AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Meeting

 

TUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 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

27 September 2016

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

1          Acknowledgement of Country

 

 

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

 

 

3          Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Return

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                         Page

Minutes of 23 August 2016 Council Meeting                                                                5

 

 

5          Administrator’s Minutes

 

Nil at the time of printing.

 

 

6          Staff Reports

 

C0916 Item 1      Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 September 2016   15

C0916 Item 2      Development Application - 33 Smith Street, Summer Hill                         21

C0916 Item 3      Development Application - 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill                196

C0916 Item 4      Development Application - 351 Trafalgar Street, Lewisham                    264

C0916 Item 5      Development Application - 308-314 Stanmore Road, Petersham           317

C0916 Item 6      Development Application - 106 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill              362

C0916 Item 7      Section 82A Review Application - 669 King Street, St Peters                  449

C0916 Item 8      Planning Proposal for 55-63 Smith Street, Summer Hill                          467

C0916 Item 9      Planning Proposal for 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain                              516

C0916 Item 10    Establishment of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for the Inner West Council                                                                                                      581

C0916 Item 11    Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program                             606

C0916 Item 12    Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016                 610

C0916 Item 13    Anti-Poverty Week 2016 Grants                                                               640

C0916 Item 14    The Metropolitan Orchestra - Fee Waiver Request                                  642

C0916 Item 15    Request for Chrissie Cotter Gallery Fee Waiver - AGNSW Staff Charity Exhibition      646

C0916 Item 16    Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator                                650

C0916 Item 17    Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC Members                         662

C0916 Item 18    Summary of Resolutions - Publishing on Website                                    670

C0916 Item 19    Proposed Changes to the Schedule for Council Meetings 2016              672

C0916 Item 20    Inner West Council Investments as at 31 August 2016                            673

 

 

 

 

 

7          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.

 

C0916 Item 21    Affordable and Supported Living Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt     715

C0916 Item 22    Cooks River Parklands - Draft Plans of Management and Master Plans 2016-2026: Feedback from Public Exhibition                                                              718

C0916 Item 23    SSROC Tender for Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs)                                                                                     926

C0916 Item 24    SSROC Tender for the Provision of Tree Pruning Services                    928

C0916 Item 25    Tender T06-16 - Rehabilitation of Regent Street, Leichhardt Stormwater Line Project     930

C0916 Item 26    Formation of an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council             933

C0916 Item 27    WestConnex - Advice from Senior Counsel                                             948

C0916 Item 28    Live Streaming of Council Meetings                                                         949

C0916 Item 29    ICT System Consolidation                                                                        957

 

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Minutes of Council Meeting
held at Ashfield Service Centre on 23 August 2016

 

Meeting commenced at 6.32pm

 

Present:

 

Richard Pearson

Administrator

Vanessa Chan

Interim General Manager

Simone Schwarz

Director Service Delivery

Phil Sarin

Director Planning and Environment

Cathy Edwards-Davis

Director Public Works

Peter Gainsford

Director Corporate Services

Wal Petschler

Director Major Projects and Engineering

Josephine Bennett

Director Community Services

Popy Mourgelas

Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield

Jennifer Anderson

Governance Officer (Minute Taker)

 

 

1.      Acknowledgement of Country by Chairperson

 

We meet tonight on the traditional land of the Cadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation.  I acknowledge the terrible wrongs committed against the Aboriginal peoples of this country and their care of the land over many generations.  I celebrate their ongoing survival and achievements in today's society.

 

2.      Disclosures of Interests:

Nil.

 

3.      Confirmation of Minutes

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 26 July 2016 be confirmed.

 

 

4.      Staff Reports:

 

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

 

The Administrator determined 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 and recommendations be adopted with the following exceptions:

 

1.       A number of recommendations relate to items that are being presented to this Council meeting, as separate reports.  These recommendations are noted but will not be adopted as resolutions, as they are subject to specific and separate discussion tonight.  Specifically,

 

  • Item 10 Allocation of sport ground booking (former Marrickville)
  • Item 11 Tempe Reserve Olympic Park Redevelopment
  • Item 12 Affordable Housing over Ha Street Car park
  • Item 15 Restaurant café – Elliot Street café
  • Item 16 Clubs and Community grants allocation (former Marrickville)
  • Item 18 Elkington Park Cottage

 

2.       Ashfield LRAC – the minutes be amended to show Monica Wangmann absented herself from the meeting during discussion of Item 2 – Aquatic Centre Redevelopment.

 

3.       Leichhardt LRAC – the recommendations are adopted with the following exception:

 

·    That Committee recommendation on Item 1 relating to Point 6, C118/16 be changed to note that this provision (to arrange a demonstration/rally at Callan Park in relation to Council’s skatepark proposal) be deferred until the Council have met again with OEH about an alternate site in the event that Council is unable to negotiate a successful outcome with OEH.

·    I will not be adopting the recommendation Item 1 – points 1, 2 of C2322/16 (Bays Precinct Affordable Housing Study) noting instead that the GM has commissioned a detailed affordable housing study and the development of supporting policy instruments across the whole LGA, and this includes a specific assessment of Bays Precinct.

·    In relation to Item 1, the ethical investment policy and non-fossil fuel targets – I note that this matter will be considered by a joint LRAC meeting but I consider it premature for Council to ‘resolve’ to move to 100% non-fossil fuel investment without proper study and before a policy framework is developed – this recommendation will not be adopted.

·    Item 3 LPAC Olympic Pool Starting Blocks – I am not accepting the Committee recommendation.  Instead I am resolving in favour of the recommendation of the Council officers in their report to the Committee that the removal of the existing concrete starting blocks and replacements with new Anti-wave starting platforms be considered in the early phase of the LPAC Masterplan works.

 

4.       Marrickville LRAC – the recommendations are adopted with the exception of Item 6 Local Government Election – where instead I determine to write to the Premier and Minister for Local Government advising them of the request of the Marrickville LRAC that the next election for the Inner West Council be conducted in March 2017.

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

the application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Leichhardt Planning Panel subject to the hours of operation of the proposed café being amended as follows:

 

  • Monday to Sunday including public holidays: 7.00am to 5.00pm.

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council will not make a submission to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

2.       That a a condition requiring dilapidation reports for adjoining properties shall be added to the recommended conditions of consent.

 

 

 

 

C0816 Item 5      Development Application - 75 Milton Street, Ashfield

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

the application be granted a deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

 

 

C0816 Item 8      Development Application - 23 Croydon Street, Petersham

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

the development 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 be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed on pages 485-508 of the business paper, with the exception of condition 1 which is to be amended to refer to the updated plan references for DA04, Revision M, DA05, Revision K and DA11, Revision K.

 

 

C0816 Administrator's Minute:  WestConnex Community Engagement Forums

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council notes progress in ensuring that local and state forums are established to address the concerns of inner west residents in relation to WestConnex.

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       the Report be received and noted;

2.       Council pursue the acquisition of Lot 3 DP227326 from Ausgrid subject to the price being reasonable (as determined by an independent valuation), noting that a new kiosk substation will be included elsewhere on the car park site as part of the affordable housing development;

3.       Council enter into discussions with owners of properties fronting Parramatta Road and adjacent to the car park about the possibility of granting rights of way, for market value to those properties, provided that this does not adversely affect the proposed affordable housing development on the Hay Street car park; and

4.       Council apply for possessory title of the strip of land known as Chancery Lane which is incorporated into the car park.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council will not make a submission to the Panel in relation to this proposal.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

the application be granted a deferred commencement approval in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council enter into the Amended Voluntary Planning Agreement documented in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.   in relation to Arlington Reserve, Camdenville Park, Henson Park, HJ Mahoney Reserve, Marrickville Oval and Steel Park:

a.   Council approves the 2016/17 summer season sports ground allocations for training and match play applicable from 29 August 2016 to 26 March 2017 inclusive, as proposed in the schedule at Attachment 1, subject to provision of all information requested in the application form, field condition and payment of, or agreement to a repayment plan for, any outstanding fees;

b.   pursuant to s337(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 the Council delegates to the General Manager the power to execute 2016/17 summer season sports ground licences; and

2.   Council in its capacity as reserve trust manager of Petersham Park (P500070), considers this report and decides to enter into summer season sports ground licences for the 2016/17 summer season with the clubs proposed to use Petersham Park (P500070) as detailed in the schedule at Attachment 1 for training and match play from 29 August 2016 to 26 March 2017 inclusive subject to the provision of all information requested in the application form, field condition and payment of, or agreement to a repayment plan for, any outstanding fees;

3.   Council in its capacity as reserve trust manager of Camperdown Park (R8205 & D500444), considers this report and decides to enter into summer season sports grounds licences for the 2016/17 summer season with the clubs proposed to use Camperdown Park (R8205 & D500444) as detailed in the schedule at Attachment 1 for training and match play from 29 August 2016 to 26 March 2017 inclusive subject to the provision of all information requested in the application form, field condition and payment of, or agreement to a repayment plan for, any outstanding fees;

4.   Council in its capacity as reserve trust manager of Mackey Park (R80566), considers this report and decides to enter into summer season sports grounds  licences for the 2016/17 summer season with the clubs proposed to use Mackey Park (R80566) as detailed in the schedule at Attachment 1 for training and match play from 29 August 2016 to 26 March 2017 inclusive subject to the provision of all information requested in the application form, field condition and payment of, or agreement to a repayment plan for, any outstanding fees;

5.   Council in its capacity as reserve trust manager of Tempe Recreation (D500215 & D1000502), Reserve considers this report and decides to enter into summer season sports ground licences for the 2016/17 summer season with the clubs proposed to use Tempe Recreation (D500215 & D1000502) Reserve as detailed in the schedule at Attachment 1 for training and match play from 29 August 2016 to 26 March 2017 inclusive subject to the provision of all information requested in the application form, field condition and payment of, or agreement to a repayment plan for, any outstanding fees; and

6.   the Interim General Manager is delegated authority to enter into short term casual licence arrangements subject to availability and in accordance with the criteria for seasonal sports grounds allocation adopted by Council.

 

 

 

C0816 Item 11    Tempe Reserve Sydney Olympic Park Redevelopment

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council agrees to extend the exclusive dealing period with Sydney Olympic Football Club until 31 December 2016;

2.       Council discuss with Sydney Olympic Football Club the matters recommended by the Marrickville LRAC at its 3 August 2016 meeting, and adopted by the Administrator, as follows

·         that Sydney Olympic Football Club presents their Community Engagement Plan to Council staff before public engagement;

·         that all feedback received through the engagement and consultation process be fed back through Council staff.

·         That the hall/community facility be managed by Council for community access.

3.       Council authorises the General Manager to implement the agreement referenced in resolution 1 and ancillary matters referenced in this report.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council apply to the Department of Lands for closure of the part of Whites Creek Lane at the rear of 84 Ferris Street as indicated generally on the plan attached to the report and undertake the consultation and advertising required for the application;

2.       if the application is successful, the closed part of the road be sold to the owner of 84 Ferris Street Annandale for market value, having regard to the amount by which it increases the value of his current property, as assessed by an external valuer, plus GST and reimbursement of the costs of and in connection with the road closure and sale; and

3.       authority is delegated to the General Manager to sign all applications, contracts for sale, transfers and other documents consistent with and to give effect to the above resolutions.

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.       grants an easement in favour of Sydney Federation Harbour Trust (or other appropriate authority) burdening Elkington Park to allow underground pipes, conduits or other connections  for connecting Cockatoo Island and other similar adjoining properties to facilities of public utility providers;

2.       delegates authority to the General Manager to review environmental reports and decide their acceptability; to negotiate the location of the easement site, the nature, timing and other conditions of the works to be done, and the on-going conditions of the easement; and to sign for and on behalf of Council all documents required to give effect to these resolutions; and

3.       negotiates with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to have the proposed accessible entry to Elkington Park included as part of the Trust’s works at its cost.

4.       the matter be referred to the Leichhardt LRAC prior to determination by the General Manager.

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

.         terminates its current lease from Roads and Maritime Services (“RMS”) of lot 26 DP850832 being part of the site known as 107 Elliott Street, Balmain;

2.       prepares and lodges a development application for demolition of the current restaurant building and terrace;

3        seeks a new licence from RMS at its minimum licence fee of lot 26 DP850832 for public open space to connect Paringa Reserve and the proposed open space to be dedicated at 102 Elliott Street;

4.       lodges an Application for Pre-DA advice for construction of a replacement café/restaurant on Council land only, with outdoor seating on RMS’ land, and use of the new structure as a licensed café/restaurant (noting that concept plans and supporting reports have already been obtained); and

5.       then receives a further report.

 

 

 

C0816 Item 16    Club Grants Allocations and Community Grants Program 2016

 

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.       receives and notes the Allocations for Club Grants contained in Attachment 1 of this report for transparency;

2.       approves the allocation of Community Grants, as contained in Attachment 3 of this report, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993;

3.       advises each organisation of Council’s decision for Community Grants; and

4.       holds a small evening function during Anti-Poverty Week to award the Community Grants and celebrate the success of funding recipients.

 

 

C0816 Item 17    Endorsement of Floodplain Risk Management Committee Charter

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

1.       Council adopts the Flood Management Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (Attachment 1); and

2.       Council staff seek expressions of interest from residents to be community representatives on the Flood Management Advisory Committee.

 

3.       Clause 4.2 of the Terms of Reference be amended to add the following paragraph:

 

          For the purposes of this charter the term “elected representatives” includes elected members of Council and, where there are no elected members of Council, persons that have been nominated by Council as members of Local Representation Advisory Committees.

4.       Clause 6.3, point 6 of the Terms of Reference be amended to read as follows:

 

          Council’s role is to note the Committees minutes and to consider recommendations made by the Committee.  Such recommendations will be highlighted for the attention of Council.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       the results of the first round of community consultation be placed on the website, with the Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment and other supporting documents, and that Council advise this to all who completed a survey or made a submission.

3.       That investigation of this project be pursued further by:

·  Exhibiting an amended Plan of Management for Elkington Park which more expressly allows the adaptive re-use and for the cottage to be leased for a café, once the LEP is amended – with the draft brought to LRAC prior to exhibition;

·  Preparing and lodging a Pre-DA application to establish acceptability of the proposed work and the chair numbers and hours of operation, with the Pre-DA supported by the concept plans, a Conservation Management Plan, Heritage Impact Statement, Accessibility Report, Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment and Noise Impact Assessments; and

·  Finalising the Business Plan.

4.       That further information be brought to Council on the potential of the café providing employment pathways of the disadvantaged.

 

 

 

C0816 Item 19    Whites Creek Community Orchard Management Plan

 

The Administrator determined that:

 

Council adopt the draft plan of management which has been prepared for the Whites Creek Valley Park Community Orchard and provide funding support of $5,000 a year to support the growth and development of the Community Orchard.

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrator determined that:

the report be received and noted.

 

 

The Administrator moved into closed session at 10.20pm to consider items of business containing confidential information.

 

The Administrator returned to open session at 10.26pm to resolve as follows in relation to Items 21, 22 and 23.

 

 

5.      Reports with Confidential Information

 

C0816 Item 21    Proposed Airspace Lease Smidmore Street Marrickville

The Administrator determined that Council:

 

1.    endorses the proposal for an Agreement to lease the airspace above Smidmore Street Marrickville; and

 

2.    delegates authority to the General Manager to negotiate the terms and conditions of an Agreement to lease airspace above Smidmore Street Marrickville in accordance with Roads Act 1993 Section 149, and to sign for and on behalf of Council all documents required for the Agreement to lease. 

 

 

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

The Administrator determined that:

 

consideration of the matter be deferred to a future Council meeting.

 

C0816 Item 23    Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates

 

The Administrator determined that Council:

1.       resolves that Confidential Attachment 1 of the report be treated as confidential in accordance with section 11(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, as it relates to a matter specified in section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and as such is to be treated as confidential;

2.       endorses the proposed process as outlined in the body of this report in relation to the property owner listed in Confidential Attachment 1;

3.       pursuant to Section 713 of the Local Government Act 1993, resolve to sell the property listed at Confidential Attachment 1 for unpaid rates and charges; and

4.       delegates authority to the General Manager to appoint an auctioneer, to set the reserve price (in consultation with the appointed auctioneer) and to sell the property by private treaty if it fails to sell at auction.

 

 

 

The Meeting closed at 10.28pm.

 

 

 


 

Public Speakers

 

 

Confirmation of Minutes of Council 26 July 2016

·  Rochelle Porteous

·  Beth Taylor, Marrickville

·  John Lozano, Haberfield

 

 

 

Item 1:

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

·  Lucille McKenna OAM, Ashfield LRAC

·  Max Phillips, Marrickville LRAC

·  John Stamolis Leichhardt LRAC

·  Jo Alley

·  Mark Drury Ashfield LRAC

·  Rochelle Porteous Leichhardt LRAC

·  Monica Wangmann Ashfield LRAC

 

 

 

Item 2:

Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 4 August 2016

·  Catherine Gemmell, Leichhardt

·  Phillip Bull, Broadway

 

 

·  Rene Holmes

 

 

 

Item 3:

Development Application - 2-32 Smith Street Summer Hill

·  Alex Lofts, Ashfield LRAC

·  Craig Sandwell, Summer Hill

 

 

·  Grant Flanagan, EG Funds

 

 

 

Item 5

 

Development Application - 75 Milton Street, Ashfield

·  Anthony Semarni

·  Carmello Barta on behalf of A&T Scavo

 

 

 

Item 6

 

Development Application - 2-20 Weston Street, Balmain East

·  John Jobling, Leichhardt LRAC

·  Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC

·  John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

·  Eve Russell

·  Garry Saunders

·  Robin Sandell

·  Ray Cooper

·  Josephine Davidson

·  Loretta Piccone

·  Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

 

Item 8

 

Development Application - 23 Croydon Street, Petersham

·  Liza Miller, Petersham

 

 

·  Jeff Mead, Miranda

 

 

·  Shaun Carter, Summer Hill

 

 

·  Bianca Azzapardi

 

 

 

Item 12

 

Affordable Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt

·  John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

·  Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

·  Bill Holliday, Lilyfield

 

 

·  Gillian Leahy

 

 

 


 

 

Item 13

 

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

·  Gillian Leahy

 

 

 

Item 14

 

Proposed Easement - Elkington Park, Balmain - Cockatoo Island Service Upgrade

·  Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

 

Item 17

 

Endorsement of Floodplain Risk Management Committee Charter

·  Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

 

Item 18

Elkington Park Cottage, Balmain - Possible Conversion to Cafe

·  Frank Breen, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

·  John Stamolis, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

·  Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

 

Item 19

 

Whites Creek Community Orchard Management Plan

·  Gillian Leahy

 

 

 

Item 21

 

Proposed Airspace Lease Smidmore Street Marrickville

·  Victor Macri, Marrickville LRAC

 

 

·  Simon Emsley, Leichhardt LRAC

 

 

 

 

 


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 1

Subject:         Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 September 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/108310.16         

Prepared By: Rad Miladinovic - Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

A meeting of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee was held on 13 September 2016.  This report presents the minutes of the meeting to Council.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the minutes of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 September 2016 be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This report presents to Council the minutes of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee meeting held on 13 September 2016.  The minutes of the meeting are provided at Attachment 1.

It is recommended that the minutes of the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee meeting be received and noted.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes - 13 September 2016 Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 2

Subject:         Development Application - 33 Smith Street, Summer Hill 

File Ref:         16/4718/106737.16        

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This proposal is for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a part 2/3 storey infill affordable housing development comprising 17 dwellings under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposed development complies with the applicable development standards and controls. The site planning focusses the dwellings towards a central internal courtyard or to the street and successfully avoids overlooking of adjacent properties. The street presentation has been designed to respond to the traditional built form prevailing in the locality and nearby conservation areas and heritage items.

A large rooftop terrace, which is proposed on the rear building, is likely to result in overlooking of adjacent properties and is not considered appropriate. Given that the proposal provides adequate communal open space, it is not required and a condition of consent has been recommended which requires its deletion.

There remain some technical stormwater drainage issues which can be resolved by way deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the development be granted deferred commencement consent.

 

 

 

 

Overview of Report

 

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 dwellings and construction of a part 2/3 storey infill affordable housing develp0ment under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 comprising 17 dwellings over basement car parking for 11 cars.

 

2.0       Application Details

Applicant                                 :           Habitation Design

Owner                                     :           Drummoyne Building Service Pty Ltd

Value of work                          :           $3,681,938

Lot/DP                                     :           Lot 1, DP 120491

Date lodged                             :           01/03/2016

Building classification              :           2

Application Type                     :           Local

Construction Certificate          :           No

 

3.0       Site and Surrounding Development

The subject site is located on the northern side of Smith Street in Summer Hill between Fleet Street to the west and Chapman Street to the east.  The site area is approximately 918 square metres.  The site is occupied by three dwellings.  Surrounding development comprises low and medium density residential.  Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map.

 

The site consists of the following lot:

 

Street Address

Lot No.

Deposited Plan

Title System

Site Area

33 Smith Street, Summer Hill

1

120491

Torrens

918m2

 

4.0       Development History

 

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

 

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

10.2010.003.1

04.10.2010

Multi-unit housing

Refused

06.1978.455.1

29.11.1978

Carport

Approved

06.1963.4551

16.07.1963

Conversion to 3 flats

Approved

 

The following table shows the background to the current application:

 

Application Milestones

Date

Event

File no

02.03.2015

Pre-lodgement Application lodged

9.2015.06

19.03.2015

Pre-lodgement meeting held at Council

9.2015.06

06.05.2015

Pre-lodgement Letter sent to applicant raising following issues:

·   The proposed zero wall to boundary setback is not considered compatible with development in the area. The front building line is not consistent with the building lines of the adjoining properties. The facade and design generally does not satisfy SEPP 65 or the character test as such Council’s officers cannot support its approval in its current form.

·   The proposed development does not provide for a mix of apartment sizes as required by clause 4.11 of Part C5 of IDAP.

·   It is noted that the proposed building extends up close to the boundaries. This will cause extensive overshadowing to properties in the vicinity in Smith Street in particular.

·   The building should be setback off the boundary to improve solar access and to allow access for future maintenance of the building. The building setbacks should be consistent with the prevailing building setbacks in the area.

·   The proposed development must maintain privacy to adjoining properties. In this regard upper floor balconies should be sited to minimise direct overlooking of adjoining and nearby properties.

·   Communal open space shall be provided exclusive of any drying or service areas.  The communal area should be adapted for active and passive recreation and may include children's play areas, barbeque areas and the like. Communal open space can be on the roof and/ or and ground level. The Communal open space area shall be a single open  space of at least 10m x12m and increased by 5m2 for each unit in excess of 6.

·   The development is for a multi-unit building with basement car parking containing 33 single bedroom units which has a parking requirement of 33 resident spaces plus 7 visitor spaces and a car wash bay, i.e. a total of 41 spaces. The proposed development provides 14 car parking spaces which is only a third of the requirement. Given the high on-street parking demand in the vicinity of this site the level of undersupply is considered unacceptable. 

·   The submitted plans show no visitor spaces. This is considered unacceptable. Visitor spaces should be in an area which is, or can be, accessed by non-residents.

·   The interim development assessment policy requires that car parking for people with disabilities be supplied at a rate of 5 spaces per 100. For a parking requirement of 41 spaces 2 of those spaces would need to be allocated for disabled use. Those spaces should conform with the requirements of AS2890.6. The current proposal is deficient in that none of the parking spaces are shown for disabled use.

·   Bicycle parking should be provided at a rate of 1 per 10 flats for residents plus 1 per 10 flats for visitors i.e. 7 bicycle parking spaces. The preliminary plans show 4 bicycle storage areas within the basement carpark. It is unclear how many bicycles may be stored in each area and this should be clarified in the DA submission. Bicycle parking for visitors should be in an area which is, or can be, accessed by non-residents.

·   No Motorcycle parking spaces have been shown on the submitted plans for a parking requirement of 41 spaces an additional 2 motorcycle parking spaces are required.

·   The submitted plans are deficient in terms of resident, visitor, disabled, motorcycle and possibly bicycle parking. It is considered that the parking supply is not acceptable however if such a significant undersupply of parking is to be pursued a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report should be submitted with the development application to justify why Council should consider approval

·   The submitted plans should show removal of the redundant vehicle crossing and reinstatement of kerb and gutter, footpath and nature strip.

·   The alterative option for the driveway location showing the driveway at the western edge of the property is less preferable to the submitted plan. The driveway in the alternative proposal is sited closer to the intersection with Spencer St and egress from the site would be partially impeded by a traffic island on approach to the intersection. 

·   Please note that the proposal if submitted in its current form is unlikely to be supported by Council Staff and it is suggested that a further meeting be arranged to discuss an amended proposal. 

9.2015.06

22.06.2015

Pre-lodgement Application lodged

9.2015.25

23.07.2015

Pre-lodgement meeting held at Council

9.2015.25

20.08.2015

Letter sent to applicant raising following issues:

·   The proposed zero wall to boundary setback is not considered compatible with the pattern of development in the area. The front building line is not consistent with the building lines of the adjoining properties. The facade and design generally does not satisfy SEPP 65 or the character test under SEPP (ARH) 2009 and as such Council’s officers will not support the proposal in its current form.

·   Compliance with SEPP(ARH) a minimum of 12 car spaces comprising of 4 for the studio apartments, 3 for the 1 bedroom apartments and 5 for the 2 bedroom apartments. The plans show only 10 car spaces therefore the proposal fails to comply.

·   The one bedroom units are less than 50m2 as such do not comply with the minimum required dwelling size.

·   The height of building map under the ALEP 2013 allows a maximum height of 9m. The proposal does not comply.  Any proposal must comply as Council officers will not support any variation.

·   It is noted that the proposed building extends up close to the boundaries. This will cause extensive overshadowing to properties in the vicinity on Smith Street in particular.

·   The building should be setback off the boundary to improve solar access and to allow access for future maintenance of the building. The building setbacks including the front setback should be consistent with the prevailing building setbacks in the area.

·   The proposed development must maintain privacy to adjoining properties. In this regard upper floor balconies, open stairs and lobby areas should be screened or sited to minimise direct overlooking of adjoining and nearby properties.

·   Communal open space shall be provided exclusive of any drying or service areas.  The communal area should be adapted for active and passive recreation and may include children's play areas, barbeque areas and the like. Communal open space can be on the roof and/ or and ground level subject to maintaining an adequate level of privacy to any adjoining property. The Communal open space area shall be a single open  space of at least 10m x12m and increased by 5m2 for each unit in excess of 6.

·   The secondary exit stair from the basement has not been drawn correctly, and that there appears to be no thought given with regards to mechanical ventilation, in terms of exhaust risers and hydraulics to the premises.

·   Please note that the proposal if submitted in its current form is unlikely to be supported by Council Staff and it is suggested that a further meeting be arranged to discuss an amended proposal.

9.2015.25

14.12.2015

Provisional Development Application lodged

17.2015.372

07.01.2016

Letter sent to applicant raising following issues:

·   The proposal fails to comply with the minimum 12m separation distance between habitable rooms/balconies.  The proposal should be amended to comply.

·   The proposal fails to comply with Part C1 with respect to universal accessible design and in particular the failure to provide accessible bathrooms to all units.

·   Concern is raised regarding privacy impacts from the communal roof terrace.  This could be address by way of wider / higher planters, screening devices or a combination of these.  Amended details are to be submitted.

·   The application will be reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor on 11 January 2016, any comments received will be sent separately.

·   A direct connection into Sydney Water pipe network is required.  Sydney water approval will need to be obtained for both the pipe connection and the OSD storage volume. 

·   The proposed communal open spaces should be functional and provide for greater range of recreation activities in accordance with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide.

17.2015.372

12.01.2016

Letter sent to applicant raising following issues:

·   The character of the front fencing is split between masonry piers with infill and what appears to be metal framed glass panelled balustrade.  The glass panelled fences should be replaced with a more sympathetic design and this should ideally be coordinated with the front masonry / infill frontage fence. 

·   The proposed fences should be carefully coordinated with the balustrade to the front upper and lower verandahs, which should not be framed glass.  It is suggested that the fencing and balustrades be designed around a timber or steel design using plain verticals and understated posts.

·   The fenestration is shown traditionally proportioned as openings, but the windows themselves, particularly under the gable, should resemble traditionally proportioned sash windows instead of the tall awkwardly proportioned casement windows shown.  The front hipped roof with gable, resembling a traditional Victorian house format, is awkwardly linked to the rear flat roof block via a sloping skillion which is shown landing at the main cross ridge of the house.  This is very unusual and ruins the attempt to make the new front element look like a house.  It should be revised so that the connection is located behind and below the main transverse ridge and not clumsily visible. 

17.2015.372

01.03.2016

Development Application lodged

10.2016.044.1

13.04.2016

Letter sent to applicant advising of the following issues with application:

·   The separation distance between the north and south blocks of the proposal is not in accordance with the recommendations of the Apartment Design Guide.

·   The rooftop terrace on the rear building is likely to result in adverse acoustic privacy impacts.

·   The eastern side setback and pedestrian access is excessively narrow.

10.2016.044.1

14.07.2016

Amended plans received addressing the majority of issues raised.

10.2016.044.1

 

 

5.0       Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

The site is zoned R3 medium density residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013 and is adjacent to a heritage item and a heritage conservation area.

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

 

6.0       Section 79C Assessment

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

 

6.1       The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

6.1.1    Local Environmental Plans

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.3

Zone objectives and land use table

Zone R3 Medium density residential

Residential flat building

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

No change

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

9m

9m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1 plus a 50% bonus by virtue of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) for provision of affordable rental housing:

 

Max. Permitted: 1.03:1

0.988:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located adjacent:

·  Conservation Area C-44

·  Conservation Area C-51

·  Heritage Item I-620 (39 Smith Street)

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.

Yes

 

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

 


6.1.2    Regional Environmental Plans

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

 

6.1.3    State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of land

Given the long and continuous history of residential use, it is not considered likely that the site is contaminated.

 

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

The proposed development is also a residential flat building as defined by the SEPP in that it comprises 3 or more storeys and contains 4 or more 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 the context and neighbourhood character:

·   The form of the front building is designed to respond to the traditional streetscape and nearby heritage items and conservation areas with a traditional massing and roof form.

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 generally appropriate for the context:

·   It presents two storeys to the street consistent with surrounding development;

·   It rises to three storeys at the rear in accordance with the nominated height limits for the locality.

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 at 0.988:1 is consistent with the FSR nominated for the site by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Yes

4.

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

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

 

Yes

5.

Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well-designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

The landscaping of the site is satisfactory and provides:

·   An adequately sized communal open space area and courtyard in the centre of the site;

·   A landscaped front setback area consistent with the streetscape character;

 

 

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.

The proposal provides:

·   adequate communal open space for residents.

·   Well laid out and functional internal planning;

·   Adequate levels of privacy and solar access, subject to removal of the roof terrace.

Yes

7.

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well-lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

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

Yes

8.

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.

Well-designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

The proposal provides a suitable mix of one and two bedroom units as well as studio units.

 

 

 

 

Yes

9.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

The visual appearance of a well-designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

The aesthetic resolution is satisfactory in the context of the site.

Yes

28(2)(c)

Apartment Design Guide

Part 3

Siting the development

3B

Orientation

On merit.

 

Orientation to the street is appropriate in the context.

Yes

3C

Public domain interface

On merit.

 

Appropriate in the context

Yes

3D-1

Communal open space

Communal open space: min. 25% site area:

230m2

230m2

25%

Yes

 

 

Solar access to communal open space

Adequate solar access to communal open space.

Yes

3D-3

Communal open space is designed to maximize safety

Safety

Excellent passive surveillance.

Yes

3E-1

Deep soil zones

7% min dimension 3m:

64m2

198m2

22%

Yes

3F1

Building Separation

(up to four storeys)

12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and side boundaries

12m

 

Yes

3F-2

Privacy

 

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

Yes

3J-1

Car parking

· 800m of railway or light rail station; or

· In or within 400m of B3/B4 land

SEPP (Affordable rental housing) 2009 prevails:

· 11 spaces

11 spaces

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.

12/17=71%

Yes

4A-1(3)

Solar & daylight access

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

0%

Yes

4B-3(1)

Natural ventilation

Natural cross ventilation: min. 60% of apartments

100%

Yes

4B-3(2

Natural ventilation

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

Do not exceed 18m

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.

Complies.

Yes

4D-1(1)

Apartment size and layout

Minimum internal areas:

· Studio: 35m2

· 1 bed: 50m2

· 2 bed: 70m2

· 3 bed: 90m2

Complies.

Yes

4D-1(2)

Apartment size and layout

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

Complies.

Yes

4D-2

Apartment size and layout

Max. Habitable room depth: 8m

Complies.

Yes

4D-3(1)

Apartment size and layout

Min areas:

· Master bedroom: 10m2

· Other bedrooms: 9m2

Complies.

Yes

4D-3(2)

Apartment size and layout

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

Second bedrooms have min. dimension of 2.7 but comply with the minimum area.

