privacy to the adjoining property at 25 Croydon Street;

·        Mix of solid rendered concrete balustrades and louvered privacy screens on the northern, eastern and western facades to alleviate impacts on adjoining properties and within the development and allows sufficient separation between the dwellings to maintain visual privacy for the occupants;

·        Terraces and balconies facing Brighton Street Park (southern elevation) and are not considered to present any visual privacy concerns given that they face the public domain;

·        Appropriate noise attenuation conditions are included with the recommendation; and

·        Deep soil areas varying between 2.5 to 4.5 metres are provided around the perimeter of Building B to allow the establishment of small, medium and large scale vegetation to provide screening between the site and adjoining properties.

 

The layout and design of the development would ensure that the visual and acoustic privacy currently enjoyed by residents of adjoining residential properties is protected. The development maintains a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for the surrounding residential properties and would ensure a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for future occupants of the development itself.

 

(v)     Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

 

Overshadowing

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent properties and demonstrate that the development complies with Council’s overshadowing controls because direct solar access to windows of principal living areas and principal areas of open space of nearby residential accommodation would not be reduced to less than 2 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

Solar Access

 

The plans and shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate that 81% or 18 of the 22 units on the site would receive adequate solar access in accordance to principal living areas in accordance with Part 2.7.5.2 of MDCP 2011.

 

(vi)    Social Impact Assessment (Part 2.8)

 

The application involves 18 residential units and as a result does not require the submission of a Social Impact Comment or Assessment. The applicant has addressed the economic and social impacts of the development within the Statement of Environmental Effects and concludes that the development would have the following positive social impacts:

 

-     The development sensitively provides infill housing whilst respecting the scale and form of development in the Croydon Street streetscape and the broader heritage conservation area;

-     The proposal will improve opportunities for passive surveillance of Brighton Street park with living room windows and private open space areas oriented to the park;

-     The proposed accessible access to the park will be secured with an automated security system to allow convenient and safe access for residents and visitors to and from the park whilst preventing unauthorised access; and

-     The proposal includes 1 and 2 bedroom apartments and adds variety to the existing housing stock within the locality.

 

(vii)    Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

The development is considered reasonable having regard to community safety for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed restoration of the front entrance to the existing residential flat building is obvious, secure, legible and visible from the street;

·    Two of the apartments within the existing building being retained will have balconies overlooking Croydon Street and the other 2 apartments have windows servicing the living areas of the apartments facing Croydon Street which would offer opportunities for casual surveillance over the public domain;

·    The south facing apartments of Building B, all contain balconies overlooking Brighton Street Park which will improve passive surveillance of the park; and

·    Way finding signage is proposed along the pedestrian path of travel from the front of the sign to Building B at the rear to improve the safety and legibility of the entry.

 

(viii)   Parking (Part 2.10)

 

Car, Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking Spaces

 

The site is located in Parking Area 2 under Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011. The following table summarises the car, bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements for the development:

 

Component

Control

Required

Proposed

Complies?

Car Parking

Resident Car Parking

0.5 car parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit

3 x 1 bed units

= 1.5 spaces

16 spaces (including 8 as parking stackers

 

4 X accessible spaces

No

1 car parking space per 2 bedroom unit

15 x 2 bed unit

= 15 spaces

1 car parking space per 1 adaptable dwelling

4 accessible spaces

 

TOTAL:

 21 spaces

 

 

Visitor Car Parking

0.1 car parking space per unit

18 units

= 2 spaces

2 X visitor spaces

1 X visitor accessible space

Yes

1 accessible visitor’s car parking space per 4 accessible car parking spaces

1 accessible space

Bicycle Parking

Resident Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 2 units

22 units

= 11 spaces

Unspecified no. of spaces

Yes

Visitor Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 10 units

22 units

= 2 spaces

Motorcycle Parking

Motorcycle Parking

5% of the total car parking requirement

23 car parking spaces required

= 1 space

1 space

Yes

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

As detailed above, the development does not comply with the car, bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements.

Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011 requires 17 car spaces whilst the proposal includes 16 parking spaces, with 8 of those being provided within 4 parking stackers which represent a numerical shortfall of 1 parking space. It is proposed to provide 16 of the 22 apartments with on-site parking. The parking arrangements, whilst not strictly conforming to the numerical requirements is considered to be acceptable given the minor variation and proximity of the site being in an accessible area within 300 metres walking distance of Petersham Railway Station. The development will improve on-site parking availability to the existing building which currently contains 5 residential units and 2 on-site garage parking spaces which do not meet the minimum dimensions of AS2890.

The application includes the provision of a bicycle parking area within the garage of the existing residential flat building. It has not been indicated on the plans or within the Statement of Environmental Effects as to how many spaces the bicycle storage area will contain, however it is considered that the area should be large enough to accommodate the required 13 spaces.

Conditions have been included in the recommendation to confirm the number of spaces for each vehicle type.

 

(ix)    Fencing (Part 2.11)

 

Part 2.11.3 prescribes controls for the modification to the front fencing of a contributory building within a heritage conservation area. The development proposes to maintain the existing front fence and provide new steel infill panels on top to improve security. New automated gates would also be provided to the proposed driveway on the western side of the existing building and for the temporary bin storage area to the eastern side of the site. The fencing is considered sympathetic to the style of the existing building and materials and finishes proposed for the restoration of the existing building.

 

(x)     Water Sensitive Urban Design (Part 2.17)

 

Part 2.17 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives and controls relating to Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) including requirements for new residential developments with gross floor areas greater than 700sqm and less than 2,000sqm.

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who recommended conditions of consent to ensure that the development complies with the WSUD requirements contained within Part 2.17 of MDCP 2011. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommendation.

 

(xi)    Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

 

Part 2.18.11.6 of MDCP 2011 prescribes landscaped area, private and common open space controls for residential flat buildings. 

The development meets the requirements of Part 2.18.1.6 of MDCP 2011 in that:

 

  The front setback of the development will remain relatively unchanged in terms of landscaping, being pervious with the exception of driveways and pathways;

  The development would have a total of 36% of the site as landscaped area, whilst not meeting the minimum requirement of 45% of the total site, given the large site area the 678.9sqm of landscaping proposed is considered to provide for a high level of amenity for the development and transition to the adjoining Brighton Street Park;

   The application proposes the planting of 5 large stature trees and 22 other smaller trees to compensate for tree removal on the site; and

   All of the apartments with the exception of existing units 2A and 3A would have access to individual balconies or terraces in excess of the minimum area 8sqm and 2 metre width. The lower ground floor apartments are all proposed to have large areas of landscaped private open space directly accessible from the balcony or terrace area of the apartments.

 

A landscape plan and maintenance schedule was submitted with the application and subsequently amended during the assessment of the application due to advice from the project arborist and Council’s requirements for tree replacement on the site. The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who raised no objections to the amended development subject to conditions which are included in the recommendation.

 

(xii)    Tree Management (Part 2.20)

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report.

 

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

 

2.21.2  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  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 indicated on the plans submitted with the application. The location of the mailboxes at the front of the development is considered consistent with Part 2.21.3.3 of MDCP 2011.