Satisfactory


 

4D-3(3)

Apartment size and layout

Min. Living room dimension:

· 1 Bed Unit: 3.6m

· 2 Bed Unit: 4.0m

All apartments 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 apartments comply.

Yes

4E-1(2)

Private open space & balconies

Min. Courtyard size/depth:

· 15m2/3m

All apartments comply.

Yes

4F-1(1)

Common circulation spaces

Max. apartments off a single core: 8

3

Yes

4F-1(2)

Common circulation spaces

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

9

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)

Adequate total storage in units and basement combined.

Yes

4H-1

Acoustic privacy

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

Suitable site planning adopted.

Yes

4H-2

Acoustic privacy

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

Suitable layout adopted.

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.

Not a hostile acoustic environment.

N/A

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.

Not a hostile acoustic environment.

N/A

4K-1

Apartment mix

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

Apartments range in size from studio to two bedroom.

Yes

4L-1

Ground floor apartments

Street frontage activity is maximised.

The ground floor front apartment suitably addresses the street with an active frontage.

Yes

4L-2

Ground floor apartments

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

The front ground floor apartment is suitably configured with an elevated terrace.

Yes

4M-1

Facades

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

The building facade is appropriate to the character of the locality.

Yes

4M-1

Facades

Building functions are expressed on the facade.

The facade is appropriately designed.

Yes

4N-1

Roof design

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

The roof treatment of the front building is appropriate to the context.

Yes

4N-2

Roof design

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

The rear roof space is proposed as a component of the communal open space.

Yes

4N-3

Roof design

Roof design incorporates sustainability features.

Roof design incorporates solar panels and garden area.

Yes

4O

Landscape design

 

Landscape design is appropriate for the development.

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

Appropriate soil depths are provided for planter boxes.

Yes

4Q-1

Universal design

20% of apartments to achieve Livable Housing Guidelines silver level design features.

All units are accessible. Conditions will be applied to ensure compliance at detail design stage.

Yes

4Q-2

Universal design

Adaptable housing in accordance with Council policy.

All units are accessible. Conditions will be applied to ensure compliance at detail design stage.

Yes

4R-1

Adaptive reuse

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

No reuse proposed.

N/A

4S-2

Mixed use

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

No mixed use proposed.

N/A

4T-1

Awnings and signage

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

No awnings or signage proposed.

N/A

4T-2

Awnings and signage

Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.

No awnings or signage proposed.

N/A

4U

Energy efficiency

 

Application has been submitted with a BASIX certificate which is considered to satisfy this section.

Yes

4V

Water management

 

Application has been submitted with a BASIX certificate which is considered to satisfy this section.

Yes

4W

Waste management

 

Waste management appropriate for the building type.

Yes


 

4X-3

Building maintenance

Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.

Building materials consist of rendered and painted masonry which is generally appropriate for the context. However, it is considered that dark coloured face brick would be a more durable material for high exposure areas such as the front fence, walls below ground floor level and the driveway ramp walls. Condition recommended.

Condition

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

                

The proposal has been lodged under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 to provide in-fill affordable housing. As such, the provisions of Division 1 of the SEPP apply and the compliance is measured in the following table:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Part 2: New Affordable Rental Housing

Summary Compliance Table

Division 1: In-fill affordable housing

Clause No.

Standard

Proposed

Complies

10

Development to which Division applies

10(1)

This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if:

Residential flat building.

Yes

10(1)(a)

the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument, and

Permitted in the zone.

Yes

10(1)(b)

the development is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument, or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

Land does not contain a heritage item.

Yes

10(2)

Despite sub-clause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within an accessible area.

The land is located in an accessible area.

Yes

10(3)

Despite sub-clause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use, or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

Located in the Sydney Region.

N/A

13

Floor space ratios

13(1)

This clause applies to development to which this Division applies if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent.

32.5% of the gross floor area is proposed to be affordable housing.

Applies

13(2)

The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus:

N/A

N/A

13(2)(a)

The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus:

(a)  if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less:

(i)  0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or

(ii)  Y:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent,
where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Y = AH ÷ 100

      or

LEP FSR: 0.7:1

Bonus:   0.33:1

Total Permissible FSR: 1.03:1

 

Proposed FSR: 0.988:1

Yes

13(2)(b)

if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1:

(i)  20 per cent of the existing maximum floor space ratio—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or

(ii)  Z per cent of the existing maximum floor space ratio—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent,
where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Z = AH ÷ 2.5

Not applicable.

N/A

13(3)

In this clause, gross floor area does not include any car parking (including any area used for car parking).

Noted.

Noted.

14

Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

14(1)

Site and solar access requirements

14(1)(b)

site area
if the site area on which it is proposed to carry out the development is at least 450 square metres,

Site area: 918m2

Yes

14(1)(c)(i)

landscaped area
if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—at least 35 square metres of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

 

N/A

N/A

14(1)(c)(ii)

in any other case—at least 30 per cent of the site area is to be landscaped,

 

Required:  275m2

261m2

28%

 

The deficiency can be made up by minor changes to the landscape plan which can be addressed by way of a condition.

Condition

14(1)(d)

deep soil zones

if, in relation to that part of the site area (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed:

 

14(1)(d)(i)

there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15 per cent of the site area (the deep soil zone), and

 

Required: 138m2

202m2

 

22%

Yes

14(1)(d)(ii)

each area forming part of the deep soil zone has a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and

Some portions of the deep soil zones are 1.5m in width, however, they comprise a minority and do not impact on overall compliance.

Satisfactory

14(1)(d)(iii)

if practicable, at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site area,

 

Required: 92m2

151m2

Yes

14(1)(e)

solar access
if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

70% of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

Yes

14(2)

General

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

14(2)(a)

parking
if:

14(2)(a)(i)

in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider for development on land in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, or

N/A

N/A

14(2)(a)(ii)

in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms,

Minimum of 11 Spaces required.

 

11 spaces provided (incl. 2 accessible)

Yes

14(2)(b)

dwelling size
if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least:

14(2)(b)(i)

35 square metres in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or

Complies.

Yes

14(2)(b)(ii)

50 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or

Complies.

Yes

14(2)(b)(iii)

70 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or

Complies.

Yes

14(2)(b)(iv)

95 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 3 or more bedrooms

N/A

N/A

14(3)

A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in sub-clause (1) or (2).

15

Design requirements

15(1)

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004, to the extent that those provisions are consistent with this Policy.

 

N/A

15(2)

This clause does not apply to development for the purposes of a residential flat building if State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development applies to the development.

SEPP 65 applies therefore cl. 15(1) is not applicable.

Noted

16

Continued application of SEPP 65

16

Nothing in this Policy affects the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development to any development to which this Division applies

SEPP 65 applies and the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Policy.

Noted

16A

Character of local area

 

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

The proposal is considered compatible with the character of the local area, in particular in respect of the traditional built form of the front building facing the street.

Yes

17

Must be used for affordable housing for 10 years

17(1)

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that:

17(1)(a)

for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

If approved, suitable conditions will be applied.

Condition

17(1)(a)(i)

the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

If approved, suitable conditions will be applied.

Condition

17(1)(a)(ii)

all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and

If approved, suitable conditions will be applied.

Condition

17(1)(b)

a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met.

If approved, suitable conditions will be applied.

Condition

17(2)

Sub-clause (1) does not apply to development on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or to a development application made by, or on behalf of, a public authority.

N/A

N/A

18

Subdivision

 

Land on which development has been carried out under this Division may be subdivided with the consent of the consent authority.

Subdivision is not proposed.

N/A

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development satisfies the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

 

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

 

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to the site.

 

6.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy IDAP 2013 applies to the site. Please see Section 7.8 below.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 impacts upon the adjacent properties in respect of privacy or overshadowing, subject to deletion of the roof terrace.

 

6.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants and Councillors from 8 March 2016 until 29 March 2016. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.

 

Summary of submissions

 

Forty submissions including one petition of 111 signatures (Attachment 3) were received during the notification of the development application.

 

Submissions

1. 

Petition of 111 signatures.

Head petitioner: J. Balgi & H. Foo

Address withheld on request

2. 

C. & D. Ally - Summer Hill NSW 2130

3. 

L. Alvis - Summer Hill NSW 2130

4. 

J. Balgi & H. Foo

Address withheld on request (3 letters)

5. 

L. Alvis - Summer Hill NSW 2130

6. 

C. & D. Ally - Summer Hill NSW 2130

7. 

M. Barr & S. Blakeman - Summer Hill NSW 2130

8. 

M. Bresic - Summer Hill NSW 2130

9. 

M. Chochula & L. Drozak - Summer Hill NSW 2130

10

T. Chrisafis - Summer Hill NSW 2130

11

R. Dabb - Summer Hill NSW 2130

12.

L. Findlay

13

M. Geason - Summer Hill NSW 2130

14

H. Gidding - Summer Hill NSW 2130

15.

P. Goodhew & L. McKendry - Summer Hill NSW 2130

16

B. Gray - Summer Hill NSW 2130

17.

Y.Q. Han & A.L. Xu - Summer Hill, NSW 2130

18

Jo Haylen MP for:

·    J. Balgi & H. Foo

Marrickville NSW 2204

19. 

Jo Haylen MP for:

·    R. Dabb

Marrickville NSW 2204

20. 

Jo Haylen MP for:

·    T. Moulton

Marrickville NSW 2204

21. 

Jo Haylen MP for:

·    C. & D. Ally

·    M. Barr & S. Blakeman

·    H. Gidding

·    Y. Han & A. Xu

·    S. Loy-Wilson & M. Sriravindrarajah

·    K. May

Marrickville NSW 2204

22.

C. Herscovitch - Summer Hill NSW 2130

23.

E. Hing - Summer Hill NSW 2130

24.

B. Hopkinson - Summer Hill NSW 2130

25.

D. & L. Horrigan - Summer Hill NSW 2130

26.

H. Hu & P. Yu - Summer Hill NSW 2130

27.

J. Humphrey

28.

M. Lean - Summer Hill NSW 2130

29.

S. Loy-Wilson & M. Sriravindrarajah - Summer Hill NSW 2130

30.

“Victoria Gardens” - Summer Hill NSW 2130

31.

K. May - Summer Hill NSW 2130

32.

M. Mendez, A, D, P. & R. Svoronos - Summer Hill NSW 2130

33.

T. Moulton - Summer Hill NSW 2130

34.

J. O’Connor - Summer Hill NSW 2130

35.

E. Sodergen - Summer Hill NSW 2130

36.

Anonymous

37.

C. Stoney - Summer Hill NSW 2130

38.

Unified Lawyers - Marrickville NSW 2204

39.

Y. Yao - Summer Hill NSW 2130

40.

Anonymous

 

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

Excessive scale.

The scale is less than that permitted under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and, as such, is acceptable. It is noted that the scale has been reduced during the assessment process.

Inadequate size of communal open space.

The communal open space has been increased in size to comply.

Inadequate front setback.

The front setback, though less than that of the immediately adjacent properties, is significantly greater than the predominant setback in the street.  It is noted that the controls require that the proposal “be consistent with the predominant setback of the buildings in the street” – not consistent with the immediately adjacent dwellings.


 

Not compatible with heritage character.

The proposal presents a very traditional two storey built form to the street and utilises a traditional material palette to relate appropriately to the context of historical buildings in the streetscape.

Rooftop terrace will create adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

The rooftop terrace will be deleted by way of condition of consent.

Adverse traffic impacts.

Council’s traffic engineer has reviewed the proposal and not raised objection on the basis of traffic generation.

Inadequate parking and consequent impacts on on-street parking.

The proposal provides parking consistent with the requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing). It is not open to Council to refuse the application on this basis.

Unacceptable overshadowing.

The extent of overshadowing is fully compliant with Council’s controls.

The scale will be disproportionate in the streetscape.

The front of the development has been designed to present as two storeys to the street with the larger and taller three storey elements concealed at the rear.

It is unreasonable that this development permits significantly greater FSR than the nearby heritage conservation area and other adjacent sites.

It should be noted that the additional FSR on this site is permitted by way of the State Government planning policy SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) which overrides the floor space controls contained in Council’s local environmental plan.

Inadequate landscaped area.

The proposal has been amended to provide a compliant amount of landscaped area. In addition, conditions will be applied to require additional canopy tree planting.

Privacy impacts of rear balconies on 8 Fleet Street.

Rear facing balconies do not look directly into 8 Fleet Street and have been provided with full height walls on their sides to minimise sideway views. This will be augmented by requirements for canopy tree planting along the rear boundary by condition of consent to further protect privacy.

Noise during construction.

Conditions will be applied to ensure that construction noise is within acceptable limits.

Dust during construction.

Conditions will be applied to ensure that construction dust is within acceptable limits.

Stormwater runoff.

Conditions will be applied to ensure that stormwater runoff is compliant with Council’s standards.

Privacy impacts of internal balconies.

These balconies face inwards into the development and are fully screened on their sides. They would have only very acute angled views (rather than direct) into any adjacent properties. This is considered acceptable in a medium density context.

Unsuitable unit mix.

The mix of units is consistent with the applicable planning controls.

Excessive height.

The proposal is consistent with the applicable height limits of Council’s planning controls.

“In-fill affordable housing” is a misleading definition as not all of the dwellings are affordable.

“In-fill affordable housing” is the correct land use definition under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

Side setbacks inadequate.

The side setbacks of 1.5m are consistent with the setback pattern in the streetscape as well as applicable controls.

 

6.8       The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application.

 

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

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C1: Access, Adaptability and Mobility

Summary Compliance Table

(Design Checklist 2)

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Part C1

Access, Adaptability and Mobility

2.3(iii)

Universal Accessible Design

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

Residential flat building.

Noted

2.4

Adaptable Housing

10%

11%

Yes

2.5

Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements

Site conditions

No variations proposed under this clause.

N/A

7.2

Universal Accessible Design

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

All apartments are accessible.

Yes

7.3

Construction

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

Adequate detail provided.

Yes

7.4

Access from street to dwelling entry

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

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

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

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

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

All dimensions are consistent with these requirements.

Yes

7.5

Interior dwelling design

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

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

·   Corridor widths

·   Bathrooms

·   Kitchens and

·   Laundries

This can be addressed by way of condition of consent.

Condition

7.6

Access to private balcony

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

All private balcony areas are accessible.

Yes

7.7

Access to car parking

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

Lift access with waiting area outside lift provided.

Yes

7.8

Access to communal garden space

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

All communal open space is accessible.

Yes

7.9

Access to Ground Level Commercial areas and circulation within Commercial

Levels

Access must be compliant with the BCA.

No commercial area proposed.

N/A

 

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 satisfactory and consistent with the character of 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 character of the proposal is consistent with the streetscape.

Yes

3.5(b)

 

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

The front setback of 6.7m is greater than those prevailing in the street, in particular:

·   25 Smith St (<5m)

·   41 Smith St (<5m)

·   45 Smith St (<5m)

·   47 Smith St (<5m)

·   49 Smith St (<5m)

and:

·   The majority of properties on the opposite side of Smith Street which are less than 4m.

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 bichromatic (two colour) face brick with gabled/hipped terra cotta tiled pitched roof forms with no reflective materials that may cause glare.

The finishes and materials are generally sympathetic to the character of the locality.

 

The roof tiles, however, appear to be of a charcoal colour and it is considered that unglazed terracotta would be a more appropriate material in the context.

Condition proposed to use terracotta tiles

3.5(e)

 

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

Not applicable due to the configuration of the site.

N/A

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.

N/A

3.5(g)

 

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

The basement ramp is well camouflaged from the street due to its use of dark, recessive materials. Conditions recommended to reinforce this approach.

Yes &

Condition

3.6

Fences and walls

 

 

 

3.6(a)

 

Front fences and walls to be compatible with the streetscape.

The proposed front fence would be more appropriate if constructed from dark face brick with larger openings between timber panels. A condition has been recommended.

Yes &

Condition

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;

Front fence is of a suitable height.

Yes

4

Housing Density

4.3

Floor Space Ratios

0.7:1

(1.03:1by virtue of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing)

0.988:1

Yes

4.10

Subdivision

Strata subdivision size will be considered on its merits

Strata subdivision not proposed in this application.

N/A

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.

The front setback of 6.7m is greater than those prevailing in the street, in particular:

·   25 Smith St (<5m)

·   41 Smith St (<5m)

·   45 Smith St (<5m)

·   47 Smith St (<5m)

·   49 Smith St (<5m)

and:

The majority of properties on the opposite side of Smith Street which are less than 4m.

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.

Generally satisfactory in the local context.

 

Side setbacks are consistent with those of adjacent properties and consistent with the streetscape. Privacy issues are addressed by way of avoidance of side facing balconies and use of highlight windows on side elevations.

Yes

5.8

 

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

Generally consistent with surrounding properties.

Yes

5.9

Building Height

9m as per height for R3 Medium Density Residential Zones, Code M in Ashfield LEP 2013.

9m

Yes

5.9(a)

 

3 storeys maximum height

3 storeys

Yes

5.9(b)

 

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

No fourth storey proposed.

N/A

5.11

 

Height of the first floor no to exceed

3.4m.

Less than 3.4m for all but the front units where they are 4m at street frontage due to natural fall of land towards street.

Satisfactory

5.12

 

Additional 4th storey in roof space permitted subject to:

a) consistent with any conservation area listing;

b) space wholly contained within a roof not exceeding 30º (excepting dormer windows); no lower than 22dand roof ridge does not exceed the maximum building height.

c) sunlight, privacy, views and ventilation protected; and

d) compliant with LEP height limit.

No fourth storey proposed.

N/A

5.13

 

No increased wall heights or larger than average dormer windows permitted to achieve the additional level permitted under cl. 5.12.

N/A

N/A

5.15

Solar Access

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

71%

This is considered reasonable given the context of the site. A greater percentage would be unachievable. In addition, it is compliant with SEPP 65.

Satisfactory

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.

No principal areas of private open space on adjacent properties would be overshadowed unacceptably by the development.

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.

Adequate solar access to courtyards.

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.

No impact upon north facing living room windows of buildings to the south.

Yes

5.16(d)

 

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

All north facing windows would receive solar access consistent with these requirements.

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.

Windows which look into each other within the development are at least 12m apart and separated by the proposed landscaping in the central communal open space.

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.

All side facing windows are highlight windows.

 

Yes

6.3(c)

 

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

Min 12m separation across internal courtyard.

Yes

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.

Windows and balconies either look into the internal courtyard area or to the front or rear. There are no side facing windows or balconies.

 

The rooftop terrace on the rear building, however, is not considered appropriate (nor necessary) due to privacy concerns of adjacent properties and is recommended for deletion.

Yes &

Condition

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 not necessary.

Yes

6.4

 

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

Privacy is adequate across boundaries.

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 and consistent with those on the streetscape.

Yes

6.10

 

All dwellings should have an open outlook to an area of landscaping or open space not compromised by privacy measures.

All dwellings look into the street, the central courtyard or onto the rear landscaped area.

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.

All dwellings have adequately sized balcony areas.

Yes

8.7

 

If at ground level,

·   Minimum area: 35m²

·   Minimum width 3m:

37m2

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 are at least 10m2 in area.

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: 175m2

12m x 15.24m

 

182m2

 

 

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.

Complies.

Yes

9.4

 

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

Shared entries serve no more than 6 dwellings.

Yes

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 & maintain existing infrastructure of the LGA.

Some minor issues have been identified by Council’s engineer which can be addressed by way of deferred commencement conditions of consent.

 

Condition has been applied.

12

Site Facilities

12.8

Storage

Must be adequately screened from frontage.

All storage is well concealed 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 has been applied.

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 has been applied.

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 has been applied.

12.12

Television aerials

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

Not nominated but can be conditioned.

Condition has been applied.

 

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 (9 dwellings):

·   1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=9 bins

·   1 x 240L recycling bin/9 dwellings=5 bins

·   TOTAL: 18 bins

Residential:

·   12 x 240L garbage bins

·   12 x 240L recycling bins

TOTAL: 24 bins

 

Yes

 

Bin Presentation

 

Adequate kerb space to present 5 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. Of concern, however, is the rooftop terrace of the rear building; this is not considered appropriate or necessary and will be deleted by way of condition. Some other minor detailed matters may also be addressed by way of appropriate conditions of consent.

 

7.0       Referrals

 

Referrals

Referral

Comments

Support

Building Surveyor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Traffic Engineer

Supported subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Yes

Drainage Engineer

Supported subject to deferred commencement conditions.

Yes

Heritage Advisor

Supported.

Yes

Environmental Health Officer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Tree Officer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Waste Management

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

 

8.0       Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

See 7.0

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

See 6.7

 

 

CONCLUSION

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

As noted previously, the proposal generally complies with the applicable development standards and controls and subject to some recommended modifications, is an acceptable form of infill development for the subject land. The proposal is therefore recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Locality Map

2.

Plans of Proposal

3.

Submissions

4.

Conditions

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

 

 


Council Meeting

27 September 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

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 3

Subject:         Development Application - 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill 

File Ref:         DA201600079/10/105841.16        

Prepared By: Dimitiri Gotsis - Town Planner Development Assessment, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking and associated landscaping works.  The application was notified in accordance with Council's notification policy and 28 submissions were received. 

The development results in a departure of 413.3m² (65.01%) from the FSR development standard contained in Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011. The proposal also results in a 2.5 metre departure (14.7%) from the building height development standard contained in Clause 4.3 of MLEP 2011. The application was accompanied by a written request under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the variation for building height and FSR which is supported for the reasons outlined in this report.

The site is located in the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct (Precinct 9.11) under MDCP 2011. The site sits within ‘Site 4’ of the Hoskins Park Masterplan area (MA 11.1) which consists of 66, 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road. ‘Site 4’ envisages the amalgamation of the 4 allotments to achieve a desired amalgamation pattern and building envelopes for future development. The application seeks a variation to the required amalgamation pattern for ‘Site 4’ to develop in isolation to the 3 remaining sites (68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road).  The applicant has made genuine efforts to acquire the adjoining site (68 Constitution Road) in accordance with the NSW Land and Environment Court Planning Principles for site amalgamation/site isolation.

As the site proposes to develop in isolation within ‘Site 4’ and adjoining buildings in the ‘Arlington Grove’ development have been approved in close proximity and locations contrary to the original suggested amalgamation pattern in the Masterplan area, the site is constrained in its ability to comply with required solar access and building envelope provisions contained within MDCP 2011. In response to the constraints of the site, the height of the development has been increased above the maximum height required for development within ‘Site 4’ of the Masterplan area in an effort to improve solar access to units. The non-compliant height of the development is considered an appropriate response for an isolated development within ‘Site 4’ given the location of the site between the 8 storey ‘Arlington Grove’ development to the north-west, the 4 storey development envisioned for the remainder of sites within ‘Site 4’ (68 – 72 Constitution Road) and the recently approved 7 storey shop top housing development on the opposite side of road at 62 Constitution Road. 

The application is referred to Council for determination in view of the extent of the departure from the maximum FSR and Height development standards, which exceed officer’s delegations.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

Location:                     North-east side of Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill between Grove Street and Light Rail Corridor.

 

Image 1: Location Map

 

D/A No:                        201600079

 

Application Date:        2 March 2016. Additional information submitted on 15 July 2016 and 2 September 2016  

 

Proposal:                     To demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking and associated landscaping works

 

Estimated Cost:          $3,895,000

 

Applicant:                    Nino Urban Planning + Development

 

Zoning:                        R1 - General Residential

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

 

Improvements:            Single storey dwelling house and warehouse outbuilding

 

 

                                  Image 2: The Site

 

 

Current Use:               Residential and ancillary warehouse/storage structure

 

Prior Determinations:          No prior determinations of relevance

 

Environment:              Residential, light industrial/warehousing, public recreation and rail  infrastructure.

 

 

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)      17 metres                                                           19.5 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)       1.3:1                                                                   2.146:1

 

3        Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type                                       Required                                                           Proposed

Solar Access                          See Body of Report

Parking                                   See Body of Report

Landscaped Area                   See Body of Report

Dwelling Mix                           See Body of Report

Site Coverage                        See Body of Report

Site Amalgamation                 See Body of Report

Building Envelope                  See Body of Report

 

4        Community Consultation:

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

Submissions:       28 submissions

 

5        Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation:                                                                                                Not affected

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

          State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

          State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.       The Site and Surrounds

 

The site is legally defined as Lot 2 in DP86920 and is known as 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage of 13.565 metres to Constitution Road, a depth of 36.59 metres and a rear boundary width of 13.145 metres. The site has an area of approximately 489sqm.

 

The site currently accommodates a single storey period dwelling house with a side driveway accessed off Constitution Road. In addition, at the rear of the site there is a large warehouse /storage structure which abuts the rear and side boundaries.

 

 

 

The site is zoned R1 General Residential under the MLEP 2011. The site is not identified as a heritage item and not within a heritage conservation area. The site is identified as being within a masterplan area in the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct under Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011. The site is one of 4 sites within ‘Site 4’ of the Hoskins Park Masterplan area, being the subject site and the adjoining three single storey terraces, known as 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill.

 

The Hoskins Park Masterplan area includes the recently approved development at 6-26 Grove Street and 60-64 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill, known as ‘Arlington Grove’. Formally an industrial site, the ‘Arlington Grove’ development comprises 3 x 8 storey buildings and 3 x 4 storey buildings with approximately 250 apartments and 1 café. The approved building footprint of ‘Arlington Grove’ is shown in Image 6 below.

 

To the north-west, the site adjoins 64 Constitution Road which previously contained a single storey dwelling house that was recently demolished and now forms part of ‘Arlington Grove’. The adjoining building under construction is known as building A1 and includes a 8 storey residential flat building and café forming part of ‘Site 3’ in the Hoskins Park Masterplan area. A new ‘right of way’ (South Lane) is being constructed between building A1 and the subject site along its side north-west boundary. South Lane will provide an exit only onto Constitution Road adjoining the site with entry only access from Grove Street (see Image 6 below).

 

 

 

Image 3: 60-64 Constitution Road (60-64 Constitution Road – ‘Arlington Grove’

 development)

 

 

At the end of Constitution Road further to the north-west and approximately 25 metres from the site is the entrance to the Arlington Light Rail Station.

 

 

Image 4: Arlington Light Rail Station viewed towards the north-west on Constitution Road

 

 

To the south-east, the site adjoins 68 Constitution Road which accommodates a single storey semi-detached dwelling house and is 1 in a row of 3 semi-detached dwellings from 68-72 Constitution Road. The subject site and the 3 adjoining sites in this row form ‘Site 4’ of the Hoskins Park Masterplan area.

 

 

Image 5: 68 -72 Constitution Road

 

To the north-east of the site, the site adjoins South Lane which is under construction as part of ‘Site 3’ in the ‘Arlington Grove’ development with South Lane being constructed along the rear boundary (see Image 6 below).

 

Image 6 shows the site (marked in red) in the context of the required amalgamation pattern within the Hoskins Park masterplan area and the approved ‘Arlington Grove’ development to the north (rear) and north-west (side) of the site. Note: The DCP amalgamation pattern has not been realised as part of the proposed development nor in the approved adjoining ‘Arlington’ Grove development. 

 

 

Image 6: MDCP 2011 Masterplan (MA 11.1) & site footprint & adjoining approved development

 

Opposite the site to the south-west (front) is 62 Constitution Road which currently contains a 3 storey warehouse building. A 7 storey shop top housing development was recently approved on the site by the Land and Environment Court (see Image 7 below). 62 Constitution Road does not form part of the Hoskins Park Masterplan area.

 

 

Image 7: Existing warehouse and approved 7 storey development – 62 Constitution Road

 

 

The immediate surrounds of the site are in transition from a mix of light industrial and low density residential development to a mix of low to high density residential development. There are two parks within the surrounding area: J.F. Laxton Reserve approximately 120 metres to the south-east of the site across the light rail corridor and Johnson Park approximately 65 metres to the east across the light rail corridor.

 

 

Image 8: Surrounding context and land uses (Source: Nino Urban Planning & Development)

 

To the north-east across the light rail corridor is the former Waratah Flour Mills residential development.

 

2.       The Proposal

 

Approval is sought to demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking, associated landscaping works and public domain works to Constitution Road.

 

The development is further summarised as follows:

 

Basement Level

 

·          Vehicle ramp accessed from South Lane;

·          Lift core;

·          Fire stairs;

·          6 car parking spaces;

·          15 bicycle spaces; and

·          Storage cages.

 

Ground Floor

 

·          Driveway access from South Lane;

·          Pedestrian entry lobby;

·          Lift core;

·          Open space/deep soil planting (101sqm);

·          Garbage room (27.5sqm);

·          Unit G01 – 1 Bed (52sqm); and

·          Unit G02 – 2 Bed (81sqm).

 

 

First Floor

 

·          Lift core, garbage chute & lobby;

·          Unit 101 – 1 Bed (50sqm);

·          Unit 102 – 1 Bed, adaptable (84sqm); and

·          Unit 103 – 2 Bed (84sqm).

 

Second Floor

 

·          Lift core, garbage chute & lobby;

·          Unit 201 – 1 Bed (50sqm);

·          Unit 202 – 1 Bed, adaptable (84sqm); and

·          Unit 203 – 2 Bed (84sqm).

 

Third Floor

 

·          Lift core, garbage chute & lobby;

·          Unit 301 – 1 Bed (50sqm);

·          Unit 302 – 1 Bed, adaptable (84sqm); and

·          Unit 303 – 2 Bed (84sqm).

 

Fourth Floor

 

·          Lift core, garbage chute & lobby;

·          Unit 401 – 1 Bed (50sqm);

·          Unit 402 – 1 Bed, (84sqm); and

·          Unit 403 – 2 Bed (84sqm).

 

Fifth Floor

 

·          Lift core, garbage chute & lobby;

·          Communal roof terrace (33sqm) and storage; and

·          Unit 501 – 2 Bed (78sqm)

 

Public Domain Works

 

Public domain works are included (to be carried out by the applicant) by way of:-

 

·          Paving of Constitution Road to Grove Street; and

·          Removal of 2 power poles and relocation of power lines underground.

 

The public domain works have been included in a detailed landscape plan.

 

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

 

 

Image 9: Render of the development viewed to the north-east from Arlington Light Rail Station

 

 

 

Image 10: Site Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Image 11: Basement Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 12: Ground Floor


 

 

 

Image 13: First Floor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 14: Second Floor

 

 

Image 15: Third Floor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 16: Fourth Floor


 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 17: Fifth Floor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 18: Roof Plan

 

 

Image 19: North West Side Elevation (South Lane)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 20: South East Side Elevation

 

 

Image 21: South West Elevation (Front – Constitution Road)

 

 

Image 22: North East Elevation (Rear – South Lane)

 

Image 23: Section

 

 

 

Image 24: Landscape Plan & Public Works Plan (Constitution Road)

 

 

3.       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. SEPP 55 requires that remediation works must be carried out in accordance with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as approved by the consent authority and any guidelines enforced under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

The site is currently occupied by a residential building, however previous uses, degrading buildings and parking of vehicles warranted a Detailed Site Investigation to be undertaken. This was submitted with the application. The detailed site investigation concluded the following:

 

·        Detailed Site Investigation complies with the NSW EPA's Guidelines for Consultants: Reporting on Contaminated Sites

·        The site and surrounding areas were free of statutory notices issued by the EPA under the

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;

·        There is no evidence of underground or aboveground storage tanks;

·        Five bore samples collected across the site identified hot spot contamination of Benzo(a)pyrene in excess of adopted HIL B limits at three locations that requires additional investigations for delineation and remediation;

·        Groundwater investigations were not undertaken and are recommended for further investigation

 

Upon the request of Council, the applicant prepared a Remedial Action Plan for the site with remediation of the site proposed to be undertaken after demolition of existing structures.

 

The detailed site investigation and remedial action plan adopted HIL B investigation levels for the site. This is suitable for the residential component of the development; however this is not suitable for the 101m2 deep soil planting and common space area on the northern portion of the site.

 

More conservative investigation levels should be adopted, being HIL C, as it is assumed that occupants may have substantial opportunity for exposure to this portion of the site, and as such any potential contaminants that may be present. This is recommended in the NEPM 1999 which states Landscaped/playground (including sandpit) areas used for recreation within a high-density development should be assessed on the basis of the more conservative HIL C values” (National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, Schedule B7, 3.2.2).

 

Conditions are included in the recommendation addressing HIL C investigation levels and further RAP requirements. Subject to compliance with the above, the proposal is considered acceptable having regard to the provisions of SEPP 55.

 

4.       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.

 

The development is generally acceptable having regard to the 9 design quality principles as:-

 

·        The development is a site specific response presenting appropriate density, scale and built form within a masterplanned precinct;

·        Resource, energy and water efficiency has been addressed through lodgement of a BASIX certificate;

·        Adequate deep soil planting and landscaping is provided;

·        The development provides good amenity for the dwellings;

·        The development improves the safety and security of the street and is acceptable when considered against CPTED principles; and

·        Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel supports the contemporary development.

 

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 and 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 development provides a total of 134sqm of open space equal to 27% of the site. The communal open space consists of 101sqm of open space on the ground level and 33sqm on level 5.

 

The principal communal open space used by occupants is likely to be the ground floor open space to the rear of the site abutting South Lane.

 

Due to the proximity of approved heights of development to the north and west (‘Arlington Grove’) the ground floor open space will not receive a minimum of 2 hours solar access between 9:00am and 3:00pm mid-winter.

 

Given that the approved heights of the adjoining developments limit solar access on the ground floor for any potential development on site, an additional area of communal open space has been provided level 5 which is likely to receive the minimum solar access required. In this regard, the non-compliant level solar access received to the principal area of communal open space on the ground floor is acceptable in this instance. 

 

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 than 650m2

-

 

 

7%

650m2 - 1,500m2

3m

Greater than 1,500m2

6m

Greater than 1,500m2 with significant existing tree cover

6m

 

The site has an area less than 650sqm and provides 101sqm of deep soil area, equal to 20% of the site area and therefore complies with the prescribed ADG requirements for deep soil zones.

 

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

Up to 25 metres (5-8 storeys)

9 metres

4.5 metres

Over 25 metres (9+ storeys)

12 metres

6 metres

 

A 12.7 metre rear setback to South Lane has been provided with resulting separation between the approved 4 storey ‘Arlington Grove’ building to the rear complying with the above rear setback requirement.

 

On the north western side of the site, the adjoining building A1 within the ‘Arlington Grove’ development was approved at 8 storeys in height with a 6 metre setback to the boundary of the subject site which was a departure from the 7 metre setback required by Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011.

 

Building A1 contains habitable areas at 6 metres measured to the side boundary of the site from level 1 to level 8.

 

Levels 4 and 5 of the proposed development consequently do not achieve the required 9 metre side setback from the adjoining habitable areas of building A1 with a 7.4 metre setback proposed between the habitable rooms of the adjoining building and the habitable rooms of the development on level 5 and balconies on level 6.

 

Despite the building separation non-compliance of levels 4 and 5, the development will maintain adequate visual privacy as:-

 

·        The building has been designed in an orientation so that apartment sightlines are directed away from building A1 of the ‘Arlington Grove’ development; and

·           Screens have been provided to balconies and openings where necessary and highlight windows are provided on the north-west elevation with opaque glazing.

 

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.

 

The proportion of units which comply with the minimum solar access requirements of the ADG is 9 of 15, being 60%, with 1 unit (0.66%) receiving no direct sunlight mid-winter.

 

Due to the orientation of the site and the height and siting of approved buildings to the side and rear of the site, achieving 2 hours of solar access to the internal and external living areas of 70% of the dwellings is difficult.

 

In response to the external site constraints posed by adjoining development, living areas and glazing have been orientated to maximise solar access and the height of the development has been increased to an appropriate transition point between the approved building to the north-west and potential future development at 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road in order to provide units with good solar access on levels 4 and 5.

 

Further, an independent solar access report prepared by Steven King was commissioned by the applicant. The report included thorough solar access 3D modelling of the development and shadow impacts of approved development surrounding the site. The report notes that the development would be capable of achieving 70% of apartments receiving 2 hours solar access in mid-winter had the adjoining 8 storey development been approved with side setbacks above 5 storeys at the required distance in accordance with the ADG. The report concludes that achieving 60% of apartments receiving 2 hours solar access in mid-winter is a result of significant design effort in response to site constraints. 

 

On balance, the design is well considered having responded to site constraints and a variation to the required number of units receiving a minimum of 2 hours of solar access in mid-winter is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

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.

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

 

The plans indicate that 10 of the 15 units, being 66%, will allow for natural ventilation. No balcony servicing a cross through unit contains a balcony of depth greater than 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

 

The ceiling height of each storey will be a minimum 2.7 metres throughout each apartment.

The ground floor has a ceiling height of 3.05 metres which allows for increased solar access to the lower level apartments.

 

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

 

All units comply with the minimum area as stipulated under the ADG.

 

 

Apartment Layout

 

The ADG prescribes the following recommendations for apartment layouts:

 

·        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.

 

Room depths, room sizes and dimensions and window sizes for each unit complies with the ADG.

 

Units 102, 202, 302, and 402 propose a width of 3.3 metres for the combined living and dining rooms falling 300mm short of the 3.6 metre depth recommended by the ADG. As the depth and resulting amenity for future occupants of these units is considered satisfactory, the minor variation is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

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

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

 

The ADG also prescribes that 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 units provide a balcony of the required size and dimension as recommended by the ADG. Units G01 and G02 on the ground floor provide a terrace area of 15sqm and 28sqm respectively.

 

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

           

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

In addition to storage within units, storage cages have been provided on the basement level. All units are provided with an area of storage greater than the minimum area recommended by the ADG.

 

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

 

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

 

6.       State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The site is located within 25 metres of a rail corridor. Clause 86 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) requires the consideration of potential effects to the ongoing operation and safety of the rail corridor for development within 25 metres. Clause 87 of the SEPP relates to the impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development, and for a development for the purpose of a building for residential use, requires appropriate measures are incorporated into such developments to ensure that certain noise levels are not exceeded.

 

The proposal was referred to Sydney Trains for comment. Conditions of consent were provided including the requirement for an Acoustic Assessment Report to be provided before the issue of a Construction Certificate.  Those conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

 

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 17 metres applies to the land under MLEP 2011. The development has a maximum building height of 19.5 metres 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 1.3:1 applies to the development under MLEP 2011.

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 1049.4sqm which equates to a FSR of 2.09:1 on the 489sqm 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)

 

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

 

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 applicant considers compliance with the building height development standard to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the following reasons:

 

·        The site is located adjacent to an approved 8 storey building with a height of 27.53 metres with substantial overshadowing of the subject site expected in addition to adjoining terraces on Constitution Road. This presents a site constraint for any development on site and the development is required to be taller in order to achieve increased solar access into units. A reduction in height to a compliant level would reduce solar access and it will be difficult to achieve a development of acceptable standard and amenity;

 

·        The proposed height is contextually appropriate as it provides a height transition between the approved 8 storey building to the north-west and potential future 4 storey development envisaged by Part 9.11 of MDCP for development at 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road. The height transition is well balanced and proportional to the site and is supported by Professor Peter Webber, Steve King and Council’s AEP. In this regard, the development is a better planning outcome as a reduction in height to achieve numerical compliance would not provide appropriate height transition between developments and would be disproportionate in scale;

 

·        The 17 metre height control is reasonably capable of accommodating a 5.5 storey building. The half storey component is represented by limiting the sixth storey to one apartment, which is setback from the front and located to the centre of the floor plate. This limits the visibility of the apartment from the street level and provides a recessed sixth floor;

 

·        The height protrusion is attributed to the sixth floor, with the primary non-complying element being the lift over-run and fire stair in addition to the top floor 2 bedroom apartment. If the apartment were to be deleted, the height variation would remain, as the lift over-run and fire stair will still be required to provide access to the roof terrace. The top floor apartment is setback and recessed and is not highly visible from the street level. Therefore, there would be no discernible benefit of deleting the top floor apartment, as it would not result in compliance with the height standard;

 

·        Shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that the shadow cast by the subject development is smaller than the shadow cast by the adjoining approved 8 storey building to the north-west. Therefore, the proposal will not generate any a greater shadow than the shadow that will be created by the 8 storey building. In this regard, the proposal does not generate any adverse shadow impact;

 

·        Consideration has been given to visual and acoustic privacy. The building is designed in a north-east, south-west orientation with apartments directed away from the adjoining approved buildings. A substantial rear setback is provided to increase building separation and improve solar access. Screens have been provided where necessary and high-light windows are provided in opaque glazing for daylight. The proposal is a considered response to the context and does not generate any privacy impact to adjoining development;

 

·        The streetscape plan submitted with the application illustrates that the proposal provides a contextually appropriate height transition within an emerging high density residential area. The building is well articulated and composes quality materials such as dry-pressed bricks, decorative brickwork on side façades and use of vertical elements that are balanced with horizontal banding. The building is a carefully designed high-quality development that exhibits design excellence and will deliver visually interesting building that compliments the streetscape and immediate area;

 

·        The proposed height of the development provides amenity to future occupants that is considered to be a better planning outcome than that of a compliant proposal and is of a superior urban outcome in the context of surrounding approved development;

 

·        The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of building standard and the objectives would be thwarted if compliance was required; and

 

·        The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives;

 

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 demonstrated in the assessment provided in this report, the additional dwelling does not result in adverse amenity impacts for residents of adjoining properties and the architectural form proposed responds appropriately to the future context of the site. 

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

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

 

·        The proposed bulk, mass and density of the development is contextually appropriate and rationalises the height and FSR standards. In this context, the FSR standard of 1.3:1 is a disconnect with the 17 metre height standard, and in the circumstances of this case, the proposed FSR of 2.146:1 provides a rationalisation and better relationship with the height standard and height of adjoining approved development;

 

·        Due to the substantial overshadowing as result of the adjoining approved 8 storey development to the north west, an increase in height is required to improve solar access. In order to achieve this increase in height, flexibility is required to the FSR standard. This will enable a development that achieves better amenity for future occupants than a development that would strictly comply with the FSR. This demonstrates that the benefits of varying the FSR and height are distinct and particular to the application;

 

·        The development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality and the design of the development is considered to be a better urban outcome that will compliment future adjoining development;

 

·        The proposed residential flat building will provide an improved streetscape presentation and building form that includes good quality finishes and materials and will contribute positively to the locality;

 

·        The proposal does not result in any undue or adverse environmental planning impacts in terms of shadow, amenity, privacy, traffic, view loss or streetscape presentation;

 

·        The proposed development is compatible with the approved development in the immediate vicinity and is not considered to detract from the streetscape of Constitution Road. The proposal is exemplary of the desired future character of the area, as established through the land use zone under MLEP 2011 and planning precinct provisions in MDCP 2011 and surrounding recently approved development;

 

·        The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard; and

 

·        The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

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

 

As demonstrated in the assessment provided in this report, the additional FSR does not result in adverse amenity impacts for residents of adjoining properties, results in improved amenity for future occupants and the architectural form proposed responds appropriately to the adjoining site context and future character of the masterplan area.

 

(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.

 

There are no trees on the property covered by and protected under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. However, the neighbouring property at 68 Constitution Road contains a Norfolk Pine which is of high retention value and may be impacted by the proposed development due to its proximity to the common boundary.

 

Council’s Tree Management Officer recommended that the tree be retained and protected during construction. Despite the likelihood of future removal of the tree due to redevelopment and associated remediation works of the neighbouring property, conditions of consent are included in the recommendation requiring the retention and protection of the tree during construction.

 

 

(vii)    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 development includes excavation for a basement level, which subject to conditions which have been 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.

 

(viii)   Flood Planning (Clause 6.3)

 

The land is not identified as land that is shown as “Flood planning area” on the MLEP 2011 Flood Planning Area Map; however, the site is subject to flooding.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that South Lane is subject to flooding and that amended driveway access and ground floor levels are required to ensure the site is not impacted by floodwaters.

 

Due to the location of the driveway access point and entry lobby on South Lane, the driveway height and floor levels of the lobby and ground floor units were subsequently modified.

 

Council’s Development Engineer raised no concerns with respect to the amended plans subject to the imposition of conditions that have been incorporated into the recommendation.

 

(ix)    Terrestrial Biodiversity (Clause 6.4)

 

The land is identified as “Biodiversity” on the MLEP 2011 Natural Resource - Biodiversity Map.

 

 

The land is also located in the Bandicoot Protection Area as identified in the Biodiversity Map contained in Appendix 3 of Part 2.13 of MDCP 2011 being an area identified as a potential habitat for the Long-nosed Bandicoot. The property has a site area which is greater than 450sqm.

 

The development was referred to Council’s Biodiversity Officer who provided conditions of consent addressing any potential impact on biodiversity during demolition, construction and throughout the use of the development. Those conditions are included in the recommendation.

 

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.

 

The application was also referred to Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP) who support the proposal. It is also noted that the proposal responded favourably to the AEP’s feedback at Pre –DA stage and DA stage in:

 

·        Altering the design to ensure that the streetscape presentation be improved with increased articulation features to the Constitution Road elevation; and

·        Increasing the presence of the entry lobby with an increased opening to South Lane.

(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 would require a minimum of 3 adaptable dwellings and 3 accessible resident parking spaces. In addition, all areas of the development are required to be accessible by persons with a disability.

 

The development provides 3 adaptable dwellings, accessible entry and continuous path of travel within the development in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011. An Access Report was submitted with the application and demonstrates compliance with relevant access requirements.

 

The matter of accessible car spaces is discussed below in this section of the report under the heading ‘Parking (Part 2.10)’.

 

Further assessment of the application under the Premises Standards will occur at Construction Certificate stage. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance.

 

(iv)    Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

The development would maintain a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for the adjoining approved development within the Masterplan area and adjoining residential dwellings on Constitution Road and ensures a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for future occupants of the development itself. The following points are noted:

 

·        Private open space areas have been provided in the form of balconies in a north-east and south-west orientation to avoid overlooking of the adjoining ‘Arlington Grove’ development to the north west and south east;

·        The balconies have been articulated and constructed with blade walls/screens to minimise potential overlooking of adjoining residential development and to provide privacy for future occupants;

·        The highlight windows to the north-west façade do not generate any privacy issues, as they are opaque windows that allow for daylight and ventilation and are not transparent;

·        The rear of the building is substantially setback from the boundary which minimises potential for overlooking of the approved development to the rear across South Lane;

·        Balconies and habitable rooms facing Constitution Road are articulated and screened to minimise potential for overlooking of the approved development at 62 Constitution Road;

·        Areas of common open space are not likely to generate unreasonable levels of noise out of character with what is expected of a residential use; and

·        A condition of consent has been included requiring any noise from plant and equipment (i.e. – air conditioning units) to not exceed 5dBa above background noise.

 

(v)     Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

 

Overshadowing

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing to surrounding properties and demonstrate that proposal does not create any greater shadow than the shadow that is generated by the approved 8 storey building to the north west. As a result, the development does not generate any shadow that will reduce solar access to adjoining properties to the south.

 

Therefore, the development is not considered to be unreasonable in the circumstances and would not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for surrounding residential development.

Solar Access

 

Solar access has been discussed above in section 4 of this report.

 

(vi)    Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

Part 2.9 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives relating to community safety. The proposal provides clear visible entrances to the building from Constitution Road and South Lane, secure parking, habitable rooms overlooking Constitution Road and design features which would allow for casual surveillance of along both street frontages. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation regarding lighting and anti-graffiti treatment to the development.  

 

(vii)    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

0.4 car parking space per studio

N/A

6

No

0.5 car parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit

6 x 1 bed unit (non-adaptable)

= 3 spaces

1 car parking space per 2 bedroom unit

6 x 2 bed unit

= 6 spaces

1.2 car parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit

N/A

1 car space per 1 adaptable dwelling

3 accessible spaces

 

TOTAL REQUIRED:

 12 spaces

 

 

Visitor Car Parking

0.1 car parking space per unit

15 units

= 1.5 spaces

0 spaces

No

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

0 accessible space

 

 

TOTAL: 1.5

Bicycle Parking

Resident Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 2 units

15 units

= 8 spaces

15 spaces

Yes

Visitor Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 10 units

15 units

= 1.5 spaces

Motorcycle Parking

Motorcycle Parking

5% of the total car parking requirement

N/A

-

-

 

The application proposes the provision 6 car parking spaces which does not comply with the requirements set out in the above table.

 

The applicant has indicated that the 6 parking spaces are to be allocated to the 6 x 2 bedroom units resulting in no allocated parking spaces for the 9 x 1 bedroom units.

 

Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 requires the provision of 1 car space per adaptable unit, therefore the proposal is required to provide a total of 3 adaptable spaces and no adaptable parking spaces are proposed.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed basement is considerably constrained and limited in size, the provision of accessible parking is necessary to ensure the adaptable units are adequately catered for. It is considered the proposal could provide for 2 accessible car spaces with minimal loss of parking. The provision of 2 accessible parking spaces would result in the loss of 1 car space to provide for a shared zone resulting in a total of 5 on-site car parking spaces. This is considered to be a better outcome for the site and its potential tenants.

 

Having regard to the limited space within the proposed car park, space 5 as shown on the basement plan could be deleted and converted to a ‘shared area’ to accommodate 2 accessible parking spaces on either side (spaces 4 & 6). A condition of consent is included in the recommendation to this effect.

 

The parking shortfall is considered moderate and it is noted that due to the amended location of the basement access off South Lane (an amendment made at the request of Council), one additional on street parking space will be provided in place of the existing and redundant driveway to the site off Constitution Road.

 

Despite the car parking space shortfall, the development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:-

 

·        The development is within 25 metres of the Arlington Light Rail Station which will assist in mitigating car ownership, particularly for occupants travelling to and from the CBD;

 

·        The development is within 280 metres walking distance to Old Canterbury Road and 700 metres walking distance to the Dulwich Hill Town Centre both of which provide well serviced bus stops; and

 

·        The site size is constrained and any further parking would require a further excavation for additional parking which is not considered a reasonable outcome given the minimal benefit in additional car spaces and appropriateness of further excavation on the small site.

 

Further, the applicant submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report which concludes that the proposed development is a moderate trip generator for the weekday peak times and will not negatively impact the ongoing use and function of the surrounding road network and intersections.

 

On balance, the development contributes to urban renewal in an emerging compact urban centre close to multiple public transit networks in the interest of supporting compact urban form, economic viability and sustainable transport. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable having regard to the objectives of Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011.

 

(viii)   Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

 

Part 2.18.11.5 of MDCP 2011 prescribes landscaped area, private and common open space controls for residential flat buildings. 

 

Landscaped Area

 

The development provides landscaping to the front of the site abutting Constitution Road and 101sqm of landscaped area at ground level located at the rear of the site. Although the landscaped area provided does not comply with the required provision for 45% landscaping of the site area required by MDCP 2011, the area is considered sufficient in size and function as it is provided as deep soil and is of a size which is considered appropriate given the relatively small nature of the development and expected occupancy rate.

 

A landscape plan and maintenance schedule was not submitted with the application. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the submission of a landscape plan and maintenance schedule.

Private and Common Open Space

 

The units are provided with private open space in accordance with the required sizes in Part 2.18 of MDCP 2011. The common open space on ground level and level 5 are considered to afford a good level of amenity for future occupants. The development satisfies Part 2.18 in this regard.

 

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

 

2.21.2.1           Recycling and Waste Management

 

A Recycling and Waste Management Plan (RWMP) was submitted with the application and is considered to be adequate. In accordance with Part 2.21 of MDCP 2011, development with 4 or more storeys requires a garbage chute or waste storage room for waste disposal on each floor. The development provides a chute on each floor.

 

2.21.2.5           Residential Waste

 

Residential waste facilities have been provided on the ground floor level with direct access to Constitution Road.  The garbage room has an area of 27.5sqm which is considered of a sufficient size to accommodate the required 14 x 240 litre bins for waste and recycling. 

 

A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring adequate bin management for collection periods as to minimise the impact of bins left out on the street on collection days.

 

2.21.3.1           Clothes drying facilities

 

Under the provisions of Part 2.21.2 of MDCP 2011, external clothes drying areas are required at a rate of 3.75m² per dwelling, with a minimum 6 metres of clothes line for each dwelling.

 

The balconies proposed for each dwelling are considered to be capable of accommodating suitable clothes drying facilities for future occupants.

 

2.21.3.2           Public utilities

 

A condition is included in the recommendation advising the person acting on the consent to liaise with the relevant authorities/service providers for public utilities (Sydney Water Corporation, Ausgrid, AGL and Telstra) concerning the provision of water and sewerage, electricity, natural gas and telephones respectively to the property.

 

2.21.3.3           Mail Boxes

 

A condition is included in the recommendation to ensure that suitable letterbox facilities are provided in accordance with Part 2.21.4 of MDCP 2011.

 

2.21.3.4           Building identification numbers

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring appropriate numbering details to be submitted in accordance with Part 2.21.5 of MDCP 2011.

 

2.21.3.5           Telecommunication facilities

 

A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the provision of suitable telecommunication facilities in accordance with Part 2.21.6 of MDCP 2011.

 

(x)     Stormwater Management (Part 2.25)

 

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who provided conditions to be included in the recommendation to address stormwater management.

Part 4 - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

Part 4.2 – Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings

 

The site is located within the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct pursuant to Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011. Many of the controls and objectives contained within Part 4.2 are effectively superseded by the controls contained within Part 9.11. The following assessment is in regards to controls which are not replicated within Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011:

 

(i)      General Controls (Part 4.2.3)

 

Part 4.2.3 of MDCP 2011 prescribes the following unit mix requirements for residential flat buildings containing 6 or more dwellings:

 

Dwelling Type

Proposed

Required (%)

Studio

4 dwellings (18%)

5-20%

1 bedroom

11 dwellings (50%)

10-40%

2 bedroom

7 dwellings (31%)

40-75%

3 bedroom

0 dwellings (0%)

10-45%

 

The development includes 0 x studio dwellings (0 % of 15), 9 x 1 bedroom dwellings (60 % of 15), 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings (40 % of 15) and 0 x 3 bedroom dwellings (0% of 15) which does not comply with the abovementioned unit mix requirements. Notwithstanding, there is considered to be an acceptable range of dwelling sizes and types to meet the future needs of the area across the precinct. The variation is not considered to warrant refusal of the application. 

 

(ii)      Built Form and Character (Part 4.2.4)

 

4.2.1.1 Floor Space Ratio and Site Coverage

 

The floor space ratio of the development has been discussed earlier in this letter under the provisions of MLEP 2011.

 

Part 4.2.4.1 MDCP 2011 specifies the following maximum site coverage controls for residential flat buildings:

 

Development Type

Maximum Site Coverage

Residential flat building

45% for one storey

35% for two storey

30% for three or more storeys

 

The site coverage for this proposal, measured in accordance with the above, equates to 42% of the site area which does not comply with such requirement. Notwithstanding, the variation is considered acceptable given the site accommodates a sufficient deep soil area and an acceptable area of landscaping and common open space as discussed above in Section 8 of this report.

 

4.2.4.2 Building Heights

 

This matter has been discussed earlier in this letter under the provisions of MLEP 2011.

 

(iii)     Streetscape, General Appearance and Materials (Part 4.2.5)

 

The development is considered acceptable with regards to the streetscape design parameters prescribed under Part 4.2.5 of MDCP 2011. The original application was reviewed by the AEP who found the proposal to be of an overall high design standard with an appropriate use of colours and materials. Minor amendments to the entry area and lobby off South Lane and the architectural expression facing Constitution Road were recommended. These amendments were undertaken and amended plans were submitted.

 

In summary, the design of the development is of a high standard in terms of its architectural expression, use of colours and materials, its relationship with the public realm and internal amenity for future occupants.

 

PART 9 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

The site is located in the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct (Precinct 9.11) and the Hoskins Park Masterplan area (MA 11.1) under MDCP 2011.

 

Part 9.11 of the DCP prescribes the following site specific planning controls to achieve the desired future character for the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct:

 

 

Image 25: Figure 11.1b –  (MA 11.1) Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011

 

 

(i)      Masterplan Area (MA 11.1) – (Part 9.11.5.1)

 

Site Amalgamation

 

The site is 1 of 4 properties within ‘Site 4’ as shown in ‘Image 23’ above and further demonstrated in ‘Image 19’ below.

 

 

 

Image 26: Site 4 (Site 4 marked red & subject site marked in blue)

 

 

In accordance with Control C15 and C17 under Part 9.11.5.2 of MDCP 2011, the site is required to be amalgamated with 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road in accordance with the pattern prescribed for ‘Site 4’. 

 

The development does not propose to amalgamate with 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road. Documentation provided to Council indicates genuine attempts to amalgamate with the adjoining sites have been made and have been unsuccessful to date.

 

In support of the development without amalgamation with the adjoining sites within ‘Site 4’, the application was accompanied by alternative masterplan outcomes relating to remaining lot amalgamation opportunities. Modelled development outcomes to develop the adjoining 3 properties in isolation were provided to justify the proposed departure. This was undertaken by the applicant by:-

 

·    The submission of detailed modelling of potential built form outcomes on the alternative amalgamated sites (68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road) and demonstrating how the sites could be amalgamated and redeveloped to be compliant with relevant planning policy controls; and

 

·    demonstrating how they fit with the underlying intentions and objectives of the master plan, in the overall context of the Masterplan area.

 

 

 

In consideration of the evidence provided by the applicant, Council is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the NSW LEC Planning Principles for site amalgamation/site isolation have been satisfied. 

 

Building Height

 

The building does not comply with the building height development standard in MLEP 2011.

 

Further to this, Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011 prescribes a height limit expressed in storeys, being a 3 storey podium with a 4th storey setback 3 metres.

 

The subject development proposes a 5 storey podium with a setback 6th storey.

 

In assessing the appropriateness of these height departures, consideration is given to the scale of the development in the context of surrounding approved buildings to the north west (building A1, ‘Arlington Grove’ – 8 storeys) and to the south west (62 Constitution Road – 7 storeys). In addition, consideration is given to the sites’ constraints in terms of ability to provide complaint solar access for future occupants due to the proximity of the site to the adjoining approved 8 metre building to the north-west and the 4 storey building to the north.

 

Although the height of the development is non complaint, both numerically and when expressed as a number of storeys, the development provides a suitable visual transition between surrounding development to the north west and south west (‘Arlington Grove’ and 62 Constitution Road), the expected 4 storey height envisaged by Part 9.11 for 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Road and residential dwellings to the east on Grove Street. This is demonstrated in ‘Image 21 and Image 22’ below:-

 

 

 

Image 27: Constitution Road streetscape elevation – height transition between approved 8 storey building, the subject site and possible future development at 68 – 72 Constitution Road

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 28: Sketch Up model of the development in the context of surrounding existing and approved development

 

 

Although the subject proposal has six levels, the single unit at the top is recessed so that the new building would read as only five storeys from the street level.

 

The proposed height on the constrained site allows for better amenity for future occupants by providing good solar access to the upper 5th and 6th storey where as a reduced and compliant height would not allow for overall adequate solar access to units. It is noted that the approved 4 storey building to the north was not positioned in accordance with the prescribed building pattern within the Masterplan area. Open space is prescribed in the Masterplan area in the location of the approved 4 storey building. This has reduced the opportunity for good solar access for lower level units for any potential development on the subject site. 

 

It is therefore considered that the height and number of storeys of the development presents a suitable transition between the 8 storey development to the north-west and the existing and potential future residential buildings to the south east.

 

Boundary Setbacks/Upper Floor & Roof Setbacks

 

Figure 11.1b in Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011 below, shows required boundary and upper floor/roof setbacks for a building where the suggested site amalgamation for ‘Site 4’ has been achieved.

 

 

Image 29: Site 4 Boundary Setbacks/Upper Floor & Roof Setbacks

 

As the site has not been amalgamated as suggested for ‘Site 4’, the ability for the development to achieve the required setbacks is compromised. The development proposes to vary required side and front setbacks with a nil side setback to South Lane and 68 Constitution Road and a 1.5 – 2 metre front setback to Constitution Road. The upper level (level 5) is compliant with the exception of the south east side boundary shared with 68 Constitution Road. The required rear setback has been achieved with a proposed 12.7 metre setback to South Lane.

 

Side Setbacks

 

The proposed nil side setbacks provides for development at a suitable width whilst maintaining privacy to adjoining development, having orientated balconies and habitable rooms to the north east and south west. As per the suggested setbacks and heights shown above, a compliant development would not benefit from better solar access and privacy, therefore the proposed alternative side setback is considered an acceptable response to the sites’ constraints given it does not reduce potential for good amenity to units. Further, the remaining 3 sites within ‘Site 4’ have opportunity for future redevelopment on the boundary shared with the site.

 

Rear Setback

 

The development proposes a rear setback of almost double the required setback as shown in Image 22 above. This has been undertaken to improve solar access to rear facing units and has resulted in a reduced front setback of 1.5 – 2 metres to Constitution Road.

 

Front Setback

 

Pre-DA advice was provided to the applicant by the AEP and suggested that the front setback be reduced to improve solar access to rear facing units and amenity to the rear open space. A reduced front setback was also suggested to promote a more solid presence for the building to Constitution Road in light of the approved 7 storey building at 62 Constitution Road which opposes the site. If the development were to be setback as shown in Image 22 above, the solar access, rear open space and streetscape presence of the development would be significantly compromised. It is therefore considered that the development is a better outcome for development on site. Further, it is likely that the 3 adjoining sites to the south east will redevelop with a similar front and rear setback to that of the subject development to achieve similar solar access, open space and streetscape outcomes.

 

Upper Floor & Roof Setbacks

 

The required 3 metre setback to level 5 and its roof has been provided with the exception of the south east side which abuts the boundary shared with Constitution Road. This is an appropriate response as the adjoining site at 68 Constitution Road is likely to be redeveloped with nil side setbacks.

 

Sustainable Envelope and Occupant Amenity

 

The objective of the sustainable envelope and occupant amenity control is to achieve a form of development that results in the future occupants of the building achieving adequate amenity, while protecting the amenity of the adjoining properties. The proposed development is considered to achieve this objective through orientating the majority of the internal and external living areas to the north east and south west, providing adequate solar access, cross-ventilation and providing a separation from adjoining properties to mitigate any overlooking. The development is considered acceptable in this regard.

 

Articulation Zones

 

The proposal generally complies with the articulation zones prescribed within Part 9.11 of MDCP 2011 to the front and rear. The development provides a 6 metre setback from the Constitution Road frontage to the building facade, however, includes the provision of balconies within the 6 metre setback.

 

The proposal provides good articulation on front and rear elevations which breaks up the visual massing of both elevations when viewed from and beyond Constitution Road and South Lane. The application is considered acceptable in this regard.

 

Domain Interface and Structure

 

The proposal generally complies with the controls relating to the domain interface and vehicle access location. Public domain works to Constitution Road, being works to Constitution Road for a ‘Shared Zone’ and grounding of power lines along Constitution Road and Grove Street, form part of this application. The proposed public domain works are considered to provide a good urban design outcome for the site and surrounding development and public land uses.

 

 

Concluding Remarks

 

The proposal seeks significant variations to the Strategic Context Controls contained within Part 9.11 of the MDCP 2011.

 

In March 2013, changes to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, changed the status of Development Control Plans through the introduction of Sub-Section 79C(3A) that as follows:

 

(3A)       Development control plans

If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a)     if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards - is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and

 

 

(b)     if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards - is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development, and

(c)     may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that development application. In this subsection, standards include performance criteria.

 

 

The intent of the above is to ensure that the application of controls contained within a DCP is done in a manner that allows flexibility and complements the development standards of the prevailing Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

 

In this instance, the controls of Part 9.11 of the MDCP 2011 constrain the development potential of land by imposing development controls that conflict with those permitted under the provisions of MLEP 2011.

 

As such, based on the intent of sub-section 79C (3A)(b), Council is required to be flexible in the application of the development controls and allow an alternative solution that achieves the objectives of the standard.

 

As stated above, the proposed development is supported in respect to variations to the prevailing development standards contained in MLEP 2011 and does not contravene the objectives of the development controls contained in MDCP 2011. As such the alternative solution proposed is considered acceptable for the site.

 

 

9.       Public Domain Works

 

The adjoining ‘Arlington Grove’ development approval included paving works to South Lane and on Constitution Road from the Arlington Station entrance to approximately 1 metre past the boundary of the subject site up Constitution Road. The Arlington Grove approval also required the establishment of a ‘Shared Zone’ on Constitution Road to its intersection with Grove Street.

 

To complete the paving required for the future ‘Shared Zone’, the application proposes to pave the remaining length of Constitution Road in contrasting colours comprising replacement of all asphalt with pavers to match South Lane and Arlington Grove works. Works are to be undertaken from the ‘Arlington Grove Plaza’ to the corner of Constitution Road and Grove Street. This shall continue the plaza type finish at the Constitution Road interface and will enable the shared zone to continue.

 

To further improve the public domain and site frontage, the application proposes the removal of 2 power poles and the undergrounding of power lines.

 

Public domain works proposed are shown in ‘Image 30 below:


 

 

Image 30: Public Domain Works to Site Frontage

 

 

 

10.     Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

 

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $222,931.28 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014.  A condition requiring that contribution to be paid is included in the recommendation.

 

11.     Community Consultation

 

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. 28 submissions were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

 

(i)      Height;

(ii)      FSR;

(iii)     Solar Access & Overshadowing;

(iv)    Privacy;

(v)     Traffic;

(vi)    Parking;

(vii)    Site Isolation;

(viii)   Variation to the Masterplan Site;

(ix)    Garbage Bins/Disposal; and

(x)     Unit sizes

 

In addition to the above, the submissions raised the following concerns which are discussed under the respective headings below:

 

(i)      Further Setback or landscaping and architectural articulation should be provided to the north west elevation to reduce the visual impact of the development when viewed from Building A1 (‘Arlington Grove’).

 

Comment:

A variation to the required side setback is supported for the reasons discussed above in this report. The architectural expression on side boundaries was reviewed by the AEP and no objection was raised. Additional articulation to the north-west elevation would compromise the design and would likely require reduced internal floor plates and would impact the amenity of units.

 

(ii)      The Traffic Report submitted with the application contains a number of errors including address names and adjoining development parking numbers.

 

Comment:

Council notes the discrepancies listed in the Traffic Report; however, the impact of the development on traffic and parking has not been impacted by the discrepancies and has been assessed against relevant controls and policies. 

 

(iii)     There is not enough parking for the units and there is no visitor parking. The application should be refused on this basis or more parking spaces/less units should be provided.

 

Comment:

Whilst it is acknowledged that there is likely to be some occupants and visitors that will not have a parking space to use on site, appropriate conditions are included in the recommendations specifying that the residents and therefore visitors of the development will not be eligible for any resident parking schemes. In addition, the overall impact of the development on parking is considered minimal for a 15 unit development within close proximity to public transport services and the parking impacts are not such to warrant refusal of the proposal.

 

(iv)    There is a large accumulative traffic impact associated with approved surrounding development in Arlington Grove and other developments within the surrounding locality. The development will contribute to this and the application should address this.

 

Comment:

Issues of cumulative impacts are considered when planning controls are established and through the Masterplanning process. The proposal will lead to minimal increased traffic generation. The traffic impacts associated with the proposal are not considered of such significance to warrant refusal of the proposal, particularly when the anticipated redevelopment of the site given the planning controls is considered and the 15 unit development contains only 6 parking spaces that will generate minimal increased traffic.

 

(v)     Pedestrian safety will be at risk due to a driveway located across a high pedestrian area footpath.

 

Comment:

The position of the driveway was relocated to the rear of the site off South Lane with an exit from South Lane to Constitution Road being established as a shared zone subject to construction works by the applicant and developer of ‘Arlington Grove’.

 

(vi)    Public transport, schools and childcare centres are at capacity and will be degraded due to the population increase.

 

Comment:

Any upgrade of these facilities need to be instigated by the relevant provider(s).

 

(vii)    There is not enough space in the road for construction vehicles

 

Comment:

During construction, all necessary permits will be applied for by the applicant in accordance with conditions included in any consent issued.

 

(viii)   Structural damage to surrounding buildings as a result of large clay and soft sandstone on the site. Residents have experienced some damage to houses from construction at Arlington Grove. Dust and pollution will also impact surrounding houses and cars during construction.

 

Comment:

Construction related impacts are able to be appropriately regulated through the recommended conditions of consent.

 

(ix)    A dilapidation report should be provided prior to the issue of a construction certificate extending to 74A constitution Road and a Geotechnical Report should include this property.

 

Comment:

It is considered unreasonable to extend the requirement of a dilapidation report and Geotechnical Report to a property of approximately 32 metres from the site.  

 

(x)     It is not clear what the VPA for the development includes and how it will benefit surrounding residents.

 

Comment: A VPA no longer forms part of this application.

 

All relevant matters raised in the submissions able to be considered under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act have been discussed in the report.

12.     Conclusion

 

The application seeks consent to demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking and associated landscaping works.

 

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposal results in departures with the storey limit contained in MDCP 2011 and the FSR and height development standard in MLEP 2011. Notwithstanding this, the extent of the proposed non-compliances is not considered to result in adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining development or the future character of the Hoskins Park Planning Precinct.

 

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

 

 

 

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT the development application to demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking and associated landscaping works be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

 

GENERAL

 

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

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

DA002, Rev G

Site Plan

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA101, Rev G

Basement Floor Plan

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA102, Rev G

Ground Floor Plan

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA103, Rev F

First Floor Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA104, Rev F

Second Floor Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA105, Rev F

Third Floor Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA106, Rev F

Fourth Floor Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA107, Rev F

Fifth Floor Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA108, Rev F

Roof Plan

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

DA 201,Rev F

Section AA

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA301 Rev G

North-West & North East Elevations

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA302, Rev G

South West & South East Elevations

07/09/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

07/09/16

DA601, Rev F

Materials & Finishes Schedule

16/02/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

02/03/16

DA602, Rev F

Brick Pattern Wall Detail

16/02/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

02/03/16

1/2, Issue C

Landscape Plan

14.07.2016

Paul Scrivener

02/09/16

2/2, Issue C

Landscape Plan

14.07.2016

Paul Scrivener

02/09/16

             -

Driveway Ramp Detail

02/05/16

Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan

15/07/16

No. 698525M

BASIX

22 February 2016

Greenwood Architectural Drafting

02/03/16

-

Access Report

17 February 2016

Ergon Consulting

02/03/16

E785/2

Remedial Action Plan – 66 Constitution Road

15 July 2016

Benviron Group

02/09/16

Report No. P2016-003-G133, Rev 0

Geotechnical Investigation Report

January 2016

Benviron Group

02/03/16

 

and details submitted to Council on 2 March 2016, 15 July 2016, 2 September 2016 and 7 September 2016 with the application for development consent and as amended by the following conditions.

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

 

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

 

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

 

b)      any relevant requirements of this consent,

 

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

 

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

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

 

3.      The materials and finishes of the building constructed pursuant to this consent must be strictly in accordance with the materials and finishes identified in Drawing Nos. DA601 and DA602, dated 16 February 2016, prepared by Julie Cracknell & Peter Lonergan. No changes may be made to these drawings except by way of an application under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

 

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

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

 

 

5.      The development must be carried out substantially in accordance with, Remediation Action Plan 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill NSW, E785/2, dated 15 July 2016, prepared by Benviron Group and submitted to Council on 17 May 2016 with the application for development consent and as amended by the following conditions.

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

 

6.      The premises must be used exclusively as a residential flat building and not be adapted for use as a backpackers’ accommodation, serviced apartments or a boarding house and must not be used for any industrial or commercial purpose.

Reason:     To ensure that the premises are used exclusively as a residential flat building.

 

7.       5 off-street car parking spaces must be provided, paved, linemarked and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking.

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

 

8.      2 car parking spaces, for persons with a disability, required as part of the total parking required under this Determination must be provided and marked as disabled car parking spaces.

          Reason:     To ensure that disabled car parking spaces are provided and marked accordingly and that disabled persons are advised and directed to such parking.

 

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

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

 

10.    A minimum of 3 adaptable dwellings must be provided in accordance with Part 2.5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Equity of Access and Mobility.

          Reason:     To make reasonable provision in the development to provide residential accommodation suitable for people with a disability.

 

11.    The use of any plant and equipment must not give rise to:

 

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

 

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

 

Reason:     To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

 

12.     The owners of the property appointing a designated person(s) responsible for moving waste bins from their usual storage space in the basement to the place to the collection point for the storage of domestic bins being in accordance with details to be submitted to Council’s satisfaction. The bins shall only be placed in the approved collection point after 7.00pm on the day prior to collection and are to be returned to their storage location within the building within two (2) hours of the bins being collected by Council. The owner's corporation shall be responsible to ensure compliance with this condition. Should the above conditions not be adhered to, Council reserves the right to reconsider servicing the site for garbage collection. The person acting on this consent shall advise any purchaser or prospective tenant of this condition.

Reason:     To ensure the appropriate collection and disposal of waste generated on the site and to ensure that the use does not interfere with the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

13.    Noise and vibration from the use and operation of any plant and equipment and/or building services associated with the premises must not give rise to "offensive noise' as defined by The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).  In this regard the roller door to the car parking entry is to be selected, installed and maintained to ensure its operation does not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

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

                   Reason:     To ensure that the development is adequately serviced.

 

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

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

 

16.    No encroachments onto Council’s road or footpath of any service pipes, sewer vents, boundary traps, downpipes, gutters, stairs, doors, gates, garage tilt up panel doors or any structure whatsoever is permitted. Any encroachments on to Council road or footpath resulting from the building works will be required to be removed before occupation of the site.

Reason: To ensure there is no encroachment onto Council’s road.

 

17.    Any adjustment or augmentation of any public utility services including Gas, Water, Sewer, Electricity, Street lighting and Telecommunications required as a result of the development must be at no cost to Council and undertaken before occupation of the site.

Reason: To ensure all costs for the adjustment/augmentation of services arising as a result of the redevelopment are at no cost to Council.

 

 

18.    Owners and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area. The person acting on this consent shall advise any purchaser or prospective tenant of this condition. In addition the bylaws of any future residential strata plans created for the property shall reflect this restriction.

Reason: To ensure the development does not reduce the amount of “on street” parking currently available.

 

19.    All stormwater drainage being designed in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (A.R.R.), Australian Standard AS3500.3-2003 ‘Stormwater Drainage’ and Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code. Pipe and channel drainage systems shall be designed to cater for the twenty (20) year Average Recurrence Interval (A.R.I.) storm in the case of low and medium residential developments, the twenty (20) year A.R.I. storm in the case of high density residential development and commercial and/or industrial developments and the fifty (50) year A.R.I. storm in the case of heavy industry. In all cases the major event surface flow paths shall be designed to cater for the one hundred (100) year A.R.I. storm.

Reason: To provide for adequate site drainage.

20.    Should the proposed development require the provision of an electrical substation, such associated infrastructure shall be incorporated wholly within the development site. Before proceeding with your development further, you are directed to contact Ausgrid directly with regard to the possible provision of such an installation on the property.

          Reason:    To provide for the existing and potential electrical power distribution for this

                            development and for the area.

 

21.    All reasonable directions by the project arborist in relation to tree management and tree protection shall be complied with.

Reason:     Council requires details of the project arborist to facilitate communication if required.

 

22.    Sydney Trains and Transport for NSW are entitled to inspect the site of the approved development and all structures to enable it to consider whether those structures on that site have been or are being constructed and maintained in accordance with these conditions of consent, on giving reasonable notice to the principal contractor for the approved development or the owner or occupier of the part of the site to which access is sought.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

23.    No work is permitted within the rail corridor at any time unless prior approval or an Agreement has been entered into with Sydney Trains.  Where the Applicant proposes to enter the rail corridor, the Principal Certifying Authority shall not issue a Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that its approval has been granted.

          Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

24.    No scaffolding is to be used facing the rail corridor unless prior written approval has been obtained from Sydney Trains.  To obtain approval the proponent will be required to submit details of the scaffolding, the means of erecting and securing this scaffolding, the material to be used, and the type of screening to be installed to prevent objects falling onto the rail corridor. Unless agreed to by Sydney Trains in writing, scaffolding shall not be erected without isolation and protection panels.

          Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

 

 

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

 

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

 

25.    No work must commence until:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.    All demolition work must:

 

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

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

 

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

 

29.    Where any loading, unloading or construction is to occur from a public place, Council5 must be contacted to determine if any permits or traffic management plans are required to be obtained from Council before work commences.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the area.

 

30.    All services in the building being demolished must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities before work commences.

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

33.    A Soil and Water Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with Landcom Soils and Construction, Volume 1, Managing Urban Stormwater (Particular reference is made to Chapter 9, “Urban Construction Sites”) and submitted to and accepted by the PCA.  A copy of this document must be submitted to and accepted by PCA before work commences.  The plan shall indicate:

 

a)      Where the builder’s materials and waste are to be stored;

b)      Where the sediment fences are to be installed on the site;

c)      What facilities are to be provided to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way; and

d)      How access to the site will be provided.

 

All devices must be constructed and maintained on site while work is carried out.

 

Reason:      To prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of the stormwater network.

 

34.    The person acting on this consent is responsible for arranging and meeting the cost of dilapidation reports prepared by a suitably qualified person.  The reports are to include colour photographs and must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction, with a colour copy being provided to Council and the respective property owner(s) of the identified properties, before work commences, on the buildings on the adjoining properties at 64 Constitution Road and 68 Constitution Road, if the consent of the adjoining property owner(s) can be obtained.  In the event that the consent of the adjoining property owner(s) cannot be obtained copies of the letter/s that have been sent via registered mail and any responses received must be forwarded to the PCA before work commences.

Reason:      To catalogue the condition of the adjoining properties for future reference in the event that any damage is caused during work on site.

 

35.    Before commencing works the person acting on this consent must provide a contact number for a designated person to be available during the demolition and construction for residents to contact regarding breaches of consent or problems relating to the construction.

Reason:     To provide a person that residents can contact.

 

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

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

 

37.    The person acting on this consent must apply as required for all necessary permits including crane permits, road opening permits, hoarding permits, footpath occupation permits and/or any other approvals under Section 68 (Approvals) of the Local Government Act, 1993 or Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.

Reason:     To ensure all necessary approvals have been applied for.

 

38.    A detailed Traffic Management Plan to cater for construction traffic must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencement of works. Details must include proposed truck parking areas, construction zones, crane usage, truck routes etc. All construction traffic complying at all times with the approved Traffic Management Plan. The developer must ensure that all construction workers and contractors are fully aware of the approved Traffic Management Plan.

Reason:     To ensure construction traffic does not unduly interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or the amenity of the area.

 

39.    The person acting on this consent must provide details of the means to secure the site and to protect the public from the construction works. Where the means of securing the site involves the erection of fencing or a hoarding on Council’s footpath or road reserve the person acting on this consent must submit a hoarding application and pay all relevant fees before commencement of works.

Reason:     To secure the site and to maintain public safety.

40.    Alignment levels for the site at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations must be obtained from Council before the commencement of construction. The alignment levels must match the existing back of footpath levels at the boundary. Failure to comply with this condition will result in vehicular access being denied.

Reason:     In accordance with Council’s powers under the Roads Act, 1993, alignment levels at the property boundary will be required to accord with Council's design or existing road and footpath levels.

 

41.    All street trees adjacent to the site not approved for removal must be protected at all times during demolition and construction, in accordance with Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Details of the method(s) of protection of such trees must be submitted to and be approved by Council before commencing works.

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

42.    All approved protection measures must be installed prior to commencing any work and must be maintained for the duration of construction.

Reason:     To ensure that all trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

43.    Where scaffoldings or hoardings are to be erected, street trees must be protected during construction works as follows:

 

a)      Tree trunk and major limb protection must be undertaken prior to or during the installation of any hoarding or scaffoldings. The protection must be installed by a qualified Arborist (AQF 2 or 3) and must include:

 

(i)      An adequate clearance, minimum 250mm, must be provided between the structure and tree branches, limbs and trunk at all times;

(ii)     Tree trunk/s and/or major branches, located within 500mm of any hoarding or scaffolding structure, must be protected by wrapped hessian or similar material to limit damage;

(iii)     Timber planks (50mm x 100mm or similar) must be placed around tree trunk/s. The timber planks must be spaced at 100mm intervals, and must be fixed against the trunk with tie wire, or strapping. The hessian and timber planks must not be fixed to the tree in any instance, or in any fashion, and

(iv)    Tree trunk and major branch protection must remain in place for the duration of construction and development works, and must be removed at the completion of the project.

 

b)      All hoarding support columns must be placed a minimum of 300mm from the edge of the existing tree pits. Supporting columns must not be placed on any tree roots that are exposed.

 

c)           Materials or goods, including site sheds, must not be stored or placed:

 

(i)  around or under the tree canopy; or

(ii) within 2 metres of tree trunks or branches of any street trees.

 

d)      Any damage sustained to street tree/s as a result of the erection of hoardings, scaffolding, or due to the loading/unloading of vehicles adjacent the site, must be immediately reported to the Council's Tree Management Officer on (9335 2242, in order to determine the appropriate action for maintaining the health and structural integrity of any damaged street tree.

 

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

44.     a)      The consent from Council must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any street           tree pruning works. Only minor pruning works will be approved by Council.

 

b)      Any pruning that is required to accommodate hoardings, scaffolding, or to accommodate the loading/unloading of vehicles, and has been approved by Council, must be carried out by a qualified Arborist (AQF3), and must be in accordance with AS4373 Australian Standards 'Pruning of Amenity Trees'.

 

c)      The removal of any street tree approved by Council must include complete stump removal and the temporary reinstatement of levels so that no trip or fall hazards exist until suitable replanting occurs. Those works must be completed immediately following the trees removal.

 

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

45.    If a new street number or a change to the street number (this includes unit and shop numbers) is required, a separate application must be made to and approved by Council prior to that street number being displayed.

Reason:     To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

46.    Prior to commencement of any excavation, demolition or construction work, all workers on the work site are to be made aware of the potential presence of Long-nosed Bandicoots as part of the site induction (including what they look like).

          Note: To the untrained eye, a Long-nosed Bandicoot may be mistaken for a rodent.

Reason:     To avoid direct physical harm to Long-nosed Bandicoot, it is important that workers are aware of the potential for their presence and conservation significance

 

47.    The person acting on this consent shall submit a dilapidation report including colour photos showing the existing condition of the footpath and roadway adjacent to the site before commencement of works.

Reason:     To ensure the existing condition of Council's infrastructure is clearly documented.

 

48.    Prior to the commencement of works, on the completion of works, or at any time during the works period deemed necessary by Sydney Trains or Transport for NSW, a joint inspection of the rail infrastructure and property in the vicinity of the project is to be carried out by representatives from the requesting Agency and the Applicant. These dilapidation surveys will establish the extent of any existing damage and enable any deterioration during construction to be observed.  The submission of a detailed dilapidation report will be required unless otherwise notified by Sydney Trains.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

49.    Prior to the undertaking of works or the issuing of a Construction Certificate (whichever occurs first), the Applicant must hold current public liability insurance cover for a sum to be determined by Sydney Trains.  This insurance shall not contain any exclusion in relation to works on or near the rail corridor, rail infrastructure.  The Applicant is to contact Sydney Trains Rail Corridor Management Group to obtain the level of insurance required for this particular proposal.  Prior to issuing the Construction Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority must witness written proof of this insurance in conjunction with Sydney Trains written advice to the Applicant on the level of insurance required.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

50.    Prior to the undertaking of works or the issuing of a Construction Certificate (whichever occurs first), the Applicant is to contact Sydney Trains Rail Corridor Management Group to determine the need for the lodgement of a Bond or Bank Guarantee for the duration of the entire works.  The Bond/Bank Guarantee shall be for the sum determined by Sydney Trains.  Prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority must witness written advice from Sydney Trains confirming the lodgement of this Bond/Bank Guarantee.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

51.    Before commencing works, a project arborist with a minimum AQF level 5 qualification in arboriculture and who does not remove or prune trees in the Inner West local government area shall be engaged to provide an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report with respect to the methods for retention and tree protection measures of the Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) in the neighbouring property at 68 Constitution Road. The AIA report shall comply with the requirements outlined in Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011, Section 2.20, Appendix 1. 

          Reason:     To provide protection for the neighbouring tree and its root zone and ensure its ongoing viability is not compromised.

 

52.    The contact details of the project arborist shall be advised to council before work commences and maintained up to date for the duration of works.  If a new project arborist is appointed details of the new project arborist shall be notified to council within 7 days.

Reason:     Council requires details of the project arborist to facilitate communication if required.

 

53.    The tree protection measures identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report shall be established before work commences.

Reason:     To ensure that the stability and ongoing viability of the neighbouring tree being retained is not compromised.

 

54.    The project arborist shall inspect tree protection measures and certify in writing to the Principal Certifying Authority the measures comply with those detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report before work commences.

Reason:     The project arborist shall provide guidance and oversight of tree protection and management to ensure that the stability and ongoing viability of trees being retained are not compromised.

 

 

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent the Certifying Authority (Council or an Accredited Certifier) is that person appointed to issue a Construction Certificate.

 

55.    The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water wastewater and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if any requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for:

·        Quick Check agents details - see Plumbing, building and developing then Quick Check agents and

·        Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Plumbing, building and developing then Plan submissions

or telephone 13 20 92.

The stamped plans must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

 

56.    A statement from a qualified Architect, verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

57.    Details of an anti-graffiti treatment to the front, rear and north-west side elevation(s) of the development must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development remains free of graffiti.

 

58.    a)           Landscaping for the whole site (including rooftop gardens) must consist of only local native plants to consist of a grassy understorey with dense shrub layer and associated canopy that utilises a diverse and representative range of species from the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF).

a)      Final landscape plans must be reviewed and approved by Council’s Acting Team Leader Biodiversity before the issue of a Construction Certificate .

Note:          Further advice and information on relevant species can be found in the GreenWay Revegetation Plan 2011 (attached) and Council’s DCP 2.18 – Landscaping and open spaces p11).

          Reason:     To ensure that provision of foraging opportunities and habitat for the endangered Long-nosed Bandicoot population has been considered

 

59.    Bicycle storage with the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 15 bicycles must be provided in accordance with the requirements set out within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure sufficient bicycle storage facilities are provided on the site.

 

60.    Details regarding all hard paved areas within the development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.  In this regard the materials used should be chosen to break up the extent of hard paving and enhance the appearance of the development.

Reason:     To ensure all hard paved areas within the development are sympathetic to and enhance the appearance of the development.

 

61.    A detailed plan showing the height, colour and material of all fencing within the development in accordance with Part 2.11 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Fencing must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure all fencing is in keeping with the character of the area and maintains adequate privacy.

 

62.    Letterboxes and mail collection facilities must be provided and adequately protected in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure adequate mail collection facilities are provided.

 

63.    Adequate outdoor clothes drying areas must be provided for the development in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure adequate outdoor clothes drying facilities are provided.

 

64.    Lighting details of the pedestrian areas, parking areas and all entrances must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure appropriate lighting is provided to create a safe living environment.

 

65.    Plans fully reflecting the selected commitments listed in BASIX Certificate submitted with the application for development consent must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Note:                 The application for the Construction Certificate must be accompanied by either the BASIX Certificate upon which development consent was granted or a revised BASIX Certificate (Refer to Clause 6A of Schedule 1 to the Regulation).

 

Reason: To ensure that the BASIX commitments are incorporated into the development.

66.    Noise attenuation measures must be incorporated into the development complying with State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Development Assessment Guideline titled “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines” in relation to interior design sound levels and in accordance with details being submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Development Assessment Guideline titled “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines”.

          Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the development from rail noise

 

67.    Section 94 Contribution

 

          a)      This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

b)      Before the issue of a Construction Certificate or issue of a Subdivision Certificate, whichever comes first, the Council must be paid a monetary contribution of $222,931.28 indexed in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (“CP”).

 

The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 04 September 2016.

 

*NB   Contribution rates under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 are indexed quarterly (for the method of indexation refer to Section 2.15 of the Plan).

 

The indexation of the contribution rates occurs in the first week of the months of February, May, August and November each year, following the release of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

          (CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT REFERENCE NO. DC001578)

 

b)      The contribution payable has been calculated in accordance with the CP and relates to the following public amenities and/or services and in the following amounts:

 

Community Facilities $24,813.64

Plan Administration $4,371.19

  Recreation Facilities $190,704.33

Traffic Facilities $3,042.12

 

d)      A copy of the CP can be inspected at Council’s offices at 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham or online at http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au.

 

e)      The contribution must be paid either in cash, by unendorsed bank cheque (from an Australian Bank only), via EFTPOS (Debit only) or credit card*.

 

*NB          A 1% credit card transaction fee applies to all credit card transactions.

 

Reason:     To ensure provision is made for the increase in demand for public amenities and services required as a consequence of the development being carried out.

 

68.    Evidence of payment of the building and construction industry Long Service Leave Scheme, must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. (The required payment can be made at the Council Offices).

 

NB:   The required payment is based on the estimated cost of building and construction works and the long service levy rate, set by the Long Service Payments Corporation. The rate set by the Long Service Payments Corporation is currently of 0.35% of the cost of the building and construction work.

 

          For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

          http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?levy_information/levy_calculator.stm

 

Reason:     To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

 

69.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction indicating the following:

a)      A minimum of 2 car parking spaces must be provided for people with a disability that are directly accessible to the entrance to the building.  The car parking must be designed to comply with AS 1428.1 - 2009 ‘Design for access and mobility - General requirements for access - buildings’ and AS 2890.1 1 ‘Off-street car parking’.

Reason:     To ensure that the premises provide equitable access to all persons.

 

70.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder must sign a written undertaking that they are responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

71.    The person acting on this consent shall provide to Council a bond in the amount of $18,892.40 and pay the related Section 138 (Roads Act) inspection fee of $206.00 (GST inclusive) before the issue of a Construction Certificate to ensure the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works required as a result of this development.

Reason:     To provide security for the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works.

 

72.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder shall sign a written undertaking that they shall be responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

73.    All plumbing and ductwork including stormwater downpipes must be concealed within the outer walls of the building so they are not visible. Plans and elevations detailing the method of concealment must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Any variation to this requirement requires Council approval.

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

74.     In order to provide satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access, drainage, landscaping and aesthetic improvements to the public domain adjacent to the site, the following works shall be undertaken at no cost to Council:

i.        The public domain along all frontages of the site inclusive of footpath paving, kerb, street trees, landscaping, street furniture, etc. shall be reconstructed and upgraded in accordance with the Street Tree Masterplan, the Draft Marrickville Public Domain Code and Draft Technical Manual or Council’s standard plans and specification in place at the time the works are undertaken;

ii.       The construction of heavy duty vehicular crossings to all vehicular access locations and removal of all redundant vehicular crossings to the site;

iii.      New kerb and gutter along the frontage of the site. The kerb type (concrete or stone) shall be consistent with the majority of kerb type at this location. Council may be able to assist with the supply of stone if required. Please contact Council’s Infrastructure Services Division on 9335 2000; and

iv.      Alignment levels to be provided at the boundary at a minimum distance of every 5m and at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations.

·  Full detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to Council for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 before the issue of a Construction Certificate with all works completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To provide for essential improvement works to the public domain consistent with Council’s desired future character for the area

 

75.    The Stormwater Drainage Plans 15328 Sheets 1 to 5 (Issue 1 dated 26/2/16) submitted by CK Engineering Services shall be amended and/or additional information provided before the issue of a Construction Certificate as follows;

a)    Details and procedures for the maintenance of the stormwater treatment system (WSUD maintenance plan) including access arrangements, maintenance schedule and recording procedure;

b)    The plans shall be amended to suit the new architectural plans and vehicular access arrangement including flood protection measures; and

c)    Construction details for the proposed new kerb inlet pit and Council stormwater pipe to be installed in Constitution Road. Details shall include a long section of the pipe detailing all utility services, bedding and road restoration detail.

Reason:     To provide for satisfactory site stormwater drainage and to ensure that the quality of stormwater discharged off site is improved.

 

76.    As identified in the Flood Impact Assessment for 2-24 Grove Street, Dulwich Hill by WMA Water dated 25/10/13 the site is affected by adjacent overland flows during a 1 in 100 year storm event. The top water level of overland flows adjacent to the site has been determined to be of RL 22.25m AHD. The following flood protection measures shall be undertaken as follows:

a)      The underground carpark must be protected to a minimum height of RL 22.55m AHD providing a minimum 300m freeboard. All penetrations into the underground carpark including stairs, elevators, shutters and louvers shall be set at or above RL 22.55m AHD; and

b)      The ground floor dwellings must be protected to a height of RL 22.55m AHD providing a minimum 300mm freeboard.

 

Amended plans complying with the above requirements shall be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To protect the site and occupants from stormwater overland flows during a 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

 

77.    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the person acting on this consent is shall prepare and provide to Sydney Trains for approval/certification the following items:

 

(i)   Final Geotechnical and Structural report/drawings that meet Sydney Trains requirements.  The Geotechnical Report must be based on actual borehole testing conducting on the site closest to the rail corridor. 

(ii)  Final Construction methodology with construction details pertaining to structural support during excavation. 

(iii) Final cross sectional drawings showing ground surface, rail tracks, sub soil profile, proposed basement excavation and structural design of sub ground support adjacent to the Rail Corridor.  All measurements are to be verified by a Registered Surveyor.

(iv) Detailed Survey Plan showing the relationship of the proposed developed with respect to Sydney Trains land and infrastructure.

(v)  If required by Sydney Trains, an FE analysis which assesses the different stages of loading-unloading of the site and its effect on the rock mass surrounding the rail corridor.

(vi) Final drainage details based on the final approved development.

 

Any conditions issued as part of Sydney Trains approval/certification of the above documents will also form part of the consent conditions that the Applicant is required to comply with. 

 

          Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

78.    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the person acting on this consent is to engage an Electrolysis Expert to prepare a report on the Electrolysis Risk to the development from stray currents.  The Applicant must incorporate in the development all the measures recommended in the report to control that risk.  A copy of the report is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with the application for a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

79.    The design, installation and use of lights, signs and reflective materials, whether permanent or temporary, which are (or from which reflected light might be) visible from the rail corridor must limit glare and reflectivity to the satisfaction of the light rail operator.  The Principal Certifying Authority is not to issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

80.    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Risk Assessment, Rail Safety Management Plan, and detailed Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) for the proposed works are to be submitted to Sydney Trains for review and comment on the impacts on rail.  The Principal Certifying Authority shall not issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

81.    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the person acting on this consent is to submit to Sydney Trains a plan showing all craneage and other aerial operations for the development and must comply with all Sydney Trains requirements.  The Principal Certifying Authority shall not issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

 

82.    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the person acting on this consent is to submit to Sydney Trains the demolition, excavation and construction methodology and staging for review and endorsement.  The Principle Certifying Authority is not to issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason:To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

 

SITE WORKS

 

83.    All excavation, demolition, construction and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of development must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above, no work is to be carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday, or as amended by Council.

Reason:     To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

84.    Notwithstanding the above condition, all remediation works must be restricted to between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays with no works being carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays or any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason:     To ensure that the remediation works are only carried out during the hours of operation permitted under Part 2.24 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Contaminated Land.

 

85.    The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction upon completion of the work.

Reason:     To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

 

86.     The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the consent of Council.  The placement of waste storage containers in a public place requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy – ‘Placement of Waste Storage Containers in a Public Place’.

Reason:     To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

 

87.    All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

a)      compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b)      all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c)      all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d)      sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e)      the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f)       the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g)      suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h)      all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only have access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i)        all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j)        no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k)      the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

 

88.    The works are required to be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another Certifying Authority.  The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA.  The critical stages of construction are:

 

a)      At the commencement of the building work;

b)      For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c)      Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d)      After the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

Reason:     To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the Building Code of Australia.

 

89.    All fill imported on to the site must be validated to ensure the imported fill is suitable for the proposed land use from a contamination perspective. Fill imported on to the site must also be compatible with the existing soil characteristic for site drainage purposes.

 

Council may require details of appropriate validation of imported fill material to be submitted with any application for future development of the site. Hence all fill imported onto the site should be validated by either one or both of the following methods during remediation works:

 

a)      Imported fill should be accompanied by documentation from the supplier which certifies that the material is not contaminated based upon analyses of the material for the known past history of the site where the material is obtained; and/or

b)      Sampling and analysis of the fill material should be conducted in accordance with the EPA Sampling Design Guidelines (1995) to ensure that the material is not contaminated.

 

Reason:     To ensure that imported fill is of an acceptable standard.

 

90.    If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on the adjoining allotments, including a public place such as a footway and roadway, the person acting on the consent, at their own expense must:

 

a)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

b)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage. Where the proposed underpinning works are not "exempt development", all required consents must be obtained prior to the required works commencing; and

c)      at least 7 days’ notice is given to the owners of the adjoining land of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice must include complete details of the work.

 

Where a dilapidation report has not been prepared on any building adjacent to the excavation, the person acting on this consent is responsible for arranging and meeting the cost of a dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified person. The report must be submitted to and accepted by the PCA before works continue on site, if the consent of the adjoining property owner can be obtained.

 

Copies of all letter/s that have been sent via registered mail to the adjoining property owner and copies of any responses received must be forwarded to the PCA before work commences.

 

Reason:     To ensure that adjoining buildings are preserved, supported and the condition of the buildings on the adjoining property catalogued for future reference in the event that any damage is caused during work on site.

 

91.    All vehicles carrying materials to, or from the site, must have their loads covered with tarpaulins or similar covers.

Reason:     To ensure dust and other particles are not blown from vehicles associated with the use.

 

92.    Satisfactory methods and/or devices must be employed on the site to prevent the tracking of mud/dirt onto the surrounding streets from vehicles leaving the site.

Reason:     To prevent soil particles from being tracked and deposited onto the streets surrounding the site.

 

93.    The disposal of contaminated soil must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Reason:     To provide for correct disposal of wastes.

 

94.    A certificate of survey from a registered land surveyor must be submitted to the PCA upon excavation of the footings and before the pouring of the concrete to verify that the structure will not encroach on the allotment boundaries.

Reason:     To ensure all works are contained within the boundaries of the allotment.

 

95.    No part of the fencing is to encroach upon Council’s footpath. The footings of the fence must not encroach upon Council’s property unless they are located at a depth of not less than 1350mm below the pathway level, in which case they must not project further than 450mm.

Reason:     To ensure the proposed fence does not encroach on the footpath.

 

96.    During construction, all holes (e.g. created for footings etc.), machinery and construction material stockpiles must be inspected daily prior to commencing work to ensure no Long-nosed Bandicoots are sheltering in these areas. In the event that a bandicoot is found, no work must proceed until the bandicoot has been safely vacated from the works area.

Reason:     To protect Long-nosed Bandicoots.

 

97.    After demolition of existing structures, remedial activities shall be undertaken as outlined the site Remedial Action Plan, 66 Constitution Road, Dulwich Hill NSW, E785/2, dated 15 July 2016, prepared by Benviron Group. The deep soil and communal space portion of the site shall be validated to comply with HIL A – Residential with garden/accessible soil due to the high likelihood of access to this portion of the site by occupants after completion.

          Reason: To ensure compliance with SEPP 55 and the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

 

98.    After demolition of existing structures, sampling and analysis of soils shall be undertaken to classify the waste in situ in accordance with NSW EPA Waste Classification Guidelines 2014, allowing the soil to be removed from site. Records of waste disposal shall be supplied prior to commencement of construction and the issue of a construction certificate.

          Reason: To ensure the correct disposal of waste.

 

99.    Within 30 days of completion of remedial works set out in the Remedial Action Plan, a validation report complying with the NSW EPA's Guidelines for Consultants: Reporting on Contaminated Sites shall be submitted to Council that demonstrates that remedial activities have rendered the site suitable for the proposed development. The deep soil and communal space portion of the site shall be validated to comply with HIL A – Residential with garden/accessible soil due to the high likelihood of access to this portion of the site by occupants.

          Reason: To ensure compliance with SEPP 55 and the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

 

100.  If during site works there are significant unexpected occurrences, site works shall immediately cease. A suitably qualified environmental consultant shall be engaged to assess the site and determine if the remediation is required as per the NSW EPA's Guidelines for Consultants: Reporting on Contaminated Sites to adequately address the unexpected occurrence. Any amendments to the approved remedial action plan to address unexpected occurrences shall be reported to. Council may request that a NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor review any proposed changes to any management or remedial action plans.

Reason: To ensure remediation activities are undertaken in a way that minimises impacts on the environment, site workers and the community.

 

101.  Any groundwater shall be discharged to sewer (appropriate licence to be obtained); or disposed off-site to a suitably licensed facility. If any water is to be discharged to Council’s stormwater system, the water shall comply with the ANZECC Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Quality for Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (95% protection level for freshwater ecosystems). Water testing shall be carried out to ensure water is appropriate for discharge to the stormwater system. This testing shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified environmental scientist. Water that does not comply with the above standards shall not be discharged to the stormwater system, and shall be disposed of using alternative appropriate means.

Reason: To ensure aquatic ecosystems are not polluted.

 

102.  Alignment levels for the site at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations shall match the existing back of footpath levels at the boundary.

Reason:     In accordance with Council’s powers under the Roads Act, 1993, alignment levels at the property boundary will be required to accord with Council's design or existing road and footpath levels.

 

103.  All roof and surface stormwater from the site and any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, shall be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and being discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

104.  Tree protection measures detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report and in Section 4 of Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970—2009 shall be implemented and complied with for the duration of works including site preparation, demolition, construction and landscaping (except where these conditions permit otherwise). 

 

Reason:     To ensure trees being retained are effectively protected and managed and their stability and ongoing viability are not compromised.

 

Note:          Australian Standards can be purchased via the Standard Australia publisher SAI Global Limited at www.saiglobal.com.

 

105.  Street trees adjacent to the subject property shall be protected in accordance with Section 4 of Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970—2009 for the duration of works including site preparation, demolition, construction and landscaping.

          Reason: To ensure that the street trees are adequately and effectively protected from development-related impacts.

 

106.  The new trees shall be planted following completion of construction and prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To sustain the urban forest canopy across the LGA.

 

107.  The new trees shall be planted in accordance with the following criteria:

a)   The new trees shall be located in accordance with the approved landscape plan and shall be located a minimum of 1.0 metre from the dividing boundary fences and 1.5 metres from any building.

b)   The species of trees and planting stock size shall be as detailed in the landscape plan approved before work started.

c)   The planting stock size shall be at least 75 litres.

d)   The planting stock shall comply with the Australian Standard Tree Stock for Landscape Use AS 2303-2015.

e)   The new trees shall be planted in accordance with the tree planting detail included in the Marrickville Street Tree Master Plan 2014.
Please note that planting holes for trees shall not be excavated deeper than the root ball and that new trees shall not be staked.

f)    The new trees shall be planted by a qualified horticulturist or arborist,
with a minimum qualification of Certificate 3.

g)   Each replacement tree shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition until it attains a height of 5 metres, from which time it is protected by Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP). 

h)   If any tree dies or needs to be removed before that time it shall be replaced with a similar tree in accordance with these conditions at the expense of the applicant.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the new trees provide adequate and appropriate compensation, are planted in a suitable location and maintained properly.

 

108.  All piling and excavation works with 25m of the rail corridor are to be supervised by a geotechnical engineer experience with such excavation projects.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

109.  No rock anchors/bolts are to be installed into the rail corridor. 

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

110.  You must obtain an Occupation Certificate from your PCA before you occupy or use the building.  The PCA must notify the Council of the determination of the Occupation Certificate and forward the following documents to Council within 2 days of the date of the Certificate being determined:

 

a)      A copy of the determination;

b)      Copies of any documents that were lodged with the Occupation Certificate application;

c)      A copy of Occupation Certificate, if it was issued;

d)      A copy of the record of all critical stage inspections and any other inspection required by the PCA;

e)      A copy of any missed inspections; and

f)       A copy of any compliance certificate and any other documentary evidence relied upon in issuing the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

111.  Occupation of the building must not be permitted until such time as:

 

a)      All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b)      The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c)      An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

 

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

 

112.  The owner of the premises, as soon as practicable after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued, must:

 

a)      Forward a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and the current Fire Safety Schedule to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Council; and

b)      Display a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule in a prominent position in the building (i.e. adjacent the entry or any fire indicator panel).

 

Every 12 months after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued the owner shall obtain an Annual Fire Safety Certificate for each of the Fire Safety Measures listed in the Schedule.  The Annual Fire Safety Certificate must be forwarded to the Commissioner and the Council and displayed in a prominent position in the building.

 

Reason:     To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

 

113.  The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

a)      A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Make early application for the certificate, as there may be water and sewer pipes to be built and this can take some time. This can also impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

b)      Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. For help either visit www.sydneywater.com.au > Plumbing, building and developing > Providers > Lists or telephone 13 20 92.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

114.  Upon the completion of any remediation works stated in the RAP the person acting on this consent must submit to Council a Validation and Monitoring Report.  The report must be conducted in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 1998”.

Reason:        To ensure that the remediated site complies with the objectives of the RAP.

 

115.  A Section 73 Compliance Certificate from Sydney Water must be submitted to Council before occupation of the premises.

Reason:        To comply with the requirements of that Act.

 

116.  A statement from a qualified Architect, verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

117.  The landscaping of the site must be carried out prior to occupation or use of the premises in accordance with the approved details and must be maintained at all times to Council's satisfaction.

Reason:        To ensure adequate landscaping is maintained.

 

118.  a) Upon completion of the required noise attenuation measures referred to in the “Before the Issue of a Construction Certificate” Section of this Determination and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (whether an interim or final Occupation Certificate), a report must be prepared and submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction by an accredited Acoustics Consultant, certifying that the final construction meets State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Development Assessment Guideline titled “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines” as set down in the subject condition of this consent. Such report must include external and internal noise levels to ensure that the external noise levels during the test are representative of the typical maximum levels that may occur at this development; and

 

b)      Where it is found that internal noise levels are greater than the required dB(A) rating due to faulty workmanship or the like, necessary corrective measures must be carried out and a further certificate must be prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with the requirements as set down in Part a) of this condition.

 

Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the dwellings from aircraft and rail noise and to ensure that the noise attenuation measures incorporated into the dwellings satisfactorily comply with the relevant sections of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Development Assessment Guideline titled “Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines”.

 

119.  The Certifying Authority must be satisfied that each of the commitments listed in BASIX Certificate referred to in this Determination have been fulfilled before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (whether an interim or final Occupation Certificate).

Reason:     To ensure that all of the BASIX commitments have been fulfilled and to comply with the requirements under Section 154B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

120.  The Certifying Authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX Completion Receipt within 2 days of the issue of a final Occupation Certificate. Completion Receipts can be applied for at www.basix.nsw.gov.au.

Reason:     To ensure compliance with the requirements under Section 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

121.  Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a street number and identifier of separate occupancies (if applicable) must be clearly displayed in a readily visible location (numbers having a height of not less than 75mm). If any new street numbers or change to street numbers (this includes unit and shop numbers) are required they must have the prior approval of Council before being displayed.

Reason:     To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

122.  All works required to be carried out in connection with drainage, crossings, alterations to kerb and guttering, footpaths and roads resulting from the development shall be completed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Works shall be in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”.

Reason:     To ensure person acting on this consent completes all required work.

 

123.  You are advised that Council has not undertaken a search of existing or proposed utility services adjacent to the site in determining this application.  Any adjustment or augmentation of any public utility services including Gas, Water, Sewer, Electricity, Street lighting and Telecommunications required as a result of the development shall be at no cost to Council and undertaken before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To ensure all costs for the adjustment/augmentation of services arising as a result of the redevelopment are at no cost to Council

 

124.  No encroachments onto Council’s road or footpath of any service pipes, sewer vents, boundary traps, downpipes, gutters, stairs, doors, gates, garage tilt up panel doors or any structure whatsoever shall not be permitted. Any encroachments on to Council road or footpath resulting from the building works will be required to be removed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure there is no encroachment onto Council’s Road.

 

125.  The existing stone kerb adjacent to the site is of local heritage value and is to be preserved at no cost to Council. Any damage to the stone kerb will require the replacement of the damaged individual stone units before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure that items of local heritage value are preserved.

 

126.  Heavy duty concrete vehicle crossings, in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications” shall be constructed at the vehicular access locations before the issue of the Occupation Certificate and at no cost to Council.

Reason:     To allow vehicular access across the footpath and/or improve the existing vehicular access.

 

127.  All redundant vehicular crossings to the site shall be removed and replaced by kerb and gutter and footpath paving in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications” before the issue of the Occupation Certificate and at no cost to Council. Where the kerb in the vicinity of the redundant crossing is predominately stone (as determined by Council's Engineer) the replacement kerb shall also be in stone.

Reason:     To eliminate redundant crossings and to reinstate the footpath to its normal condition.

 

128.  Before the issue of the Occupation Certificate written verification from a suitably qualified competent person, stating that all stormwater drainage and water quality measures have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans be submitted to and accepted by Council. In addition, full works-as-executed plans, prepared and signed by a registered surveyor, shall be submitted to Council. These plans must include levels for all drainage structures, buildings (including floor levels), finished ground levels and pavement surface levels.

Reason:     To ensure drainage works are constructed in accordance with approved plans.

 

129.  With the regard to the Stormwater Treatment Facilities a Positive Covenant shall be placed on the Title in favour of Council before issue of the Occupation Certificate. The Positive Covenant shall include the following:

 

a)   The proprietor of the property shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater treatment facility in accordance with the approved plans;

b)   The proprietor shall have the stormwater quality treatment facilities inspected annually by a competent person and must provide the WSUD maintenance plan approved under this Consent to competent person to record the annual inspections.

c)   The Council shall have the right to enter upon the land referred to above, at all reasonable times to inspect, construct, install, clean, repair and maintain in good working order all elements of the stormwater quality treatment facilities to ensure that the water quality targets provided in the design of the system are achieved; and recover the costs of any such works from the proprietor.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the integrity of the stormwater quality treatment facilities is maintained.

 

130.  Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate the adjacent public right-of-way (“South Lane”) required for vehicular and pedestrian access to the site must be created on title and constructed to Council’s satisfaction.

Reason:     To ensure the property has legal and physical right of access.

 

131.  All instruments under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act used to create positive covenants, easements or right-of-ways shall include the condition that such easements or right-of-ways may not be varied, modified or released without the prior approval of Marrickville Council.

Reason:     To ensure Council's interests are protected.

 

132.  The existing overhead power cables along the Constitution Road frontage of the site must be relocated underground with appropriate street lighting and new metal light poles being installed at no cost to Council and before the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1158-Road Lighting and the Network Standards of Ausgrid.

Reason:     To ensure appropriate lighting is provided to create a safe environment.

 

133.  Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate the person acting on this consent shall obtain from Council a compliance Certificate(s) stating that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works on Council property required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with Council approved plans and specifications.

Reason:     To ensure that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily.

 

134.  The project arborist shall certify in writing to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) before the issue of the Occupation Certificate that the conditions of consent relating to tree removal, tree pruning, tree protection and tree planting have been complied with and that the protected trees have not been damaged or, if the recommendations have not been complied with, detail the extent and nature of the departure from the conditions. The Principal Certifying Authority shall report breaches of the conditions to Inner West Council. 

 

Reason:     To ensure that conditions that aim to ensure the sustainability of Inner West urban forest are complied with.

 

135.  Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the Applicant is to submit the as-built drawings to Sydney Trains and Council.  The as-built drawings are to be endorsed by a Registered Surveyor confirming that there has been no encroachment into Sydney Trains property or easement.  The Principal Certifying Authority is not to issue the Occupation Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Reason: To clarify the terms of Sydney Trains Concurrence

 

 

BEFORE THE RELEASE OF A STRATA PLAN

 

136.  The strata subdivision of the development must be carried out in accordance with survey plans to be submitted to and approved by Council.  Such plans to be submitted together with the required fee for the approval of the final plan under the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973. Car spaces shall not be given separate strata lot numbers.

Reason:     To facilitate the subdivision of the land and to confirm the terms of Council's approval.

 

137.  The submission of a final survey plan and 4 copies for the Strata subdivision.

Reason:     To comply with Council's requirements.

 

138.  All instruments under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act used to create easements or right-of-ways must include the condition that such easements or right-of-ways may not be varied, modified or released without the prior approval of Council.

Reason:     To ensure Council's interests are protected.

 

139.  The payment of the required fee, under Council’s adopted fees and charges, for the approval of the final plan under the terms of the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973.

 

140.  Compliance with the conditions of this Determination with the development being completed in accordance with the approval to Council's satisfaction before the release of the Strata Plan.

Reason:     To ensure compliance with the conditions of development consent for the erection of the building.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

·        The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) impose obligations on persons relating to disability discrimination. Council’s determination of the application does not relieve persons who have obligations under those Acts of the necessity to comply with those Acts.

 

·        A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the Building Code of Australia has not been carried out.

 

·        The approved plans must be submitted to the Customer Centre of any office of Sydney Water before the commencement of any work to ensure that the proposed work meets the requirements of Sydney Water. Failure to submit these plans before commencing work may result in the demolition of the structure if found not to comply with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

·        The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works are required to be constructed by your own contractor. You or your contractor must complete an application for ‘Construction of a Vehicular Crossing & Civil Works’ form, lodge a bond for the works, pay the appropriate fees and provide evidence of adequate public liability insurance, before commencement of works.

 

·        Contact “Dial Before You Dig” before commencing any building activity on the site.

 

·        The enclosed Fact Sheet on Long-nosed Bandicoots should be read before commencing any works on site, including site preparation works.

 

·        Useful Contacts

 

BASIX Information

( 1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

 

Department of Fair Trading

( 13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

 

Dial Before You Dig

( 1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

 

Landcom

( 9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

 

Long Service Payments Corporation

( 131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Food Authority

( 1300 552 406

www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

 

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

( 131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

 

Sydney Water

( 13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

 

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

 

( 1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

 

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

 

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

( 13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

 

 

B.      THAT those persons who lodged submissions in respect to the proposal be advised of the Council's determination of the application.

 

C.      THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standard/development standards:

 

Premises:                                               66 Constitution Road,  Dulwich Hill

Applicant:                                               Nino Urban Planning + Development

Proposal:                                                To demolish existing improvements and construct a 6 storey residential flat building containing 15 dwellings with basement car parking and associated landscaping works

Determination:                                       Approval

DA No:                                                   201600079

Lot and DP:                                            Lot 2 in DP86920

Category of Development:                    2

Environmental Planning Instrument:     Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land:                                      R1 - General Residential

Development Standard(s) varied:         Height (Clause 4.3) & Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

Justification of variation:                        The proposal satisfies provides high residential amenity; results in no unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties; is consistent with the objectives of the development standards and respective zone; and is appropriate in the context.

Extent of variation:                                 Floor Space Ratio – 413.3m² (65.01%)

                                                               Height – 2.5 metres (14.7%)

 

Concurring Authority:                             Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 4

Subject:         Development Application - 351 Trafalgar Street, Lewisham 

File Ref:         DA201500648/104133.16        

Prepared By: Planning Consultant 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

 

This report concerns an application to demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking.  The application was notified in accordance with Council's notification policy and 3 submissions were received. 

 

The proposal generally complies with the aims, objectives and design parameters contained in State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011) and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011). The development has a variation of 33% from the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard contained within MLEP 2011. A written submission under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the FSR departure accompanied the application and is considered to be well founded and worthy of support. The proposed development complies with the building height development standard.

 

The potential impacts to the surrounding environment have been considered as part of the assessment process. The application has been amended to address comments raised by Council Officers and Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel. Any potential impacts from the amended development are considered to be acceptable given the context of the site and the development is considered to be an appropriate outcome.

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

Location:                     The site is situated on the southern side of Trafalgar Street, Petersham between Nelson Place to the east and Gordon Street to the west.

 

 

Image 1: Location Map

 

 

 

DA No:                         201500648

 

Application Date:        13 November 2015. Additional information submitted on 26 April 2016 and 5 August 2016.

 

Proposal:                     To demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking.

 

Estimated Cost:          $2,250,000

 

Applicant:                    James Confos and Diane Plunkett

 

Zoning:                        R4      High Density Residential

 

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

 

Improvements:            Double storey mid-century red brick and metal roof warehouse building, built to the site boundaries.

 

The site – 351 Trafalgar Street

 

 

Image 2: The Site

 

 

 

 

Current Use:                         Industrial

 

Prior Determinations:          Development Consent No: 6744 dated 26 August 1976 – issued approval to use the two existing factory buildings for the purposes of sewing and the finishing of clothes.

 

Development Consent No: 9073 dated 18 May 1983 – issued approval to use the existing factory building for the purposes of general printing.

 

Determination No: 1560 dated 26 August 1994 – issued approval to use the factory premises for furniture restoration, repairs and French polishing.

 

Environment:                        The local context is currently characterised by a mix of residential and commercial land uses. The area is currently undergoing redevelopment; with the emergence of higher density residential land uses. The western railway corridor is situated to the north of the site.

 

 


 

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)      17 metres                      17 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)       1.6:1                              2.13:1

 

3        Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type                                                                             Required/Proposed

Car Parking                                                                  Discussed in body of report

Waste                                                                           Discussed in body of report

Setbacks (rear)                                                            Discussed in body of report

Dwelling mix                                                                Discussed in body of report

Petersham South Planning Precinct                           Discussed in body of report

 

4        Community Consultation:

Required:             Yes (on site notice and resident notification)

Submissions:       3 submissions

 

5        Other Requirements:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

 

ANEF 2033 Affectation:            20-25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.       The Site and Surrounds

 

The site is legally described as Lot 4 DP 87707 and is known as 351 Trafalgar Street, Petersham. The site is situated on the southern side of Trafalgar Street and comprises a north-south orientation, facing the western railway corridor.

 

The site is a regular shaped allotment comprising a frontage of 10.95 metres, an eastern side boundary of 21.755 metres and a western side boundary of 24.03 metres. The site has a total area of 243.5m2.

 

The site contains a double storey mid-century red brick and metal roof warehouse building, built to the site boundaries.

 

Adjoining to the east is 347-349 Trafalgar Street, Petersham. This site has recently undergone redevelopment with a 5 storey residential flat building now occupying the site.

 

Land uses to the south of the site comprise a group of terrace houses and 2 residential dwellings with a frontage to Sadlier Crescent; these properties are nominated for potential future redevelopment.

 

 

Existing land uses to the west of the site comprise 3 residential dwellings with a frontage to Gordon Street; these properties are also nominated for potential future redevelopment.

 

The local context is characterised by a mixture of commercial and residential land uses and is currently undergoing redevelopment, primarily comprising higher density residential land uses.

 

2.       The Proposal

 

Approval is sought to demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking.

 

A detailed description of each level of the proposed development is provided below:

 

Basement Carpark:

 

·        5 parking spaces (including an accessible car space) in the form of a mechanical car stacker;

·        1 motorcycle parking space;

·        7 bicycle parking spaces;

·        Vehicle circulation and maneuvering space;

·        Storage areas;

·        Bin Store area; and

·        Lift access.

 

Ground Floor:

 

·        Front entry from Trafalgar Street with mailboxes;

·        Lobby area including lift access and store/service meter area;

·        Apartment 1 comprising:

2 bedrooms (Bedrooms 1 & 2);

1 study;

Living room and kitchen;

2 bathrooms (including ensuite to main bedroom);

Laundry;

Store room; and

Front and rear terraces.

 

First Floor:

 

·        Lobby area including lift access;

·        Apartment 2 comprising:

2 bedrooms (Bedrooms 1 & 2);

1 bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

·        Apartment 3 (adaptable) comprising:

1 bedroom (Bedroom 1);

1 accessible bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

 

Second Floor:

 

·        Lobby area including lift access;

·        Apartment 4 comprising:

2 bedrooms (Bedrooms 1 & 2);

1 bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

·        Apartment 5 comprising:

1 bedroom (Bedroom 1);

1 bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

 

Third Floor:

 

·        Lobby area including lift access;

·        Ground Floor Apartment 6 comprising:

1 bedroom (Bedroom 3);

1 bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

·        Ground Floor Apartment 7 comprising:

1 bedroom (Bedroom 3);

1 bathroom;

Living room and kitchen;

Laundry;

Storage area; and

North facing terrace.

 

Fourth Floor:

 

·    First Floor Apartment 6 comprising:

2 bedrooms (Bedrooms 1 & 2);

1 bathroom;

Storage room; and

North facing terrace accessed via Bedroom 1.

·    First Floor Apartment 7 comprising:

2 bedrooms (Bedrooms 1 & 2);

1 bathroom;

Storage room; and

North facing terrace accessed via Bedroom 1.

 

The development includes a total of 7 dwellings, comprising a mix of 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings, 3 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Image 3: Basement Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Image 4: Ground Floor Plan


 

 

 

Image 5: First Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Image 6: Second Floor Plan


 

 

Image 7: Third Floor Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 8: Fourth Floor Plan


 

 

Image 9: Roof Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Image 10: Section A-A Plan

 

 

Image 11: North Elevation Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Image 12: South Elevation Plan

 

 

 

 

Image 13: East Elevation Plan

 

 

 

 

Image 14: West Elevation Plan

 

Image 15: Artist Impression of development viewed from Trafalgar Street

 

1.       Architectural Excellence Panel

 

The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP) who requested additional information and amendments in relation to:

 

1.    The composition of the façade;

2.    Further refinement of the composition of materials toward higher quality materials;

3.    Rear setback; and

4.    Location of the lift core.

 

Following submission of amended plans by the applicant on 5 August 2016 the amended plans are generally supported by Council’s AEP.

 

2.       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. SEPP 55 requires that remediation works must be carried out in accordance with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as approved by the consent authority and any guidelines enforced under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

 

The history of land use for the site has been considered as an indicator for potential contamination of the site. According to Council records, the site is known to have been used in the past for various industrial uses including clothing manufacturing, general printing and furniture restoration, repairs and French polishing.

 

Pursuant to SEPP 55, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s guidelines “Managing Land Contamination - Planning Guidelines for SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land” (SEPP 55 Guidelines) and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011), a Phase 1 Site Contamination Assessment was prepared to accompany the application.

This Site Contamination Assessment concluded and recommended the following:

 

A review of the land use history for the subject site indicates that it is unlikely that any of the contaminating activities listed in Table 1 of the SEPP 55 report have been conducted on the site. Contaminants were not observed at or above threshold levels for the proposed land use.

 

It is considered that the risks to human health and the environment associated with soil contamination at 351 Trafalgar Street, Petersham are low. It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed land use and no further soil contamination investigations are required.

 

Any soil requiring removal from the site, as part of future site works, should be classified in accordance with the “Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste” NSW DECC (2009).

 

The application was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Services Section who provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

·          As part of the development application for this site, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was undertaken to determine potential contaminating activities that may warrant further investigation. The PSI, undertaken in February 2014, determined that prior activities posed minimal risk of site contamination. In addition, the PSI drew from a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) conducted in 2012 of the neighbouring property to determine that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

·          The site was previously used for clothing production, printing and furniture restoration (including spray booths onsite), and the building was constructed sometime between 1943 and 1955. These activities and the age of the building suggest that contaminating substances may be present in the building (such as asbestos and lead etc) that may contaminate the environment and be hazardous to site workers and neighbours.

 

·          No waste classification is provided as there has been no sampling of the material proposed to be removed from the site. In addition there is no information available about the depth and condition of the groundwater, particularly important as the site requires excavation. For this reason, should groundwater be encountered during excavation, it must be managed so not to impact on stormwater and should be discharged to the sewer. Groundwater may be discharged to stormwater only if it is tested to meet the appropriate environmental guidelines.

 

Considering the above, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable having regard to contamination in accordance with SEPP 55 with the imposition of appropriate conditions contained within the recommendation.

 

3.       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.

 

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 and 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).

 

Comment: The proposal does not provide any communal open space. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) acknowledges the difficulty in providing 25% of the site as communal open space which also receives winter sunlight.

 

In lieu of the provision of communal open space, each apartment is provided with a private terrace area which capitalises on the northern aspect of the site, ensuring adequate solar access is achieved.

 

While non-compliant, the areas of open space afforded to each dwelling in the form of terrace area is considered acceptable for the development type.

 

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 than 650m2

-

 

7%

650m2 - 1,500m2

3m

Greater than 1,500m2

6m

Greater than 1,500m2 with significant existing tree cover

6m

Comment: The site comprises a total area of 243.5m2. Whilst no minimum dimension is required, there is a deep soil zone provided towards the rear of the site which comprises 8% of the site area. The accompanying SEE acknowledges that given the small size of the site, opportunities for deep soil planting are limited. As a result, planter beds have been proposed at the front of the site to address this issue and allow for a softer appearance of the development when viewed from Trafalgar Street. 

 

                   The amount of deep soil proposed is considered acceptable for the development type.

 

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

Up to 25 metres (5-8 storeys)

9 metres

4.5 metres

Over 25 metres (9+ storeys)

12 metres

6 metres

 

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

 

Five to eight storeys/up to 25 metres

Room Types

Minimum Separation

Habitable Rooms/Balconies to Habitable Rooms/Balconies

18 metres

Habitable Rooms to Non-Habitable Rooms

12 metres

Non-Habitable Rooms to Non-Habitable Rooms

9 metres

 

 

Comment: The development proposes a nil side boundary setback on both side boundaries which is considered appropriate for the site and context. Accordingly, no building separation is required for the eastern and western side façades.

 

                   A rear setback of 8.497 metres is provided for the fourth floor bedrooms. A rear setback of 3.203 metres is provided from the bedrooms on the first, second and third floors of the development. The ground floor maintains a rear setback of 4.671 metres.

 

                   An average rear setback of 3.74 metres has previously been approved on the adjoining 347 Trafalgar Street site. The proposed rear setbacks are considered appropriate for the site and context.

 

There is only one building proposed on the site; the provisions of separation distances from buildings on the same site are therefore not applicable.

 

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.

 

Comment: The living rooms and terraces of all dwellings are situated on the northern side of the building, ensuring that these areas receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm at mid-winter.

 

                   No more than 15% of the apartments receive no direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm at mid-winter.

 

 

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.

 

Comment: Apartments 1, 6 and 7 provide natural ventilation, which equates to 43% of the dwellings. Given that each dwelling provides a sliding door onto the terrace, this variation is considered suitable.

 

                   It is noted that there is a discrepancy between the floor plans and the rear elevation plan with respect to the windows. The rear windows on the amended floor plans have been deleted, however still remain on the elevation plan. A condition of consent has been imposed to require the floor plans to be amended to be consistent with the rear elevation plan, i.e. windows to be provided.

 

 

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

 

Comment: A minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres is achieved for all proposed apartments. Whilst a minimum ceiling height of 3.3 metres for the ground floor has not been achieved, the proposed ceiling heights are considered acceptable for the development type.

 

 

 

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

 

Note: The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m2 each. A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m2 each.

 

Comment: The sizes of proposed Apartments 1, 3, 5 and 6 all exceed the minimum requirements of the ADG for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings.

 

                   Apartments 2, 4 and 7 all have an area that is less than the ADG requirements for 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings. A deferred commencement consent is recommended to ensure compliance with the apartment size requirements, by reducing the number of bedrooms.

 

Apartment Layout

 

The ADG prescribes the following requirements for apartment layout requirements:

 

·        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.

 

Comment: The development is considered acceptable having regard to the above apartment layout requirements with all dwellings achieving compliance.

 

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 is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3 metres.

 

Comment: The 1 bedroom dwellings, i.e. Apartments 3 and 5 are provided with a terrace area of 9.69m2 and 9.67m2, respectively. The two bedroom dwellings, i.e. Apartments 2 and 4 are provided with a terrace area of 10.49m2 and 10.41m2, respectively. The 3 bedroom apartments, i.e. Apartments 1, 6 and 7 are provided with the areas of 35.06m2, 15.12m2 and 19.19m2, respectively. A 3 bedroom dwelling (Apartment 1) has been proposed on the ground floor to capitalise on the use of the open space to the rear of the site.

 

                   The development complies with the above private open space requirements.

 

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.

 

Comment: The development proposes a maximum of 2 apartments per floor level which complies.

 

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.

 

Comment: Designated storage areas have been provided in each dwelling as well as 3 additional storage areas in the basement and are considered adequate.

 

4.       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.

 

5.       State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

Clause 87 – Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

 

Clause 87 of the SEPP relates to the impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development, and for a development for the purpose of a building for residential use, requires appropriate measures are incorporated into such developments to ensure that certain noise levels are not exceeded. In this regard those measures are to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

 

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

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

 

An Acoustic Report has been submitted by which includes an assessment of railway noise on the proposed development. The findings of this report having regard to railway noise are detailed below:

 

·        The traffic and rail noise document for assessment purposes is the NSW Department of Planning "Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline".

 

·        According to this document, rail vibration is only a potential issue to be assessed if the site is within 60m of the railway line.

 

·        The proposed site is 80m away from the existing rail corridor, so at this location, no issue is to be addressed.

 

·        Similarly, if the site is more than 80m from the railway line, then even if the line speed is more than 80km/hr, then rail noise is unlikely to be a feature of the site.

 

·        We have spoken to Sydney Trains and the line speed is 80-100km/hr between Petersham and Lewisham stations.

 

·        The site is 78m to the nearest track and more than 80m to the other tracks.

 

Conditions have been included in the recommendation to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Acoustic Report.

 

Clause 101 (2) - Development with frontage to Classified Road

 

The site has a frontage to Trafalgar Street which is a classified road. Vehicular access to the property is provided from Trafalgar Street. The development would not affect the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road as it is utilising an existing vehicular crossing.

 

Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development (Clause 102)

 

The development is a type of development that is sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions. An Acoustic Report accompanies the application and addresses the requirements under the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

Appropriate conditions are recommended to be imposed on any consent granted for the proposal requiring noise attenuation to be implemented in accordance with the submitted Acoustic Report.

 

6.       Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

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

 

The site is zoned R4 – High Density 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 R4 - High Density 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 17 metres applies to the land under MLEP 2011. The proposed building maintains a maximum building height of 17 metres, which complies with the development standard.

 

(iv)    Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.6:1 applies to the development under MLEP 2011.

 

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 520sqm which equates to a FSR of 2.13:1 on the 243.5sqm site (representing a non-compliance of 33%) 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 floor space ratio standard prescribed under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011. A written request in relation to the contravention to the floor space ratio development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011 was submitted with the application.

 

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

 

·        A 5 storey building has been approved under the same controls at 347-349 Trafalgar Street.

·        The bulk and scale of the proposed building will be similar to the adjoining building.

·        The scale of the building will be consistent with the other developments in the locality.

·        The design is consistent with the desired future character of the locality.

·        The Pre-DA advice was to increase the size of the units.

·        The surrounding properties are designated for redevelopment.

·        The SEPP 65 report prepared by the architect demonstrates the quality of the design and suitability of the proposal for the site and locality.

 

Compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances given that:

 

·        A taller context is emerging with the approvals for taller buildings adjacent to the site the proposed scale and design of the building is considered to be consistent with the adjoining development approved to the east and the desired future character of the locality.

·        The site is within walking distance of Petersham Rail Station;

·        The existing site area constraints of the small size of the lot which is unable to be amalgamated in accordance with Part 9 of MDCP 2011;

 

The justification points provided in the Clause 4.6 variation request are considered 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]

 

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)    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 carrying out of the development would result in an increase in the number of people affected by aircraft noise.

 

The development would need to be noise attenuated in accordance with AS2021:2000. An Acoustic Report was submitted with the application which details that the development could be noise attenuated from aircraft noise to meet the indoor design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS2021:2000. 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.

 

7.       Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

 

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. The application was referred to Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel (AEP), who support the amended plans.

 

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

 

The development provides 1 adaptable dwelling and 2 accessible resident parking spaces which does not comply with the minimum requirement for the development. Part 2.5 requires 1 adaptable dwelling per 5 dwellings or part thereof. Given that 7 dwellings are proposed which would require 2 adaptable dwellings to be provided, a condition has been included in the recommendation to ensure 2 adaptable dwellings are proposed in compliance with Part 2.5.

 

No provision is made for a dedicated accessible visitor’s parking space. While non-compliant, this departure from the development control is considered acceptable for the development size and type.

 

A Statement of Consistency accompanies the application and states that for the purpose of a Development Application, the design of the proposed Residential Flat Building at 351 Trafalgar Street Petersham NSW 2049 is capable of achieving the relevant requirements of Clause 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility and Table 1 Minimum Access Requirements of Part 2 – Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

Specifically, the proposed development achieves the abovementined requirements as follows:

 

·    The development includes one (1) adaptable dwelling.

·    The adaptable dwelling, Apartment 3 is designed in accordance with AS4299

-     Adaptable House Class C.

·    Access for all persons is provided through the principal pedestrian entrance and to all common areas in accordance with the Australian Standards.

 

Further assessment of the application under the Premises Standards will occur at Construction Certificate stage. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance.

 

Given the above, the development is reasonable having regard to the access controls contained in MDCP 2011.

 

 

(iii)     Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

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:

 

·        Balconies are proposed to be fitted with louvered privacy screens on the northern and southern facades to alleviate impacts upon adjoining properties and within the development and allows sufficient separation between the dwellings to maintain visual privacy for the occupants;

·        Windows facing the rear and are not considered to present any visual privacy concerns that they are for low impact uses such as bedrooms;

·        With regard to acoustic privacy, the development is captured by SEPP Infrastructure as it is located on a classified road and appropriate noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the development; and

 

The proposal complies with the visual and acoustic privacy controls under MDCP 2011.

 

(iv)    Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

 

Overshadowing

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent residential properties. Currently a number of properties to the south of the site do not currently receive sufficient solar access in accordance with Council’s controls. The shadow diagrams illustrate that the properties located to the south of the site are not significantly adversely affected by the development with the exception of a small amount of additional overshadowing that will occur at midday to a small area of private open space at 11 Gordon Street and 22 Sadlier Crescent.

 

The proposed setback and the resulting overshadowing impact are considered to strike a reasonable balance between development of the site and its resulting impacts. Given the above, the overshadowing of the amended proposal appears to be generally consistent with the impacts of a ‘compliant’ built form and is acceptable in this regard.

 

Solar Access

 

The plans and shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate that the development complies with Council’s solar access controls as greater than 65% of the units achieve solar access.

 

(v)     Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

Part 2.9 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives relating to community safety. In this regard, the development is considered reasonable having regard to community safety for the following reasons:

 

·        The building entry is clear and visible from the street.

·        Appropriate lighting will be provided to ensure the entrance and foyer is lit.

·        Natural surveillance is ensured by providing adequate overlooking onto Trafalgar Street.

·        The basement is provided with secure access and would require keypad or remote control access via intercom. Only authorised users would have access to the basement carpark.

·        Appropriate signage will be provided.

·        Pedestrian and vehicular movements are clearly segregated.

 

(vi)    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 car parking space per studio

0 studio units

= 0 spaces

5 spaces

No

0.5 car parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit

2 x 1 bed units

= 1 space

1 car parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit

2 x 2 bed unit

= 2 spaces

1.2 car parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit

3 x 3 bed unit

= 4 spaces

1 car parking space per 1 adaptable dwelling

1 accessible space

 

TOTAL:

 8 spaces

 

 

Visitor Car Parking

0.1 car parking space per unit

7 units

= 1 space

0 spaces

No

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

0 accessible space

Bicycle Parking

Resident Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 2 units

7 units

= 4 spaces

7 spaces

Yes

Visitor Bicycle Parking

1 bicycle parking space per 10 units

7 units

= 0 spaces

Motorcycle Parking

Motorcycle Parking

5% of the total car parking requirement

0.4 car parking spaces required

= 0 space

1 space

Yes

 

Table1: Car, Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking Control Compliance Table

 

As detailed above, the development does not comply with Council’s car parking requirements. A Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted with the development application and provides the following justification for a variation to the number of car spaces required:

 

Taking into consideration that the site is well served by public transport routes and will provide bicycle parking facilities the development satisfies Part 4.2.6.1 within MCC’s DCP for a variation (reduction) in parking requirement.

 

The development will provide a total of six (6) resident parking spaces as follows:

·    five (5) car parking spaces as part of a mechanical car stacker; and

·    one (1) motorcycle parking space.

 

Given the sites constraints provision of additional parking was unable to be achieved. Hence on the basis of the above, the development is seeking a relaxation in the parking requirements from those contained within MCC’s DCP. As stated above, the site satisfies Part 4.2.6.1 within MCC’s DCP for a reduction in parking requirement and the slight shortfall of two (2) parking space is not anticipated to create a significant impact on the surrounding on-street and publicly available parking facilities.

 

The development does comply with the bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements.

 

The site is situated approximately 350 metres walking distance from the pedestrian entry to Petersham Railway Station. It is also acknowledged that the size of the site precludes the provision of additional car parking spaces, and the number of spaces has been maximised by the inclusion of a car stacker. The proposed car stacker is considered to provide suitable accomodation for standard vehicles.

 

The proposed variation from the car-parking requirement is considered suitable for the proposed development. It is noted that the development exceeds Council’s controls in relation to bicycle and motorcycle parking which is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011.

 

(vii)    Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

 

Part 2.18.11.5 of MDCP 2011 prescribes landscaped area, private and common open space controls for residential flat buildings. 

 

Landscaped Area

A pervious landscape area is provided within the front setback. The total site landscape area at ground level is below the required 45%. This non-compliance is considered acceptable given the site constraints and that the landscaping in the front setback is provided through the use of planter boxes.

 

Private and Common Open Space

Each dwelling maintains a private open space area in the form of a terrace which has an area greater than 8m2.

A landscape plan and maintenance schedule was submitted with the application. The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer who provided the following comments:

“The potential for trees in neighbouring properties to be impacted by the proposed development and to present a constraint was identified at the pre-DA stage.  The applicant was advised to ensure that any trees in close proximity were assessed by a project arborist and that an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report should be submitted with the DA.

One tree was identified as a potential constraint and it was assessed by the project arborist.  Encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is minimal and the only protection measures considered necessary is that the dividing fence is maintained in situ for the duration of demolition and construction and that no excavation is permitted outside the subject property.”  

 

The conditions recommended by Council’s Tree Management Officer are included in the recommendation.

 

(viii)   Tree Management (Part 2.20)

An Aboricultural Impact Assessment has been prepared that assesses the condition of an existing tree on the adjoining property at 22 Sadlier Crescent, Petersham.

The tree the subject of the Aboricultural Impact Assessment is identified as Persea Americana, more commonly known as an Avocado tree.

The Aboricultural Impact Assessment relevantly provides the following recommendations:

·        That tree 1 be retained and protected.

·        Protection for tree 1 is to be achieved through the retention of existing boundary fencing.

·        All demolition works for the existing building footings to the north of the tree within the tree TPZ of 3.6 metres radius should be undertaken utilising hand tools. Beyond this zone mechanical means can be utilised.

 

Conditions from Council’s Tree Management Officer have been included in the recommendation.

 

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

2.21.7 Recycling and Waste Management Plan

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

 

2.21.11 Residential Waste

A minimum of 3 x 240 litre recycling, 3 x 240 litre general waste bins and 1 green waste bins are required to be provided for the development.

A bin storage area is proposed within the basement floor level of the development with a capacity to accommodate the required waste facilities for recycling and general waste under Part 2.21.

Due to the small number of units, the ease of access to the bin room via the lift, and the provision of adequate domestic waste storage and recycling within the kitchen areas, the proposal does not include a bin room or garbage room on each floor.

In addition there is no area suitable for a waste chute/bin room at the landings and if required, this would be located adjacent an apartment entry, which is highly undesirable and a management issue for a group of apartments this size.

To service the waste adequately, the applicant has proposed a domestic waste storage area within each apartment and a management system that requires each unit to deliver their waste to a garbage room in the basement, an area regularly maintained by the body corporate or management. The journey to the bin room can easily be made on exiting the building during the day or at night, via the lift (or stairs).

Based on the above justification, the proposed waste management arrangements are considered acceptable.

 

 

(vii)    Stormwater Management (Part 2.25)

Stormwater management has been addressed as follows:

·        Stormwater from the roof and rear courtyard will be discharged by gravity via a pipe running along the ceiling and wall of the basement. The basement ceiling is above street level.

·        Any stormwater in the basement will be discharged via a pump out system.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided conditions that are recommended to be imposed on any consent granted for the proposal.

 

Part 4 - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

Part 4.2 – Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings

 

Part 4.2 of MDCP 2011 provides controls relating to Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings provisions including building form, building detail and desired future character guidelines and controls for specific centres. An assessment of the development having regard to the relevant provisions of Part 4.2 of MDCP 2011 is provided below.

 

(i)      General Controls (Part 4.2.3)

 

Part 4.2.3 of MDCP 2011 prescribes the following unit mix requirements for residential flat buildings containing 6 or more dwellings:

 

“C1   New developments with six or more dwellings must provide the following mix of dwelling types:

i.        Studio                                  5% - 20%;

ii.       1 bedroom                           10% -40%;

iii.      2 bedroom                           40% - 75%; and

iv.      3 bedroom or bigger           10% - 45%.”

 

The development includes 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings (28.5 % of 7), 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings (28.5 % of 7) and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings (43% of 7). The number of 2 bedroom dwellings provided is below the minimum 40% requirement which does not comply with the abovementioned unit mix requirements.

 

Whilst the proposal does not strictly comply with the numerical requirement for 2 bedroom dwellings, it is acknowledged that different apartment sizes are proposed (noting that under the recommended deferred commencement condition both of the 2 bedroom units must be reconfigured to 1 bedroom units). The overall mix is considered appropriate as the unit mix can be achieved across the wider precinct, and this development provides 3 bedroom units that are not usually included on small compact sites. On this basis, this departure from the controls is considered justified.

 

(ii)      Built Form and Character (Part 4.2.4)

4.2.1.1 Floor Space Ratio and Site Coverage

The floor space ratio of the development has been discussed earlier in this report under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Part 4.2.4.1 MDCP 2011 specifies the following maximum site coverage controls for residential flat buildings:

 

Development Type

Maximum Site Coverage

Residential flat building

45% for one storey

35% for two storey

30% for three or more storeys

 

Council considers the site coverage of a development to be “the proportion of the allotment occupied by the ground floor plan area of a building or buildings, including garages, carports, awnings, out buildings, etc, expressed as a percentage ratio”.

 

The site coverage for this proposal, measured in accordance with the above, equates to 71.8 % of the site area which does not comply with such requirement. Given the design and scale of the proposed building and its consistency with the scale of the adjoining approved building at 347-349 Trafalgar Street, this non-compliance is considered acceptable.

 

 

4.2.4.2 Building Heights

This matter has been discussed earlier in this report under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

 

4.2.4.3 Building Setbacks

Part 4.2.4.3 of MDCP 2011 prescribes front, side and rear setback controls.  Setbacks are generally required to allow neighbours adequate access to sunlight, for view sharing, to preserve established tree and vegetation corridors and provide adequate separation between buildings to maintain privacy.

The setbacks applicable to the proposed development are discussed in Part 9 – Strategic Context, which contains site specific setback requirements for the subject site.

 

(iii)     Streetscape, General Appearance and Materials (Part 4.2.5)

4.2.5.1 Façade and streetscape design

4.2.5.2 Bulk and scale relationship

4.2.5.3 Materials, finishes, textures and colours

 

A Statement Regarding Future Context has been prepared by the applicant’s architects, which relevantly provides:

In designing the new Residential Development for 351Trafalgar St, we have carefully modeled the recently constructed 5 storey residential development at 347- 9 Trafalgar St and the masterplan envelopes for the adjacent sites to the West, to ensure the proposal fits the future context.

The proposed Trafalgar Street façade responds to the massing of the adjacent approved development and presents a covered entry area and planting to the street, with an elevated terrace to the ground floor behind. Above this is a single storey rendered façade with inset private balconies over and the fourth and fifth level read as smaller balconies over 2 levels and are set back further from the street.

To the rear the massing is also similar to 347- 9 Trafalgar St, with banded masonry and metal cladding. The fifth floor is set further back.

The future context is envisaged as 4-5 storey masonry walled buildings to Trafalgar St and Gordon St. An articulation zone to the street frontages will present street front balconies, the upper storeys of the proposed residential development and the future developments will have greater setbacks and a different articulation to reduce apparent vertical scale from the street.

 

Council’s Architectural Excellence Panel has supported the final version of the plans. The design including materials and finishes are considered to be high quality.

 

(iv)    Ceiling heights (Part 4.2.7)

Part 4.2.7 of MDCP 2011 prescribes ceiling heights for residential flat building developments.

A minimum finished floor to finished ceiling height of 2.7 metres is achieved for all proposed apartments. Whilst a minimum ceiling height of 3.3 metres for the ground floor has not been provided, the proposed ceiling heights are considered acceptable for the development type given that it is a residential flat building.

 

PART 9 – STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

The land is located in the Petersham South Planning Precinct (Precinct 6) under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

 

Site Amalgamation

The site is shown on the lot consolidation map to be amalgamated with the adjoining property at 347-349 Trafalgar Street. In 2012 Council approved a new residential flat building on the adjoining property, after attempts to amalgamate the properties were unsuccessful.

The site in not suitable to amalgamate the properties to the west that face Gordon Street. It considered feasible for the site to be redeveloped without site amalgamation.

 

Building Height

The guideline for a 4 storey building in the Precinct Guidelines is under the 17 metre height standard prescribed by the LEP.

The proposal complies with the height of building standard in the MLEP 2011 and the height of the proposed building is considered acceptable in the context of the recently constructed 5 story residential flat building on the adjoining site.

 

Setbacks

The front façade is setback 3 metres from the front boundary. A canopy is provided over the front entry.

At the rear, the fourth level is not set back by the recommended 4 metres. The top floor is set back from the building line of the lower floors. The top floor is set back 8.5 metres from the rear boundary. The lower floors are set back 3.2 metres from the rear boundary. Given the site constraints and the setbacks that have been approved on the adjoining site, the proposed variation from the required setbacks is considered acceptable.

 

Envelopes

The DCP nominates a building separation between new development on the Trafalgar Street frontage and the Sadlier Street frontage of 16m. When Council approved the application at 347-349 Trafalgar Street it approved a variation to this 16m separation, largely on the basis that the 12m building separation which applied under the Residential Flat Design Code would be achieved. The rear building line on the subject site is the same as the approved rear building line at 347-349. This variation is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Articulation zones

The design of the front façade has been divided into a base, a middle and a top. The combined treatment of the fourth and fifth level on the street elevation adds interest and character to the street elevation as required in the shallow articulation zone.

 

Domain Interface

There is no requirement for an active commercial frontage on this site. The location of the driveway is adjacent to the driveway at 347-349. This is considered acceptable for the proposed development. Pedestrian links are not required for this site. Public domain infrastructure is not required for this site. A road widening dedication does not apply to this site.

 

8.       Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $105,361.24 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014.  A condition requiring that contribution to be paid is included in the recommendation.

 

 

9.       Community Consultation

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. 3 submissions were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

(i)      Variation to the car parking space requirements on the basis that ‘the area is well serviced by public transport’; and

(ii)      Weight and size restrictions of the parking stacker will limit the vehicles that are able to utilise it which will force more on-street parking;

(iii)     Solar access and overshadowing to adjoining properties to the south.

 

In addition to the above, the submissions raised the following concerns which are discussed under the respective headings below:

(i)      Safety of the parking stacker for children, given that the 2 x 3 bedroom apartments are capable of accommodating families.

 

Comment:

The parking layout has been designed in accordance with the AS2890.1 and a mechanical car stacker service contract has been provided as part of the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the development.

(ii)      The WestConnex project is encouraging greater car dependency and therefore this site is not favourable for residential development; but rather should be utilised for a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre, etc.

 

Comment:

The proposed development is a permissible land use in the R4 High Density Residential zone applicable to the site and is considered to be supportable. The suggested land uses are all prohibited development in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

All relevant matters raised in the submissions able to be considered under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act have been discussed in the report.

 

10.     Conclusion

This application is to demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking. The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. The proposal generally complies with the aims, objectives and design parameters contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Marrickville Development Plan 2011. The FSR non-compliance has been addressed through a Clause 4.6 variation request, which is supported. The development will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of adjoining premises and the streetscape. The application is suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

 

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT the development application to demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking be APPROVED and a DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONSENT be issued subject to the following terms and conditions:

PART A - DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONSENT –

 

The consent will not operate and it may not be acted upon until the Council or its delegate is satisfied as to the following matters:

 

·        To ensure compliance with the apartment size requirements contained within the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), amended plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council which indicate a revised layout. All apartments within the development shall comply with the minimum apartment sizes prescribed by the ADG in accordance with Objective 4D-1, specifically Apartments 2 and 4 shall be amended to be 1 bedroom apartments.

·        To ensure consistency in the plans, the floor plans for Apartments 2, 3, 4 & 5 and the ground floor plans of Apartment 6 & 7 are to be amended in respect to the provision of windows on the rear elevation; to be consistent with the provision of windows shown on the rear elevation plan.

 

Evidence of the above matters must be produced to the Council or its delegate within 2 years of the date of this Determination otherwise the Consent will lapse.

 

PART B - CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

 

Once operative the consent is subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL

 

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

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

DA-01, Rev B

Title Page

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-06, Rev B

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-07, Rev B

Proposed First Floor Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-08, Rev B

Proposed Second Floor Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-09, Rev B

Proposed Third Floor Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-10, Rev B

Proposed Fourth Floor Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-11, Rev B

Proposed Roof Plan + Concept Drainage Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-12, Rev B

Proposed Basement Plan

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-13, Rev B

North Elevation

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-14, Rev B

South Elevation

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-15, Rev B

East Elevation

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-16, Rev B

West Elevation + Materials

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-17, Rev B

Section A-A

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-18, Rev B

Section B-B

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

DA-19, Rev B

Area Diagrams

26/04/2016

Mackenziepronk Architects

05/08/2016

621458M

BASIX Certificate

13/08/2016

Ecocorp Consulting Pty Ltd

13/11/2015

XS15-90, Rev B

Landscape Plan

17/07/2015

Xeriscapes

13/11/2015

P1981.001R 351 Trafalgar St, Petersham TIA

Traffic Impact Assessment

05/06/2016

Bitzios Consulting

13/11/2015

-

Acoustical Assessment Report

22/01/2015

Acoustica

 

13/11/2015

3572

Aboricultural Impact Assessment

12/02/2015

Tree and Landscape Consultants

13/11/2015

 

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

 

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

 

b)      any relevant requirements of this consent,

 

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

 

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

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

 

3.       The materials and finishes of the building constructed pursuant to this consent must be strictly in accordance with the materials and finishes identified in Drawing No. DA-16 dated 26/04/2016, prepared by Mackenziepronk Architects. No changes may be made to these drawings except by way of an application under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

 

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

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

 

5.       The premises must be used exclusively as a residential flat building and not be adapted for use as a backpackers’ accommodation, serviced apartments or a boarding house and must not be used for any industrial or commercial purpose.

Reason:               To ensure that the premises are used exclusively as a residential flat building.

 

6.       7 off-street car parking spaces must be provided and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking. The parking must be allocated as follows:

 

a)      A minimum of 5 spaces being allocated to the residential dwellings; and

b)      2 accessible car parking spaces, 1 accessible car space per adaptable dwelling.

         

          All accessible car spaces must be provided and marked as disabled car parking spaces.

 

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

 

7.       7 off-street bicycle parking spaces must be provided, paved, linemarked and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking.

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

 

8.       1 off-street motorcycle parking spaces must be provided, paved, linemarked and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking.

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

 

9.       A minimum of 2 adaptable dwellings must be provided in accordance with Part 2.5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Equity of Access and Mobility. One disabled parking space must be allocated to each adaptable dwelling.

          Reason:     To make reasonable provision in the development to provide residential accommodation suitable for people with a disability.

 

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

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

 

11.     The use of any plant and equipment must not give rise to:

 

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

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

 

Reason:     To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

 

12.     Noise and vibration from the use and operation of any plant and equipment and/or building services associated with the premises must not give rise to "offensive noise' as defined by The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).  In this regard the roller door to the car parking entry is to be selected, installed and maintained to ensure its operation does not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

13.    Owners and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area. The person acting on this consent shall advise any purchaser or prospective tenant of this condition. In addition the by−laws of any future residential strata plans created for the property shall reflect this restriction.

Reason:     To ensure the development does not reduce the amount of “on street” parking currently available.

 

14.     All stormwater drainage being designed in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (A.R.R.), Australian Standard AS3500.3-2003 ‘Stormwater Drainage’ and Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code. Pipe and channel drainage systems shall be designed to cater for the twenty (20) year Average Recurrence Interval (A.R.I.) storm in the case of low and medium residential developments, the twenty (20) year A.R.I. storm in the case of high density residential development and commercial and/or industrial developments and the fifty (50) year A.R.I. storm in the case of heavy industry. In all cases the major event surface flow paths shall be designed to cater for the one hundred (100) year A.R.I. storm.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

 

15.     Should the proposed development require the provision of an electrical substation, such associated infrastructure shall be incorporated wholly within the development site. Before proceeding with your development further, you are directed to contact Ausgrid directly with regard to the possible provision of such an installation on the property.

Reason:     To provide for the existing and potential electrical power distribution for this development and for the area.

 

16.     Dry-weather flows of any seepage water including seepage from landscaped areas will not be permitted through kerb outlets and must be connected directly to a Council stormwater system. Alternatively the water may be stored separately on site and reused for the watering of landscaped areas.

Reason:     To ensure that there are no dry-weather flows of any seepage water directed to the kerb.

 

17.     All trees, covered by Part 2.20 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Tree Management, not requiring removal to permit the erection of the development must be retained.

          Reason:     To preserve existing mature trees on the property.

 

18.     The person acting on this consent must follow all recommendations contained within the Aboricultural Impact Assessment report prepared by Tree and Landscape Consultants submitted to Council on 13 November 2016.

          Reason:     To ensure the protection of the existing tree on the adjoining property.

 

19.     Dividing fences between the subject property and the tree in 22 Sadlier Crescent shall remain in situ for the duration of demolition and construction.  No access for any construction related activity is permitted in that property within 3.6 metres of the avocado tree (Persea americana).   

          Reason:     To provide tree protection fencing for the neighbour’s tree.

 

20.    No excavation is permitted outside the property boundary of the subject property within 4.0 metres of the of the avocado tree (Persea americana) in 22 Sadlier Crescent.

Reason:     To ensure that the roots of the neighbour’s tree are not damaged.

 

21.     It may be necessary for the installation of a suitable electrical sub-station for the distribution of electrical power in this area to be located on the land, and that an area of land suitable for Ausgrid to provide such an installation be set aside for this purpose.  Before proceeding with your development further, you are directed to contact the General Manager of Ausgrid, George Street, Sydney, with respect to the possible need for such an installation immediately or in the future.

          Reason:     To provide for the existing and potential electrical power distribution for this development and for the area.

 

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

          Reason:     To ensure that the development is adequately serviced.

 

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

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

 

24.     No encroachments onto Council’s road or footpath of any service pipes, sewer vents, boundary traps, downpipes, gutters, stairs, doors, gates, garage tilt up panel doors or any structure whatsoever is permitted. Any encroachments on to Council road or footpath resulting from the building works will be required to be removed before occupation of the site.

Reason:     To ensure there is no encroachment onto Council’s road.

 

25.     Owners and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area. The by−laws of any future residential strata plans created for the property shall reflect this restriction.

Reason:     To ensure the development does not reduce the amount of "on street" parking currently available.

 

26.     Any adjustment or augmentation of any public utility services including Gas, Water, Sewer, Electricity, Street lighting and Telecommunications required as a result of the development must be at no cost to Council and undertaken before occupation of the site.

Reason:     To ensure all costs for the adjustment/augmentation of services arising as a result of the redevelopment are at no cost to Council.

 

27.     All groundwater encountered during demolition, construction and occupancy of the new development is to be disposed in to the sewer. Groundwater is not permitted to enter the stormwater unless it treated to the appropriate environmental levels. Details of the adopted groundwater management plan and any monitoring data is to be provided to Council.

Reason:     To prevent the pollution of waterways with contaminated groundwater.

 

 

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

 

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

 

28.     No work must commence until:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

31.     A Hazardous Materials Survey is to be completed prior to demolition of existing structures to ensure hazardous materials that have been used in the existing buildings are appropriately managed during demolition. This must also prevent the spread of contamination and potential health risks to site workers and neighbours. A copy of the survey must be provided to Council.

Reason:     To minimise the impact of hazardous building material on people and the environment.

 

32.     All demolition work must:

 

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

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

 

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

 

33.     Where any loading, unloading or construction is to occur from a public place, Council5 must be contacted to determine if any permits or traffic management plans are required to be obtained from Council before work commences.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the area.

 

34.     All services in the building being demolished must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities before work commences.

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

 

35.     A waste management plan must be prepared in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and submitted to and accepted by the PCA before work commences.

Reason:     To ensure the appropriate disposal and reuse of waste generated on the site.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

38.    A Soil and Water Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with Landcom Soils and Construction, Volume 1, Managing Urban Stormwater (Particular reference is made to Chapter 9, “Urban Construction Sites”) and submitted to and accepted by the PCA.  A copy of this document must be submitted to and accepted by PCA before work commences.  The plan shall indicate:

 

a)      Where the builder’s materials and waste are to be stored;

b)      Where the sediment fences are to be installed on the site;

c)      What facilities are to be provided to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way; and

d)      How access to the site will be provided.

 

All devices must be constructed and maintained on site while work is carried out.

 

Reason:      To prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of the stormwater network.

 

39.     The person acting on this consent shall apply as required for all necessary permits including crane permits, road opening permits, hoarding permits, footpath occupation permits and/or any other approvals under Section 68 (Approvals) of the Local Government Act, 1993 or Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.

Reason:     To ensure all necessary approvals have been applied for.

 

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

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

 

41.     The person acting on this consent shall provide details of the means to secure the site and to protect the public from the construction works. Where the means of securing the site involves the erection of fencing or a hoarding on Council’s footpath or road reserve the person acting on this consent shall submit a hoarding application and pay all relevant fees before commencement of works.

Reason:     To secure the site and to maintain public safety

 

42.     A detailed Traffic Management Plan to cater for construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved by Council before commencement of works. Details shall include proposed truck parking areas, construction zones, crane usage, truck routes etc.

Reason:     To ensure construction traffic does not unduly interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or the amenity of the area.

 

43.     The person acting on this consent shall submit a dilapidation report including colour photos showing the existing condition of the footpath and roadway adjacent to the site before commencement of works.

Reason:     To ensure the existing condition of Council's infrastructure is clearly documented.

 

44.    The person acting on this consent is responsible for arranging and meeting the cost of a dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified person.  The report is to include colour photographs and must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction, with a colour copy being provided to Council and the property owner of the identified property, before work commences, on the buildings on the adjoining property at 347 Trafalgar Street and 5, 7 and 11 Gordon Street, if the consent of the adjoining property owner can be obtained.  In the event that the consent of the adjoining property owner cannot be obtained copies of the letter/s that have been sent via registered mail and any responses received must be forwarded to the PCA before work commences.

Reason:      To catalogue the condition of the adjoining property for future reference in the event that any damage is caused during work on site.

 

45.     Before commencing works the person acting on this consent must provide a contact number for a designated person to be available during the demolition and construction for residents to contact regarding breaches of consent or problems relating to the construction.

Reason:     To provide a person that residents can contact.

 

46.     The person acting on this consent must provide details of the means to secure the site and to protect the public from the construction works. Where the means of securing the site involves the erection of fencing or a hoarding on Council’s footpath or road reserve the person acting on this consent must submit a hoarding application and pay all relevant fees before commencement of works.

Reason:     To secure the site and to maintain public safety.

 

47.     All street trees adjacent to the site not approved for removal must be protected at all times during demolition and construction, in accordance with Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Details of the method(s) of protection of such trees must be submitted to and be approved by Council before commencing works.

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

48.     All approved protection measures must be installed prior to commencing any work and must be maintained for the duration of construction.

Reason:     To ensure that all trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

49.     Where scaffoldings or hoardings are to be erected, street trees must be protected during construction works as follows:

 

a)      Tree trunk and major limb protection must be undertaken prior to or during the installation of any hoarding or scaffoldings. The protection must be installed by a qualified Arborist (AQF 2 or 3) and must include:

 

(i)      An adequate clearance, minimum 250mm, must be provided between the structure and tree branches, limbs and trunk at all times;

(ii)     Tree trunk/s and/or major branches, located within 500mm of any hoarding or scaffolding structure, must be protected by wrapped hessian or similar material to limit damage;

(iii)     Timber planks (50mm x 100mm or similar) must be placed around tree trunk/s. The timber planks must be spaced at 100mm intervals, and must be fixed against the trunk with tie wire, or strapping. The hessian and timber planks must not be fixed to the tree in any instance, or in any fashion, and

(iv)    Tree trunk and major branch protection must remain in place for the duration of construction and development works, and must be removed at the completion of the project.

 

b)      All hoarding support columns must be placed a minimum of 300mm from the edge of the existing tree pits. Supporting columns must not be placed on any tree roots that are exposed.

 

c)      Materials or goods, including site sheds, must not be stored or placed:

 

(i)      around or under the tree canopy; or

(ii)     within 2 metres of tree trunks or branches of any street trees.

 

d)      Any damage sustained to street tree/s as a result of the erection of hoardings, scaffolding, or due to the loading/unloading of vehicles adjacent the site, must be immediately reported to the Council's Tree Management Officer on 9335 2242, in order to determine the appropriate action for maintaining the health and structural integrity of any damaged street tree.

 

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

50.     a)      The consent from Council must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any street tree pruning works. Only minor pruning works will be approved by Council.

 

b)      Any pruning that is required to accommodate hoardings, scaffolding, or to accommodate the loading/unloading of vehicles, and has been approved by Council, must be carried out by a qualified Arborist (AQF3), and must be in accordance with AS4373 Australian Standards 'Pruning of Amenity Trees'.

 

c)      The removal of any street tree approved by Council must include complete stump removal and the temporary reinstatement of levels so that no trip or fall hazards exist until suitable replanting occurs. Those works must be completed immediately following the trees removal.

 

Reason:     To ensure that all street trees are appropriately protected during demolition and construction works.

 

60.     If a new street number or a change to the street number (this includes unit and shop numbers) is required, a separate application must be made to and approved by Council prior to that street number being displayed.

Reason:     To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

 

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent the Certifying Authority (Council or an Accredited Certifier) is that person appointed to issue a Construction Certificate.

 

61.     The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water wastewater and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if any requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for:

·        Quick Check agents details - see Plumbing, building and developing then Quick Check agents and

·        Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Plumbing, building and developing then Plan submissions

or telephone 13 20 92.

The stamped plans must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

 

62.     The person acting on this consent shall provide to Council a bond in the amount of $4,202.10 and pay the related Section 138 (Roads Act) inspection fee of $209.00 (GST inclusive) before the issue of a Construction Certificate to ensure the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works required as a result of this development.

Reason:     To provide security for the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works.

 

63.     Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder shall sign a written undertaking that they shall be responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

64.     A stormwater construction plan detailing the existing and proposed site drainage layout, size, class and grade of pipelines, pit types, roof gutter and downpipe sizes, and proposed site levels together with hydrologic and hydraulic calculations being submitted to and accepted by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To assess the adequacy of the proposed/existing site drainage.

 

65.     All plumbing and ductwork including stormwater downpipes must be concealed within the outer walls of the building so they are not visible. Plans and elevations detailing the method of concealment must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Any variation to this requirement requires Council approval.

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

 

66.     A statement from a qualified Architect, verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

67.     Details of an anti graffiti treatment to the northern, southern and western elevation(s) of the development must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure the proposed development remains free of graffiti.

 

68.     All plumbing and ductwork including stormwater downpipes must be concealed within the outer walls of the building so they are not visible. Plans and elevations detailing the method of concealment must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Any variation to this requirement requires Council approval.

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

 

69.     Details regarding all hard paved areas within the development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.  In this regard the materials used should be chosen to break up the extent of hard paving and enhance the appearance of the development.

Reason:     To ensure all hard paved areas within the development are sympathetic to and enhance the appearance of the development.

 

70.     A detailed plan showing the height, colour and material of all fencing within the development in accordance with Part 2.11 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Fencing must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure all fencing is in keeping with the character of the area and maintains adequate privacy.

 

71.     Letterboxes and mail collection facilities must be provided and adequately protected in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure adequate mail collection facilities are provided.

 

72.     Adequate outdoor clothes drying areas must be provided for the development in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure adequate outdoor clothes drying facilities are provided.

 

73.     Lighting details of the pedestrian areas, parking areas and all entrances must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:             To ensure appropriate lighting is provided to create a safe living environment.

 

74.     Plans fully reflecting the selected commitments listed in BASIX Certificate submitted with the application for development consent must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Note:          The application for the Construction Certificate must be accompanied by either the BASIX Certificate upon which development consent was granted or a revised BASIX Certificate (Refer to Clause 6A of Schedule 1 to the Regulation).

 

Reason:             To ensure that the BASIX commitments are incorporated into the development.

 

75.     Insulation, having a minimum R3.0 rating, must be provided to the ceiling or roofs in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To achieve an overall increase in thermal comfort and reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment.

 

76.     Reticulated gas infrastructure, with a separate meter for each dwelling must be provided to each dwelling in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To provide the potential to reduce greenhouse emissions.

 

77.     Fixtures for bathroom and kitchen taps, showerheads, dishwashers and toilet cisterns must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating.

Note:          Information on the star rating scheme, and all 'star' rated products are available to view at the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) website: www.waterrating.gov.au.

Reason:     To conserve water.

 

78.     New or replacement toilets must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating and being 6/3 litre dual flush or more efficient.

Note:          Information on the star rating scheme, and all 'star' rated products are available to view at the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) website: www.waterrating.gov.au.

Reason:     To conserve water.

 

79.     A hot water system with a minimum 3.5 energy star Greenhouse rating must be provided for each dwelling in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure that the dwellings incorporate energy and water efficient measures.

 

80.     Noise attenuation measures must be incorporated into the development complying with Australian Standard 2021-2000 in relation to interior design sound levels, in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft.

 

81.     a)      This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

b)      Before the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Council must be paid a monetary contribution of $105,361.24 indexed in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (“CP”).

 

The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 7 September 2016.

 

*NB   Contribution rates under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 are indexed quarterly (for the method of indexation refer to Section 2.15 of the Plan).

 

The indexation of the contribution rates occurs in the first week of the months of February, May, August and November each year, following the release of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

          (CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT REFERENCE NO. DC001580)

 

c)      The contribution payable has been calculated in accordance with the CP and relates to the following public amenities and/or services and in the following amounts:

Community Facilities                                                    $12,544.12

Plan Administration                                                         $2,065.87

Recreation Facilities                                                     $91,942.92

Traffic Facilities                                                             $-1,191.66

 

d)      A copy of the CP can be inspected at Council’s offices at 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham or online at http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au.

 

e)      The contribution must be paid either in cash, by unendorsed bank cheque (from an Australian Bank only), via EFTPOS (Debit only) or credit card*.

 

*NB          A 1% credit card transaction fee applies to all credit card transactions.

 

Reason:     To ensure provision is made for the increase in demand for public amenities and services required as a consequence of the development being carried out.

 

82.     Evidence of payment of the building and construction industry Long Service Leave Scheme, must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. (The required payment can be made at the Council Offices).

 

NB:   The required payment is based on the estimated cost of building and construction works and the long service levy rate, set by the Long Service Payments Corporation. The rate set by the Long Service Payments Corporation is currently of 0.35% of the cost of the building and construction work.

 

          For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

          http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?levy_information/levy_calculator.stm

 

Reason:     To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

 

83.     Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder must sign a written undertaking that they are responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

84.     Plans, details and calculations of an On Site Detention system in accordance with Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code, must be submitted to Council’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. The on site detention system must be designed for all storm events from the 1 year to the 1:100 year storm event, with discharge to a Council controlled storm water system limited to pre-development conditions with the maximum allowable discharge to Council's street gutter limited to 25 litres/second.  Storage for the 1 year storm event must be provided fully below ground. Details must also include the Height v Storage and Height v Discharge relationships. For sites greater than 1000sqm the allowable discharge will be limited to the equivalent fully pervious discharges for the site area.

Reason:     To ensure the development does not increase the stormwater runoff from the site.

 

85.     It should be noted that dry-weather flows of any seepage water including seepage from landscaped areas will not be permitted through kerb outlets and must be connected directly to a Council stormwater system. Alternatively the water may be stored on site and reused for the watering of landscaped areas or discharged using a timed pump out system between the hours of midnight and 4.00am.

Reason:     To ensure that there are no dry-weather flows of any seepage water through kerb outlets.

 

86.     The footpath along the Trafalgar Street frontage of the site must be reconstructed and upgraded in accordance with the Marrickville Public Domain Code and Technical Manual when adopted. Full detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted to Council for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993 before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure the footpath is reconstructed and upgraded in accordance with the Marrickville Public Domain Code and Technical Manual.

 

 

SITE WORKS

 

87.     All excavation, demolition, construction and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of development must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above, no work is to be carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason:     To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

88.     All demolition, construction and associated work necessary for the carrying out of the development must be restricted to between the hours of 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above, no work is to be carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

 

All trucks and vehicles associated with the construction, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only have access to the site during the hours referred to in this condition. No waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site or building materials associated with the construction of the development being deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without Council's approval, having first been obtained. The developer must ensure that all contractors associated with the development are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:     To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

89.     If during site works there are significant odours or evidence of contamination (including asbestos) or other unexpected occurrence, site works should immediately cease. An environmental consultant should be engaged to assess the site and determine if a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is to be prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA's (2011) Guidelines for Consultants: Reporting on Contaminated Sites. Council must be notified and receive a copy of any prepared RAP.

 

          Upon the completion of any remediation works stated in the Remedial Action Plan, the person acting on this consent shall submit to Council a Validation and Monitoring Report. The report is to be conducted in accordance with the NSW EPA’s (2011) Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the remediated site complies with the objectives of the RAP and that the land is suitable for its proposed use and poses no risk to the environment and human health.

 

90.     The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction upon completion of the work.

Reason:     To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

 

91.     The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the consent of Council.  The placement of waste storage containers in a public place requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy – ‘Placement of Waste Storage Containers in a Public Place’.

Reason:     To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

 

92.     All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

a)      compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b)      all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c)      all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d)      sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e)      the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f)       the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g)      suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h)      all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only have access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i)        all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j)        no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k)      the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

 

93.     The works are required to be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another Certifying Authority.  The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA.  The critical stages of construction are:

 

a)      At the commencement of the building work;

b)      For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c)      Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d)      After the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

Reason:     To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the Building Code of Australia.

 

94.     Alignment levels for the site at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations shall match the existing back of footpath levels at the boundary. Note: This may require the internal site levels to be adjusted locally at the boundary to ensure that they match the issued alignment levels. Failure to comply with this condition will result in vehicular access being denied.

Reason:     In accordance with Council’s powers under the Roads Act, 1993, alignment levels at the property boundary will be required to accord with Council's design or existing road and footpath levels.

 

95.     All roof and surface stormwater from the site and any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, shall be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and being discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

 

96.     All fill imported on to the site must be validated to ensure the imported fill is suitable for the proposed land use from a contamination perspective. Fill imported on to the site must also be compatible with the existing soil characteristic for site drainage purposes.

 

Council may require details of appropriate validation of imported fill material to be submitted with any application for future development of the site. Hence all fill imported onto the site should be validated by either one or both of the following methods during remediation works:

 

a)      Imported fill should be accompanied by documentation from the supplier which certifies that the material is not contaminated based upon analyses of the material for the known past history of the site where the material is obtained; and/or

b)      Sampling and analysis of the fill material should be conducted in accordance with the EPA Sampling Design Guidelines (1995) to ensure that the material is not contaminated.

 

Reason:     To ensure that imported fill is of an acceptable standard.

 

97.     Alignment levels for the site at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations must be obtained from Council before the commencement of construction. The alignment levels must match the existing back of footpath levels at the boundary. Failure to comply with this condition will result in vehicular access being denied.

Reason:     In accordance with Council’s powers under the Roads Act, 1993, alignment levels at the property boundary will be required to accord with Council's design or existing road and footpath levels.

 

98.     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on the adjoining allotments, including a public place such as a footway and roadway, the person acting on the consent, at their own expense must:

 

a)      protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

b)      where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage. Where the proposed underpinning works are not "exempt development", all required consents must be obtained prior to the required works commencing; and

c)      at least 7 days’ notice is given to the owners of the adjoining land of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice must include complete details of the work.

 

Where a dilapidation report has not been prepared on any building adjacent to the excavation, the person acting on this consent is responsible for arranging and meeting the cost of a dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified person. The report must be submitted to and accepted by the PCA before works continue on site, if the consent of the adjoining property owner can be obtained.

 

Copies of all letter/s that have been sent via registered mail to the adjoining property owner and copies of any responses received must be forwarded to the PCA before work commences.

 

Reason:     To ensure that adjoining buildings are preserved, supported and the condition of the buildings on the adjoining property catalogued for future reference in the event that any damage is caused during work on site.

 

99.     All vehicles carrying materials to, or from the site, must have their loads covered with tarpaulins or similar covers.

Reason:     To ensure dust and other particles are not blown from vehicles associated with the use.

 

100.   Satisfactory methods and/or devices must be employed on the site to prevent the tracking of mud/dirt onto the surrounding streets from vehicles leaving the site.

Reason:     To prevent soil particles from being tracked and deposited onto the streets surrounding the site.

 

101.   The disposal of contaminated soil must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Reason:     To provide for correct disposal of wastes.

 

102.   A certificate of survey from a registered land surveyor must be submitted to the PCA upon excavation of the footings and before the pouring of the concrete to verify that the structure will not encroach on the allotment boundaries.

Reason:     To ensure all works are contained within the boundaries of the allotment.

 

103.   No part of the fencing is to encroach upon Council’s footpath. The footings of the fence must not encroach upon Council’s property unless they are located at a depth of not less than 1350mm below the pathway level, in which case they must not project further than 450mm.

Reason:     To ensure the proposed fence does not encroach on the footpath.

 

104.   All roof and surface stormwater from the site any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, must be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and being discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

 

105.   All stormwater drainage must be designed in accordance with the provisions of the 1987 Australian Rainfall and Runoff (A.R.R.), Australian Standard AS3500.3.2-1998 ‘Stormwater Drainage-Acceptable Solutions’ and Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code. Pipe and channel drainage systems must be designed to cater for the 20 year Average Recurrence Interval (A.R.I.) storm in the case of low and medium residential developments, the 20 year A.R.I. storm in the case of high density residential development and commercial and/or industrial developments and the 50 year A.R.I. storm in the case of heavy industry. In all cases the major event surface flow paths must be designed to cater for the 100 year A.R.I. storm.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

106.   Activities and storage of materials must be kept away from garden beds.

Reason:     To ensure the safety and protection of the endangered Long-nosed Bandicoot population (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) during excavation, demolition or construction work.

 

107.   All soil is to be classified as per the NSW EPA Waste Classification Guidelines: Part 1 – Classifying waste (EPA 2014) and disposed of to a licensed waste facility.

Reason:     To provide for correct disposal of wastes.

 

 

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

108.   You must obtain an Occupation Certificate from your PCA before you occupy or use the building.  The PCA must notify the Council of the determination of the Occupation Certificate and forward the following documents to Council within 2 days of the date of the Certificate being determined:

 

a)      A copy of the determination;

b)      Copies of any documents that were lodged with the Occupation Certificate application;

c)      A copy of Occupation Certificate, if it was issued;

d)      A copy of the record of all critical stage inspections and any other inspection required by the PCA;

e)      A copy of any missed inspections; and

f)       A copy of any compliance certificate and any other documentary evidence relied upon in issuing the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

109.   All works required to be carried out in connection with drainage, crossings, alterations to kerb and guttering, footpaths and roads resulting from the development shall be completed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Works shall be in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”.

Reason:     To ensure person acting on this consent completes all required work.

 

110.   You are advised that Council has not undertaken a search of existing or proposed utility services adjacent to the site in determining this application.  Any adjustment or augmentation of any public utility services including Gas, Water, Sewer, Electricity, Street lighting and Telecommunications required as a result of the development shall be at no cost to Council and undertaken before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To ensure all costs for the adjustment/augmentation of services arising as a result of the redevelopment are at no cost to Council

 

111.   No encroachments onto Council’s road or footpath of any service pipes, sewer vents, boundary traps, downpipes, gutters, stairs, doors, gates, garage tilt up panel doors or any structure whatsoever shall not be permitted. Any encroachments on to Council road or footpath resulting from the building works will be required to be removed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure there is no encroachment onto Council’s Road.

 

112.   The existing stone kerb adjacent to the site is of local heritage value and is to be preserved at no cost to Council. Any damage to the stone kerb will require the replacement of the damaged individual stone units before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure that items of local heritage value are preserved.

 

113.   Heavy duty concrete vehicle crossings, in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications” shall be constructed at the vehicular access locations before the issue of the Occupation Certificate and at no cost to Council.

Reason:     To allow vehicular access across the footpath and/or improve the existing vehicular access.

 

114.   All redundant vehicular crossings to the site shall be removed and replaced by kerb and gutter and footpath paving in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications” before the issue of the Occupation Certificate and at no cost to Council. Where the kerb in the vicinity of the redundant crossing is predominately stone (as determined by Council's Engineer) the replacement kerb shall also be in stone.

Reason:     To eliminate redundant crossings and to reinstate the footpath to its normal condition.

 

115.   The footpath adjacent to the site on Trafalgar Street shall be reconstructed in accordance with the Draft Public Domain Technical Manual and Council’s standard plans and specifications. These works shall be undertaken at no cost to Council and before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To provide suitable means of public pedestrian access to the development and to ensure that the amenity of the area is in keeping with the standard of the development.

 

116.   Before the issue of the Occupation Certificate written verification from a suitably qualified competent person, stating that the stormwater drainage has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be submitted to and accepted by Council. The Certificate shall also state that no dry-weather flows of seepage or groundwater have been connected to any kerb outlets. In addition, full works-as-executed plans, prepared and signed by a registered surveyor, shall be submitted to Council. These plans must include levels for all drainage structures, buildings (including floor levels), finished ground levels and pavement surface levels.

Reason:     To ensure drainage works are constructed in accordance with approved plans.

 

117.   Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate the person acting on this consent shall obtain from Council a compliance Certificate stating that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works on Council property required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with Council approved plans and specifications.

Reason:     To ensure that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily.

 

118.   Occupation of the building must not be permitted until such time as:

 

a)      All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b)      The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c)      An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

 

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

 

119.   The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

a)      A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Make early application for the certificate, as there may be water and sewer pipes to be built and this can take some time. This can also impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

b)      Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. For help either visit www.sydneywater.com.au > Plumbing, building and developing > Providers > Lists or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Reason:     To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

 

120.   A statement from a qualified Architect, verifying that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

121.   The landscaping of the site must be carried out prior to occupation or use of the premises in accordance with the approved details and must be maintained at all times to Council's satisfaction.

Reason:     To ensure adequate landscaping is maintained.

 

122.   a)      Upon completion of the required noise attenuation measures referred to in the “Before the Issue of a Construction Certificate” Section of this Determination and prior to the occupation of the dwellings a report must be prepared and submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction by an accredited Acoustics Consultant, certifying that the final construction meets AS2021- 2000 as set down in the subject condition of this consent. Such report must include external and internal noise levels to ensure that the external noise levels during the test are representative of the typical maximum levels that may occur at this development; and

 

b)      Where it is found that internal noise levels are greater than the required dB(A) rating due to faulty workmanship or the like, necessary corrective measures must be carried out and a further certificate being prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with the requirements as set down in Part a) of this condition.

 

Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the dwellings from aircraft and to ensure that the noise attenuation measures incorporated into the dwellings satisfactorily comply with the relevant sections of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

 

123.   The Certifying Authority must be satisfied that each of the commitments listed in BASIX Certificate referred to in this Determination have been fulfilled before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (whether an interim or final Occupation Certificate).

Reason:     To ensure that all of the BASIX commitments have been fulfilled and to comply with the requirements under Section 154B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

124.   The Certifying Authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX Completion Receipt within 2 days of the issue of a final Occupation Certificate. Completion Receipts can be applied for at www.basix.nsw.gov.au.

Reason:     To ensure compliance with the requirements under Section 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

 

125.   Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a street number and identifier of separate occupancies (if applicable) must be clearly displayed in a readily visible location (numbers having a height of not less than 75mm). If any new street numbers or change to street numbers (this includes unit and shop numbers) are required they must have the prior approval of Council before being displayed.

Reason:     To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

 

126.   The existing damaged or otherwise defective kerb and gutter, footpath and/or road pavement adjacent to the site must be restored in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”, at no cost to Council and before occupation of the site.

Reason:     To provide suitable means of public road vehicle and pedestrian access to the development and to ensure that the amenity of the area is in keeping with the standard of the development.

 

127.   Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (interim or final) the person acting on this consent must contact Council’s Coordinator, Resource Recovery to arrange the following number of bins in relation to the residential component of the approved development:

 

·    3 x 240 litre bins for general waste streams;

·    3 x 240 litre for recycling waste streams; and

·    1 x 240L green waste bins.

 

Reason:     To confirm the operation and servicing of the site meets Council’s requirements prior to occupation or use of the building.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

·        The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) impose obligations on persons relating to disability discrimination. Council’s determination of the application does not relieve persons who have obligations under those Acts of the necessity to comply with those Acts.

·        A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the Building Code of Australia has not been carried out.

·        The approved plans must be submitted to the Customer Centre of any office of Sydney Water before the commencement of any work to ensure that the proposed work meets the requirements of Sydney Water. Failure to submit these plans before commencing work may result in the demolition of the structure if found not to comply with the requirements of Sydney Water.

·        The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works are required to be constructed by your own contractor. You or your contractor must complete an application for ‘Construction of a Vehicular Crossing & Civil Works’ form, lodge a bond for the works, pay the appropriate fees and provide evidence of adequate public liability insurance, before commencement of works.

·        Any natural light or ventilation gained by windows within 900mm of the boundary will not be taken into consideration in the event that the adjoining property owner makes application to Council to carry out building works on their property. The window has been consented to on the basis that alternative sources of light and ventilation are available to the room.

·        Buildings built or painted before the 1970's may have surfaces coated with lead-based paints. Recent evidence indicates that lead is harmful to people at levels previously thought safe. Children particularly have been found to be susceptible to lead poisoning and cases of acute child lead poisonings in Sydney have been attributed to home renovation activities involving the removal of lead based paints. Precautions should therefore be taken if painted surfaces are to be removed or sanded as part of the proposed building alterations, particularly where children or pregnant women may be exposed, and work areas should be thoroughly cleaned before occupation of the room or building.

·        Contact “Dial Before You Dig” before commencing any building activity on the site.

·        Useful Contacts

 

BASIX Information

1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

 

Department of Fair Trading

13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

 

Dial Before You Dig

1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

 

Landcom

9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

 

Long Service Payments Corporation

131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Food Authority

1300 552 406

www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

 

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

 

Sydney Water

13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

 

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

 

1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

 

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

 

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

 

 

 

 

B.      THAT those persons who lodged submissions in respect to the proposal be advised of the Council's determination of the application.

 

 

C.      THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standard:

 

Premises:                                               351 Trafalgar Street PETERSHAM

Applicant:                                               James Confos/Diane Plunkett

Proposal:                                                To demolish existing improvements and construct a 5 storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings with basement car parking

Determination:                                       Deferred Commencement

DA No:                                                   201500648

Lot and DP:                                            Lot 4 DP 87707

Category of Development:                    Residential

Environmental Planning Instrument:     Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land:                                      R4 High Density Residential

Development Standard(s) varied:         Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation:                        Strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unnecessary;

                                                               The additional FSR does not contribute to additional adverse impacts on adjacent development.

Extent of variation:                                 33%

Concurring Authority:                             Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:                         

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 5

Subject:         Development Application - 308-314 Stanmore Road, Petersham 

File Ref:         DA201600108/105142.16        

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 convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist. 

 

The original application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 12 submissions were received.  During the assessment of the application, amended plans were submitted reducing the size of the second floor to be within the existing building envelope and reducing the number of hotel rooms from 13 to 12. The modifications are considered to be of a lesser impact and as a result re-notification was not required.

 

The development results in a departure of 1.32 metres (13.9%) from the height of building development standard and 365.73m² (48%) 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. No additional height is proposed beyond the existing maximum ridge height.

 

The extent of the proposed non-compliances is not considered to result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining developments and/or the streetscape and the variations are cumulative variations based on an existing non-compliant building. The proposal involves a change of use to the heritage listed item being the former Stanmore Fire Station which is an important element of the Stanmore Road streetscape and Petersham South 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 exceed 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 Stanmore Road on the eastern corner of Albert Street, Petersham.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 1:  Location Map

 

 

 

D/A No:                        201600108

 

Application Date:        15 March 2016. Additional information submitted on 6 and 7 July 2016, 23 August 2016 and 1 September 2016.

 

Proposal:                     To demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist.

 

Applicant:                    43 Hubert Street Pty Ltd - Scott Andrew Feneck

 

Estimated Cost:          $1,113,000.00

 

Zoning:                        B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

 

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

 

Improvements:            2 storey with attic heritage listed former fire station

 

 

Image 2: The Site

 

 

Current Use:               Dwelling house

 

Prior Determinations:          Determination No. 9628, dated 30 August 1984, granted approval to an application to carry out alterations and additions to the existing fire station.

 

Determination No. 16677, dated 8 August 1996, granted approval to an application to carry out alterations to the premises and to use the premises for the purposes of a box manufacturing business, museum of box machinery and a dwelling. This Determination was modified on 11 September 1997.

 

Determination No. 200600113, dated 7 June 2006, granted a deferred commencement consent to an application to use the premises for administration and equipment storage associated with a construction, shop fitting and property maintenance business with an associated dwelling and to paint the exterior of the building. The deferred commencement matters were not satisfied and the consent subsequently lapsed.

 

Determination No.201300226, dated 19 September 2013, approved an application for the use of the premises as a residential dwelling and office premises, including the addition of a swimming pool, new fencing to Albert Street, new BBQ area with pizza oven, raised timber decking, new paving and landscaping works.              

 

                                      Determination No.201300593, dated 4 August 2014, approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to the premises to reinstate the former watchtower to the building on the north western corner of the building (not yet constructed).

 

Environment:              A mixture of residential and commercial along Stanmore Road and residential to the south along Albert Street. 

 

PART C - REQUIREMENTS

 

1.       Zoning

Is the proposal permissible under zoning provisions?              No *

 

*    Clause 5.10 (Heritage Incentive) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 permits prohibited uses where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal will facilitate the conservation of a heritage item.

 

2.       Development Standards (Mandatory Requirements):

Type                                       Required                      Proposed

Height of Buildings (max)      9.5 metres                     10.82 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max)       0.85:1                            1.26:1

 

3.       Departures from Council's Codes and Policies:

Type                                       Required                      Proposed

Parking                                   (discussed in body of report)

 

4.       Community Consultation:

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

Submissions:       12 submissions

 

5.       Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation:            20-25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 - $11,130.00

 

 

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.      Background

 

Following a preliminary assessment of the application, Council requested submission of amended plans requiring a reduction in the proposed gross floor area of the additions on the second floor so that the size of the second floor/attic addition be contained within the existing building envelope. Amended plans were subsequently submitted, reducing the size of the second storey/attic and reducing the number of proposed hotel rooms from 13 to 12.

 

On 23 August 2016, an amended Clause 4.6 variation request was submitted in support of the FSR breach and on 1 September 2016, the applicant submitted an amended Plan of Management to reflect the reduction in the number of hotel rooms proposed.

 

2.      The Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the southern side of Stanmore Road on the eastern corner of Albert Street, Petersham. The site is known as 308-314 Stanmore Road, Petersham and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 723900 and Lot 1 in DP 723936. The site has a frontage of 33.5 metres to Stanmore Road and a 25.6 metre frontage to Albert Street, resulting in an approximate site area of 906m².

 

The building was originally constructed as a Fire Station in the late 1800’s and the physical exterior of the original building remains largely intact. It is currently being used as a residential dwelling and ancillary office premises.

 

The entire site is listed as a Heritage Item and is located within the Petersham South Heritage Conservation Area under MLEP 2011. The site is located opposite a Heritage Item at 325 Stanmore Road (All Saints Anglican Church) listed under MLEP 2011.

Adjoining the site to the east is single storey grocery store/fruit market, to the south is a single storey residence and to the west on the opposite corner of Albert Street is a 2 storey mixed use building comprising as café on the ground floor with residence above.

 

The surrounding area is generally characterised by commercial development along Stanmore Road and residential development to the south of the site along Albert Street.

 

3.      The Proposal

 

Approval is sought to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist.

 

The proposed development seeks the adaptive re-use of the heritage listed former Fire Station which is currently used as a dwelling house. The development would involve relatively minor internal alterations on the ground and first floor and the replacement of the existing attic with a slightly higher roof form and dormer windows to allow 2 hotel rooms/suites within the existing attic space (the only visible external modification).

 

The application proposes the following;:

Ground floor: 

-     41. 9sqm café and 36sqm florist to be open to the public,

-     2 functions rooms (former fire engine parking bays) to be utilised by private booking.

-     General back of house hotel facilities including admin, office, disabled toilet, lift and plant services would be located at the rear of the hotel,

-     Gym, existing kitchens, dining and bar area, swimming pool, cabana to be retained and utilised by hotel guests only.

-     1 hotel room located on the ground floor.

 

First floor

-     9 rooms (with ensuites) accessed via a new lift and multiple existing stairwells.

 

Second Floor

-     2 rooms, 1 of which is a penthouse style suite with internal kitchen, dining and lounge room.

-     The attic modification also includes internal access to the watch tower approved by Determination No.201300593, dated 4 August 2014.

 

The following is an extract from the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application which outlines the proposed operation of the premises:

 

“The Hotel

 

The hotel is to operate as a boutique style 12 room premises.

 

A breakfast and casual lunch and dinner service will be included in the room tariff on demand in the rear dining area and courtyard.

 

Ancillary services available to hotel patrons include use of the in-house gym and swimming pool/ spa. These areas will not be open to the general public.

 

The hotel is to operate on a 24 hours basis with a night manager.

 

The reception is to operate between 6am and 10pm. The main access to the reception is to be via the Albert Street entry.

 

The night manager will be available on a 24 hour basis.

 

Ancillary Services

 

Behind the café various back-of-house space are provided they are:-

 

·    2 administrative spaces (23.1m²); and

·    a staff area (18.9m²).

 

A gym room is provided for hotel guests on the ground floor, as are lounge, kitchen and dining areas. The central courtyard is also to be used by hotel guests only.

 

The café

 

The café will have floor area of 41.9 m² and will cater to less than 20 patrons at any one time. The premises will have access to a disabled toilet on the ground floor.

 

Limited cooking will take place within the café premises. Food to be served will be prepared off-site and major on-site cooking will take place within the hotel’s kitchens.

 

The hours of operation sought for the café are 6am to 10pm - 7 days a week.

 

The Function Rooms

 

It is envisaged the use of the function room will be for social gathering generally as required by hotel guests and members of the general public by appointment only. These spaces are also envisaged to have a general utility function within the development e.g. functioning as on-site parking / loading if required.

 

Access to sanitary facilities on ground floor is provided for the function rooms.

 

The hours of operation sought for the function rooms are aligned to the hotel use however functions past 12 midnight are not envisaged.

 

The Florist

 

The florist is to be open to the general public and also function as an in-house florist for the hotel/ café use.

 

The Stanmore Road entry to the florist is also to function as an entry to the Café and a secondary entry to the hotel reception area.

 

The hours of operation sought for the florist are 6am to 8pm - 7 days a week.

 

Staff

 

Staff required for each use are:-

 

Staff Hotel x 3

Café x 2

Florist x 1

And occasional function room staff as required.”

 

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

 

 

 

Image 3: Site Plan

 

 

Image 4: Ground Floor Plan

 

Image 5: First Floor Plan

 

 

Image 6: Second Floor Plan

 

 

Image 7: Roof Plan

 

 

 

 

Image 8: Front (Northern) Elevation

 

 

Image 9: Rear (Southern Elevation)

 

 

Image 10: Side (Western) Elevation

 

 

Image 11: Side (Eastern Elevation)

 

 

Image 12: Section

 

 

4.      State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The site has a frontage to Stanmore Road, a classified road. Under Clause 101 (2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, (Infrastructure SEPP) the consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that the efficiency and operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development.

 

Vehicular access to the property is currently provided from Stanmore Road however as part of the proposal it is proposed to discontinue the use of the existing vehicular access from Stanmore Road as the existing former fire engine bays (currently used for parking) will be used as a florist and function rooms. The proposed development does not provide for on-site parking and this is discussed in greater detail later in this report, however, it is considered that the proposed development would not affect the safety, efficiency and on-going operation of the classified road.

 

Stanmore Road is a Classified Road, however it does not have a daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles and as a result Clause 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 is not required to be addressed in terms of acoustic privacy.

 

5.      Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

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

 

The property is zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011). The development is not permissible under the zoning provisions applying to the land, however the application seeks Council’s consent for the proposed development pursuant to the Heritage Incentive provisions within Clause 5.10 of MLEP 2011. This matter is discussed in more detail later in this report under the heading 5(v) below.

 

(ii)      Height (Clause 4.3)

 

A maximum building height of 9.5 metres applies to the property as indicated on the Height of Buildings Map that accompanies MLEP 2011. The proposed development has a maximum building height of 10.82 metres which does not comply with the height development standard. It should be noted that the existing building has a maximum height of 11.52 metres and approved watch tower a height of 13.72 metres. The development does not propose to exceed either of these maximum heights.

 

The application was accompanied by a written submission in relation to the contravention of the height development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011. The submission is discussed later in this report under the heading Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)”.

 

(iii)     Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 applies to the land as indicated on the Floor Space Ratio Map that accompanies MLEP 2011.

 

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 1129.2sqm which equates to a FSR of 1.26:1 on the 898.2sqm site which does not comply with the FSR development standard.

 

The application was accompanied by a written submission in relation to the contravention of the FSR development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011. The submission is discussed later in this report under the heading Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)”.

 

(iv)    Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

 

The development exceeds the maximum building height development standard prescribed under Clause 4.3 of MLEP 2011 and maximum floor space ratio development standard prescribed under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011. The application was accompanied by a written submission in relation to the contravention of the development standards in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011.

 

Building Height

 

The application proposes a maximum building height of 10.82 metres which represents a variation of 1.32 metres or 13.9% and does not comply with the height development standard. It should be noted that the existing building has a height of 11.52 metres (21% variation) and the approved watch tower on the site has a height of 13.72 metres (44% variation). The development does not propose to exceed either of the existing and/or approved maximum building heights. Nonetheless, a Clause 4.6 variation request is required for the new portion of the building exceeding the maximum building height.

 

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

 

-     The non-compliance concerns a partial increase in height of the existing buildings main ridge by 450 millimetres, being the upper part of the rear attic and new dormers to Stanmore Road;

-     The highest part of the building will still be maintained as the eastern roof ridge and street parapet and the approved and yet to be constructed watch tower;

-     The increase will have a minor impact and is not detrimental to the presentation of the building to the public domain;

-     The additional height will not have any significant additional overshadowing or overlooking impacts on adjoining properties being more than 20 metres from the residential properties to the rear;

-     The additional height is contextually appropriate to the existing non-compliant building height and will not exceed the existing highest part of the building;

-     The development is consistent with the desired future character of the area, maintaining the heritage item, with the additional height necessary for the viable and rational reuse of the existing building;

-     The addition of a lift to improve the accessibility of the development results in a requirement to provide an increased height for the attic/second storey;

-     The development would be in the public interest as it provides an appropriate and desirable heritage and land use outcome for the heritage listed site;

-     The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.6, the height control and land use and heritage objectives for the site. The additional height has an acceptable impact on the street presentation of the building.

 

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

 

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 in this instance given that:

 

·    The proposed building height is 700 millimetres below the existing maximum height of the development and 2.9 metres below the approved watch tower to be re-instated at the site, as a result the non-compliance will be negligible in terms of the existing built form and its context within the streetscape;

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

·    The site is a heritage listed item, the proposed change of use and alterations and additions would ensure the longevity and retention of the significant building and allow for public utilisation of the building; and

·    The high quality architectural design of the additions is supported by Council’s Heritage Officer, the additional ridge height and dormers will read as sympathetic modern insertions and is small in proportion to the overall scale of the existing built form.

 

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 1129.2sqm resulting in an FSR of 1.26:1 on the 898.2sqm site. This is a variation of 365.73sqm or 48% from the prescribed development standard. The existing building currently has a non-compliant floor space of 957.4sqm, representing a variation of 193.93sqm or 25% from the prescribed standard. Consequently the only additional floor area proposed as part of this development is 171.8sqm (22.5% variation on top of the existing non-compliance).

 

It is noted that during the assessment of the application the proposed floor area was reduced at the request of Council to delete any additional floor area outside of the existing building envelope on the second or attic floor reducing the proposed FSR variation from 1.33:1 to 1.26:1.

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

 

-     The additional floor space proposed is an attic addition within the profile of the existing roof, with the only addition outside of this being the front and rear dormers and lift core to provide disabled access;

-     The works provide for a change of use of the existing floor space within the existing building envelope that are compatible with and will conserve the existing heritage listed building;

-     The scale, volume and heritage significance of the building justifies the additional floor space proposed;

-     The additional floor area will not result in any visual or acoustic privacy impacts with the new windows of the attic addition windows more than 20 metres away from the adjoining property;

-     There will be no additional overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties as a result of the additional floor area;

-     The sites heritage status is a site specific justification to support the variation and warrants a flexible and merit based approach to the additional floor space proposed. If strict compliance with the standard were to be applied the existing heritage fabric would need to be removed;

-     The development is an adaptive re-use of a heritage item, the development would still satisfy the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio control and the B1 zone and therefore should be supported.

 

The justification provided in the applicant’s written submission is considered to be well founded and worthy of support.  It is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds as to why the FSR development standard should be varied in this particular circumstance based on the outcomes of planning principles such as contained in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827, Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC90 or Moskovich v Waverley Council [2016]. 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 is a heritage listed item and located within a heritage conservation area, the proposed additional floor area will mostly sit within the existing building envelope with minor modifications to the external appearance of the building to facilitate the additional floor area which are considered complimentary to the existing architectural style of the building;

·    The development would result in a building height which does not exceed the existing maximum ridge height;

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

·    The additional floor area will not result in any increased bulk and scale of the development and the adaptive re-use of the building will allow a viable commercial use which will fund the ongoing maintenance and preservation of the item and increased public patronage.

 

The current development proposes to vary the FSR development standard, however the outcome is considered to be better than a fully compliant development. The majority of the additional floor area fits within existing building footprint and the modification to the existing roof form and addition of the dormers to allow the additional floor area within the attic space is a form that is sympathetic to the existing heritage item. The change of use and additional floor space will allow for the continued preservation of the heritage item, re-instatement of the original watch tower and increased public use of the building.

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.

 

(v)     Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

 

The site is listed as a heritage item, namely (former) Stanmore Fire Station (Item I223) and is located within a Heritage Conservation Area (Heritage Conservation Area C18- Petersham South) under MLEP 2011.

 

Under Clause 5.10 (10) of MLEP 2011 Council may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if Council is satisfied that:

 

“(a)  the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b)   the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c)   the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and

(d)   the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e)   the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.”

 

The application was supported by a Heritage Impact Statement submitted with the application that satisfactorily addresses the relevant heritage conservation provisions contained in Clause 5.10 of MLEP 2011. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments in relation to the proposed development:

 

“The item has been well conserved by the present owners, but its long term use as a residence, and therefore its continuing conservation will be dependent on its continuing to have a viable use.  As a residence, it is unique, and in the long term it might not appeal to an owner with the will and means to continue its conservation.  The proposed use would appear to offer prospects for this, and for that reason the use of the heritage incentives clause 5.10 (10) is supported.

 

The only major issue is the alterations to the roof.  These involve the insertion of dormers and an increase in the ridge height……The dormers will read as sympathetic modern insertions and on inspection, it was considered that the increase in the ridge height is small in proportion……

 

On balance, the development is not considered to have any negative impacts on the heritage item or the heritage conservation area and will ensure the long term conservation of the heritage item and improve public access to and appreciation of the building.

 

In order to ensure the conservation works are carried out in their entirety including the reinstatement of the former watchtower (which forms part of a separate DA approval), a condition is included in the recommendation of this report requiring compliance with the conditions prescribed by Determination No.201300593, dated 4 August 2014, which approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to the premises to reinstate the former watchtower to the building on the north western corner of the building as well as compliance with the conservation works schedule identified in the Heritage Impact Statement submitted with the application prepared by Paul Davies dated March 2016.

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Clause 5.10 of MLEP 2011 for the following reasons:

 

·    The conservation of the item, being the former Stanmore Fire Station, is further facilitated through the provision of a use that is compatible with the Item’s heritage significance. The use as a hotel will also provide an economic justification for the conservation works required. A comprehensive scope of conservation works has been included with this development application;

·    Whilst the building is in good condition at this point, the cost of conservation and maintenance to date has been significant and the ongoing maintenance costs are far beyond the costs of a typical dwelling house (which is its current use). Establishing a hotel use in the premises will ensure that the building is conserved to a high standard as the use depends on the quality of the building and its presentation;

·    The proposed development is in accordance with the provided conservation management plan and compliance with this plan is included as a condition in the recommendation of this report;

·    Small hotel use fits within the fabric of the building comfortably and does not present difficulties of amenity. While there may be other uses that could be contemplated on the site, most are likely to have adverse impacts on fabric whilst the proposed hotel use is able to be integrated into the building with minimal impact.

·    The proposed development would have little if any impact on the amenity of surrounding residential development by way of bulk and scale;

·    The works ensure the significance of the item is retained in the following manner;

a.   The proposal retains a high level of heritage fabric;

b.   The proposal works within existing room forms; and

c.   The proposal seeks to reinstate an integral part of the former heritage fabric (the watch tower) and limits new interventions to areas of low significance in the new extended roof form

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application satisfactorily addresses the relevant heritage conservation provisions contained in Clause 5.10 of MLEP 2011 and Part 8 of MDCP 2011. Overall, the development is not considered to have any significant impacts on the heritage item and satisfies the heritage incentive provisions.

 

The application was also referred to the Marrickville Heritage Society for an opportunity to comment on the proposal. That advice is as follows:

 

“The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned that important features of the building will be compromised by the proposal to convert the Old Marrickville Fire Station to a hotel. The protection of the heritage values of the building must be given the highest priority as the applicants are proposing to use the 'conservation provisions' of the Marrickville LEP to apply for the change of use to a hotel, on the grounds that the new use will provide for the conservation of the building. The only work in the proposal that could be described as a positive heritage outcome for the building is the proposed reinstatement of the watch tower. This worthwhile proposal must be required work in any approval for development, and its completion must be required before an Occupation Certificate can be issued for the new hotel.

When the watchtower and chimneys were removed, the original roofing material would have also been removed. As this is an 1880s building it is likely that the original roofing was slate or tiles, and if further research confirms this, than the original roofing and chimney forms should be required to be reinstated as part of the conservation works to the building.

In regard to the internal works, the proposals to alter the existing room configurations and install new bathrooms and services must be fully reversible. Original interior features and finishes, including the timber stairs and pressed metal ceilings must be retained and restored.

The addition of new dormer windows to the main facade roof will have a substantial detrimental impact on the visual integrity of the main facade, and should be refused by Council.

Council must require that there is a substantial link between the provision of a new use for the building, and conservation works to protect its heritage values.”

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Heritage Society object to the addition of the dormers, the application has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has advised that the proposed works are considered sympathetic to the existing building. As noted previously conditions are included in the recommendation of this report requiring compliance with the conservation works schedule identified in the Heritage Impact Statement. The works proposed are not considered contrary to the Conservation Management Plan, and a condition is also included to ensure the watchtower is constructed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for use as a hotel. The application was accompanied by a conservation works schedule to ensure the work carried out adequately restores the building without compromising its historical significance. The recommendation to ensure that the works are fully reversible is considered somewhat onerous as the building has already been substantially modified to accommodate its current use as a residence. The proposed works do not substantially alter the original fabric of the original building and work within existing rooms structures. Overall, the development is not considered to have any significant impacts on the heritage item and ensures a sustainable and viable future use for the premises.

 

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

 

The land is located within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (2033) Contour.

 

The development is likely to be affected by aircraft noise.

 

The carrying out of 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.

 

(viii)     Airspace Operations (Clause 6.6)

 

The subject land is within an area identified on the “Obstacle Limitation Surface Map” where the OLS level is set at RL 51 AHD. The proposal has a maximum RL of 58.4 metres AHD. Therefore, the development would penetrate the OLS. As such, the application was referred to Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) in accordance with the requirements of Clause 6.6 of MLEP 2011.

 

SACL have raised no objection to the construction of the development penetrating the Limit or Operations Surface, subject to conditions. Those conditions are included in the recommendation.  

6.      Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

 

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 development application and is acceptable.

 

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

 

Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 requires consideration to be given to accessibility before granting development consent.

 

For a hotel development Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 requires the following:

 

·        1 accessible room per 5 guest rooms (or part thereof);

·        Appropriate access for all persons through the principal entrance of a building and a continuous accessible path of travel (CAPT), designed in accordance with the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) and relevant Australian Standards; and

·        General access for all persons to appropriate sanitary facilities and other common facilities including kitchens, lunch room, shower facilities and outdoor recreational facilities.

 

The applicant provided a Statement of Consistency as part of the development application that seeks to demonstrate that the proposal satisfies the access and mobility controls contained in MDCP 2011 in the following manner:

 

·        2 accessible rooms proposed;

·        Appropriate access is provided for all persons through the principal entrance to the

premises;

·        The addition of a lift will ensure all levels of the development are accessible;

·        A Continuous Accessible Path of Travel (CAPT) to and within the subject premises is

provide which allows a person with a disability to gain access to all areas within the commercial areas of the development; and

·        An accessible toilet is provided.

 

The development is required to provide 3 accessible hotel rooms in accordance with Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 and only 2 are proposed. A condition is included in the recommendation of this report requiring that an additional accessible room be provided given that 12 rooms are proposed and there is lift access to the upper floors.

 

Subject to compliance with the above, the proposed development is considered reasonable having regard to the access controls contained in MDCP 2011.

 

Despite the above, the requirements of MDCP 2011 are effectively superseded by the introduction of the new Premises Standards.  An assessment of whether or not these aspects of the proposal fully comply with the requirements of relevant Australian Standards and the new Premises Standards has not been undertaken as part of this assessment. That assessment would form part of the assessment under the Premises Standards at the Construction Certificate stage of the proposal.

 

(iv)    Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

 

The layout and design of the development ensures that the acoustic and visual privacy currently enjoyed by residents of adjoining residential properties is protected.

 

The development proposes the addition of windows on the second/attic floor level consisting of 4 dormer windows facing Stanmore Road which would overlook the street and would not have any privacy implications. Two windows, 2 sets of 3 pane sliding glass doors and one set of 6 pane sliding doors are proposed on the rear (southern) elevation of the development for room 12. The addition of the windows and doors would have minimal privacy implications, being setback more than 20 metres from adjoining property and would overlook the roofs of the adjoining properties.

 

The existing building footprint is proposed to remain relatively unchanged. With regard to acoustic privacy, the use of the outdoor swimming pool, bbq and cabana area which are existing structures and located at the rear of the property are to be restricted to patrons of the hotel accommodation only and would not be open to the public. The use of the external areas (i.e. the pool and courtyard are to be restricted to 9:00pm and a condition is included in the recommendation to reflect this. Similarly, the existing large balcony located on the second floor off room 12 has the potential to create amenity impacts without restrictions on use and conditions are included in the recommendation requiring that this balcony not to be used for functions.

 

Conditions regarding the noise levels of the hotel and trading hours are also included in the recommendation to protect the amenity of neighbouring residences.

 

An Acoustic Report was submitted with the application which details that the development could be noise attenuated and conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the requirements recommended within the Acoustic Report are incorporated into the development.

 

Overall, subject to compliance with the above, 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)

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent residential properties and demonstrates that the proposed development complies with Council’s overshadowing controls with additional shadowing generated by the proposed development at 9am to the neighbouring residence to the south being limited to over the roof and not impacting the provision of light to any windows. Increased shadowing at winter solstice to neighbouring development is nominal and unlikely to affect the amenity of adjoining development.

 

The development is located wholly within the existing building envelope with a minor modification to the second floor/attic roof form. The modifications will not result in any detrimental increased overshadowing impacts on the subject site or adjoining properties and is considered acceptable with regard to Part 2.7 of MDCP 2011.

 

(vi)    Social Impact Assessment (Part 2.8)

 

The applicant submitted a Social Impact Statement as part of the application within the Statement of Environmental Effects. The applicant considers the development to have the following positive social impacts:

 

-     The location of the site close to Newington College will cater for demand for accommodation facilities in the local area;

-     The development is located in an area well served with the local community facilities and easy access to transportation services;

-     The site is located along Stanmore Road, and will be an ideal addition to the local commercial uses in the area;

-     The small scale is aimed at the boutique accommodation market and is unlikely to significantly increase the transient population;

-     The development would provide for enhanced security and increased activity and natural surveillance after hours; and

-     The site has excellent access to local recreation facilities and has provided for areas of recreation within the site which will contribute to the local activity in the Petersham area.

 

The contention that the proposal will have positive impacts with limited negative outcomes is generally agreed with. In view of the circumstances no objections are raised to the proposed development on social impact grounds.

 

(vii)    Community Safety (Part 2.9)

 

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

 

·        The entrances to the café, florist and hotel accommodation are visible from the street;

·        No solid roller shutters are proposed on the building; and

·        The entrance to the commercial uses and hotel accommodation will be well lit.

 

(viii)   Parking (Part 2.10)

 

Car and Bicycle Parking Spaces

 

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

 

Component

Control

Required

Proposed

Complies?

Car Parking

Café  and Florist

1 space per 80sqm GFA for customers and staff

77sqm GFA

= 1 space

Nil

 

No

 

Hotel or Motel Accommodation

1 space per 4 staff for staff + 1 per 3 units for residents

5 spaces

Bar component of hotel

1 per 5 staff + 1 per 30 patrons

 1 space

TOTAL REQUIRED : 7 spaces

Bicycle Parking

Hotel or Motel Accommodation

1 bicycle parking space per 20 units or rooms for staff and patrons

0.6 space

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 bicycle racks

Yes

Café  & florist

1 per 80sqm GFA for staff + 2 for customers

77sqm GFA

= 1 space

Florist

1 per 300sqm GFA for staff

36sqm GFA = 0 space

 

 

TOTAL REQUIRED: 2 Spaces

 

Table 1: Car and Bicycle Parking Control Compliance Table

The proposal provides 2 bicycle spaces at the rear of the site and complies with the requirements prescribed in this regard.

 

The proposed development generates the requirement for 7 on-site car parking spaces and 1 on-site loading space. The application does not propose any on-site parking or space for loading and unloading. The development as discussed earlier in this report involves the change of use of the existing dwelling (former fire station) into a hotel with ancillary commercial uses. The conversion of the premises into the hotel does not allow for any on-site parking, however the re-instatement of an existing vehicular crossing to the site along Albert Street to kerb and gutter would increase the amount of on-street parking available by 1 space. The existing former fire engine bays are currently utilised as parking for the dwelling, however due to the location on Stanmore Road and limited visibility to/from these spaces requiring reversing movements, it is considered that the use of the bays for parking would not be appropriate.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Local Traffic Committee as the application proposes the provision of an on-street loading zone along Albert Street to allow for the servicing of the hotel. The following is an extract from the report presented to the Local Traffic Committee on 4 August 2016 prepared by Council’s Traffic Engineer:

 

“The Development Application proposal has a shortfall of 100% in off-street parking spaces and this directly impacts on-street parking which is highly utilised. Furthermore, on-street loading zones are typically provided for situations where a number of businesses can benefit from the zone rather than standalone situations. As part of any new development, it would be expected that the provision for loading and unloading is made on-site rather than on-street.”

 

The provision of a loading zone on Albert Street was not supported by the Committee due to the absence of on-site parking for the proposal and therefore undersupply of parking provision under Council’s DCP.

 

Whilst it is considered that the development would result in a shortfall of parking and intensification of use on the site, the heritage listing of the building and existing ancillary structures located at the rear of the site limit the capacity for on-site parking. The proposed commercial uses being a café, florist and private function rooms are small spaces with a combined area of 159sqm and it is considered the café and florist would be patronised by passing and local pedestrian traffic, and use by hotel patrons rather than a standalone destination that customers would drive to and require parking to visit. The site is located within 700 metres of Petersham Station and 650 metres of Stanmore Station and located in close proximity to regular bus services. Furthermore the applicant has stated that being a “boutique” hotel a centralised booking service for car share services would be provided to guests by the 24 hour hotel management.

 

With regard to the impact of the development on local traffic, the following was outlined in the Traffic Committee Report; 

 

“The applicant's traffic consultant report stated that the estimated traffic generation from the proposed hotel with 13 rooms would be 5 vehicle trips per peak hour and the estimated traffic generation from the proposed retail businesses with GFA of 150m2 would be 5 vehicle trips per peak hour. Therefore, the total estimated traffic generation from the proposed hotel and retail development would be 10 vehicle trips per peak hour. These estimated traffic generation rates are considered to be acceptable and can be accommodated with the surrounding road network.”


Having regard to the above conclusion that the proposal is unlikely to impact negatively on traffic in the locality, the existing site constraints and the need to retain the heritage fabric, the limited number of hotel rooms proposed and that the site is highly accessible via public transport, the shortfall in parking is considered acceptable in this instance and can be supported.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant’s Plan of Management indicates that the existing former fire engine bays off Stanmore Road may intermittently be used for loading/unloading goods and the plan indicates the driveway crossing is to be maintained. However in order to ensure pedestrian safety, a condition is included in the recommendation of this report requiring that the redundant crossings fronting Stanmore Road be reinstated to kerb to ensure this area is not used for loading purposes which could interfere with the operation of Stanmore Road and jeopardise pedestrian and traffic safety.

 

Similarly there is a redundant driveway crossing on Albert Street. A condition included in the recommendation of this report requiring the applicant reinstate this crossing to sandstone kerb increasing the provision of on-street parking availability on Albert Street.

 

Subject to compliance with the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory having regard to Part 2.10 of MCDP 2011.

 

(ix)    Signage and Advertising Structures (Part 2.12)

 

Part 2.12 of MDCP 2011 specifies Council’s objectives and requirements for the erection and display of advertising signs. Those provisions are intended to protect the significant characteristics of retail/commercial strips, neighbourhoods, buildings, streetscapes, vistas and the skyline. The provisions include general controls for signage, prohibitions, preferred options for signage and size restrictions for signage.

 

The application seeks approval for the following signs:

 

·        1 flush wall sign on the western elevation (facing Albert Street): non illuminated 0.6

metres x 1.24 metres;

·        1 vertical projecting wall sign on the northern elevation (facing Stanmore Road)

measuring: 0.6 metres x 2.4 metres; and

·        1 flush sign facing (Stanmore Road) measuring 0.56 metres x 0.8 metres

 

Part 2.12.4.2 of MDCP 2011 states that the total permissible area of all signs must not exceed 1sqm of advertising per 1.5 metre of street frontage.

 

The site has a frontage of 33.5 metres to Stanmore Road and a 25.6 metre frontage to Albert Street, consequently 22.3sqm of signage is permitted on the Stanmore Road frontage and 17sqm of signage is permitted for the Albert Street frontage.

 

The proposal seeks to provide 1.9sqm of signage to Stanmore Road and 0.74sqm of signage to Albert Street, well below the maximum area prescribed.

 

Notwithstanding the compliance with the size requirements prescribed, Control 30 in Part 2.12.4.9 of MDCP 2011 prescribes the following for signage on heritage items;

 

“Signs between the first floor level and the parapet of a heritage item are not permissible, unless it can be demonstrated that the signs are an important aspect of the heritage significance of heritage item.”

 

The projecting wall sign fronting Stanmore Road cannot be supported as it bears no relationship to the significance of the item and a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the deletion of this sign.

 

Furthermore, the applicant has not provided detail with respect to finishes of the signage and a condition is included in the recommendation of this report requiring that the colour, materials and artwork of all signage to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Subject to compliance with the above, the 2 flush wall signs are considered to be of a modest nature, compatible with the building and locality and are considered in keeping with the character of the Heritage Conservation Area and Heritage Item and is acceptable having regard to the controls contained in MDCP 2011.

 

(x)     Energy Efficiency (Part 2.16)

 

Part 2.16 of MDCP 2011 contains the objectives and controls relating to energy efficiency. Council’s standard conditions are included in the recommendation relating to the provision of energy and water efficient fixtures and fittings for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

PART 5 - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

 

Part 5 of MDCP 2011 contains controls for commercial and mixed use developments. The controls contained within Part 5, generally pertain to large modifications and infill development, overall the proposal would be consistent with the controls for commercial and mixed used developments and would not result in any environmental or amenity impacts.

 

(i)      Plan of Management (Part 5.3.1.1)

 

A Plan of Management (PoM) was submitted with the development application. The PoM sets out general regulations and rules and guidelines associated with the on-going use of the premises as for hotel accommodation and the general operation of the commercial uses within the hotel.

 

The Plan of Management has appropriately addressed the following matters referred to in Part A.2.6 of MDCP 2011:

 

·    Objectives of the PoM;

·    Operational Details including hours of operation;

·    Deliveries and loading/unloading;

·    Security and Safety;

·    Customers and Patrons;

·    Details of Ancillary Services;

·    Transport Services;

·    Occupancy;

·    Signage;

·    Waste Management (expanded further in WMP);

·    Maintenance;

·    Amenity;

·    Noise;

·    Staff responsibilities;

·    In-house guest reception;

·    Management of retail uses;

·    Review of PoM;

·    Evacuation plan; and

·    Staff Training;

 

The Plan of Management is considered to outline the appropriate procedures for the adequate management of the hotel accommodation and ancillary commercial uses. A condition is included in the recommendation to ensure that the PoM is implemented and complied with  to ensure the ongoing operation of the premises complies with the plan.

(ii)      Noise and Vibration Generation (Part 5.3.1.2)

 

The application was accompanied by an acoustic report and plan of management which aims to protect the acoustic amenity of the adjoining properties and of the building itself. Conditions restricting trading hours, operation of machinery and noise levels, maximum number of patrons etc. are included in the recommendation which will mitigate any potential acoustic impacts on surrounding developments.

 

(iii)     Hours of Operation (Part 5.3.1.4)

 

The application seeks approval to use the premises as hotel accommodation on a 24 hour basis with a night manager. Specific areas of the premises are proposed to operate as follows:

 

Reception –         6.00am to 10.00pm - Monday to Sunday including public holidays (accessed via Albert Street) however night manager will be available 24 hours a day. Maximum 32 guests within the hotel accommodation at any given time.

 

Café –                 6.00am to 10.00pm - Monday to Sunday including public holidays – Maximum 20 persons within the café at any one time

 

Florist –           6.00am to 8.00pm - Monday to Sunday including public holidays

 

Function Rooms- no times provided in application however indicated that functions shall not extend past 12:00am midnight.

 

Café Hours

 

The application seeks early morning trading for the café and florist from 6:00am, however an analysis of nearby properties indicates that there are no other premises trading at this time.

 

The adjoining area is characterised by commercial developments along Stanmore Road with some shop top housing and low density residential development to the south of the site along Albert Street.

 

It is noted that the approved operating hours of the adjacent café (Big Brekky) at 316 Stanmore Road are as follows;

7.00am to 6.00pm       Mondays to Wednesdays,

7.00am to 10.00pm     Thursdays and Fridays,

7.00am to 10.00pm     Saturdays,

8.00am to 4.00pm       Sundays and

8.00am to 10.00pm     Public Holidays.

 

The Public House at 292 Stanmore Road has approved hours of:

9.00am to Midnight     Monday – Saturday and

9.30 am to 8.00pm      Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

Having regard to the above, trading from 6:00am as proposed is not supported given the adjoining site context, however trading from 7:00am is considered more appropriate. The proposal to trade until 10:00pm for the café, considering the limited number of seats within the premises (20), is unlikely to have amenity impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. To ensure the quiet and orderly ingress and egress of patrons of the café and to protect the amenity of the surrounding residential neighbourhood a condition is included in the recommendation requiring that signs being appropriately located within the café and hotel advising patrons of the nearby residences and seeking quiet and orderly ingress and egress from the premises with the proprietors of the café/hotel ensuring that staff take reasonable steps to control noisy behaviour of patrons entering or leaving the premises.

 

Florist

 

The application seeks to trade from 6:00am to 8:00pm seven days a week including Public Holidays for the florist. As per the trading hours of the café discussed above, the proposed hours florist are extensive, and the opening time of the florist

 should be consistent with the café. Having regard to the small size of the premises and the limited foot traffic anticipated with such a use, these amended hours are unlikely to affect the amenity of surrounding development and are considered acceptable.

 

Hotel/reception

 

As anticipated with any Hotel, its use extends over 24 hours. Reception is proposed to be available from 6:00am to 10.00pm which is considered acceptable as this component of the use is unlikely to have any amenity impacts.

 

Function Rooms

 

The application has not specified hours for the use of the function rooms but has indicated that functions would not extend beyond midnight. It is considered that the use of the function rooms should be restricted to 8.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Sundays including public holidays and that a total maximum number of people within both function rooms be limited to 35 persons at any one time, with the use of these rooms managed/operated by the Hotel.

 

Hotel Amenities

 

Whilst the SEE and PoM specify that the in-house gym, courtyard, swimming pool, spa, cabana, kitchen and dining areas would be restricted to use by hotel guests only, operating times for these facilities have not been specified. It is considered that the use of the outdoor areas such as the courtyard and pool should be restricted to 8.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Sunday including public holidays to ensure the amenity of the adjoining residential property to the south is maintained and a condition is included in the recommendation to this effect.

 

Deliveries

 

The PoM proposes that deliveries shall occur between 7:00am and 6:00pm and is considered satisfactory.

 

Subject to compliance with the above and the measures outlined in the Plan of Management submitted with the development application, the recommended hours of operation, maximum patron numbers and imposition of amenity conditions, the proposed use is unlikely to cause any unreasonable impacts to the residential amenity of the area.

 

PART 9 - STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

The property is located in the Newington Planning Precinct (Precinct 9) under Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

The development would be consistent with the desired future character of the area as it would allow for the preservation and protection of the existing heritage listed building within the precinct and would protect the identified values of the Petersham South Heritage Conservation Area.

 

7.      Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

 

A Section 94A levy of $11,130.00 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014. A condition requiring that levy to be paid is included in the recommendation.

 

8.      Community Consultation

 

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. 12 submissions were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

 

(i)      Traffic and Parking;

(ii)      Heritage;

(iii)     Use of the pool at all hours by non-hotel patrons;

(iv)    Acoustic Impacts/Noise; and

(v)     Permissibility.

 

Other concerns raised are addressed below;

 

“The function rooms is of concern given they are of major significance with the potential to generate a lot of vehicle traffic and pedestrian activity and noise…unlimited hours of the function centre”

 

Comment:

 

The application does not propose the provision of a function centre, but function rooms within the hotel. Any functions will be managed by the hotel operators. The function rooms have a combined area of approximately 72sqm and as discussed in the body of this report to minimise any potential impacts conditions are included in the recommendation of this report restricting the number of people utilising these spaces to a maximum of 35 persons at any one time between the hours of 8:00am and 10.00pm.

 

“If the application is approved with no-off street parking I would request that the Council then ensure the streets around the development: Albert Street, Chester Street, John Street, Hopetoun Street, Frederick Street be upgraded to “2 hour parking, 8:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday Resident Permit Excepted”.

 

Comment:

 

The application was accompanied by a Traffic Report and the matters concerning parking have been discussed in the body of this report under Heading 6(viii). Whilst amending the resident parking scheme in the vicinity of the site can be investigated by Council’s Infrastructure Services Division, it is unlikely that any overflow of parking associated with the subject use would be as widespread as suggested, and the provision of a resident parking scheme is not within the scope of the assessment of this development application.

 

All relevant matters raised in the submissions able to be considered under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act have been discussed in the report.

 

 

9.      Conclusion

 

The application seeks consent to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist.

 

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of this application.

The proposal generally complies with the aims, objectives and design parameters contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. The development will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of adjoining premises and the streetscape.

 

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

 

 

 

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT the development application to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café, function rooms and florist be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL

 

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

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

DA02, Revision C

Proposed Ground Floor

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

DA03, Revision C

Proposed First Floor

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

DA04, Revision C

Proposed Second Floor

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

DA05, Revision C

Proposed Roof Plan

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

DA06, Revision C

Elevations and Sections

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

DA07, Revision C

Finishes & Photographs

7 July 2016

Blue World Architecture

7 July 2016

 

Heritage Impact Assessment

March 2016

Paul Davies Pty Ltd

15 March 2016

Job No. 05-153

Plan of Management

1 September 2016

BBC Consulting Planners

1 September 2016

 

Conservation Management Plan

April 2013

Howard Heritage Consultancy

1 September 2016

20151386.1/1111A/R0/GC

DA Environmental Noise Impact Assessment

11 November 2015

Acoustic Logic

 

15 March 2016

 

and details submitted to Council on 15 March 2016, 6 and 7 July 2016, 23 August 2016 and 1 September 2016 with the application for development consent and as amended by the following conditions.

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

3.      The operation of the premises complying at all times with the Plan of Management prepared by BBC Consulting, dated 1 September 2016 submitted on 1 September 2016 to Council. The Plan of Management as approved shall not be amended without the prior written approval of Marrickville Council.  If there is any inconsistency between the Plan of Management and the conditions of this consent, the conditions of consent shall prevail to the extent of that inconsistency.

Reason:     To ensure that the operation of the premises complies with the endorsed Plan of Management.

 

4.      The premises being used exclusively as a hotel and not being adapted for use as a residential flat building, backpackers’ hostel, serviced apartments or boarding house.

          Reason:     To ensure that the premises are used exclusively as a hotel.

 

5.      A minimum of three (3) adaptable rooms must be provided in accordance with Part 2.5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Equity of Access and Mobility.

          Reason:     To make reasonable provision in the development to provide accommodation suitable for people with a disability.

 

6.      a)           Staff employed by the café/hotel being responsible to ensure that patrons are not

                        loitering in front of adjoining residences.

b)           Staff employed by the café/hotel being responsible at all times to ensure the      orderly dispersal of patrons from the premises.

c)           Signs being appropriately located within the café and hotel advising patrons of the            nearby residences and seeking quiet and orderly ingress and egress from the            premises and the proprietors of the café and hotel ensuring that staff give      appropriate directions to and take reasonable steps to control noisy or offensive      behaviour of patrons entering or leaving the café/hotel.

          Reason:     To ensure the quiet and orderly ingress and egress of patrons of the cafe and to protect the amenity of the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

 

7.      The use of amenities within the premises, i.e., gym, courtyard and pool are restricted to Hotel patrons only.

Reason: To confirm the terms of Council’s approval

 

8.       The use of the café must be restricted to the north western corner of the ground floor with not more than 20 customer seats (including outdoor seating) without the prior approval of Council.

Reason:     To ensure that the number of customers on the premises at any one time is not increased without a further review.

 

9.       The maximum number of patrons within the function rooms (combined) must be restricted to not more than 35 persons without the prior approval of Council. Management/booking of the function rooms shall be operated by the Hotel.

Reason:     To ensure that the number of patrons utilising the function rooms on the premises at any one time is not increased without a further review.

10.    The balcony attached to room 12 not be used for functions.

                   Reason:             To minimise amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

11.     The maximum number of patrons residing within the hotel accommodation at any one time being restricted to 32 persons.

Reason:     To ensure that the number of customers on the premises at any one time is not increased without a further review.

 

12.     No live music or entertainment must be provided within the premises.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

13.     A footpath licence must be obtained from Council for the use of that part of the footpath area adjacent to the site before using such area. The usage of that part of the footpath must only be carried out whilst the footpath licence remains in force.

Reason:     To confirm the terms of Council’s approval.

 

14.    A minimum of 3 adaptable rooms must be provided in accordance with Part 2.5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Equity of Access and Mobility.

          Reason:     To make reasonable provision in the development to provide accommodation suitable for people with a disability.

 

15.     2 off-street bicycle spaces must be provided and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking.

Reason:     To ensure practical bicycle storage is available for the use of the premises.

 

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

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

 

17.     The use of the premises must not give rise to:

 

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

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

Reason:     To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

 

18.    The installation of any sign on a heritage item must be carried out in a reversible manner without damage to the significant fabric. In the case of a sign affixed to any stone or brick wall of a heritage item the sign is to be fixed in such a way that stone is not damaged and any fixings are put only into mortar joints.

          Reason: To ensure the signage does not impact the heritage item.

 

19.     A separate application must be submitted to, and approved by, Council prior to the erection of any advertisements or advertising structures other than the signage approved in this consent.  The shop windows must not be painted with advertisements and no flashing lights must be installed on the premises. The projecting wall sign on Stanmore Road is to be deleted.

Reason:     To confirm the terms of Council’s approval.

20.     The advertising structure(s) and associated advertisement(s) must be properly and safely maintained at all times.

Reason:     To ensure that the signage does not have any detrimental effect upon the amenity of the area or endanger the safety of the public.

 

21.     Any advertisement to be displayed must be only to identify the premises, the occupier of the site, the activity conducted thereon or the goods and services available on the premises associated with the use approved in this development consent.

Reason:     To ensure that all signs on the premises relate to the approved use.

 

22.     The signage must:

 

a)      not flash, move, be animated, or be decorated with rotating or flashing lights;

b)      not have any apparatus attached to it which will provide sound of any description whether associated with the sign or other object or activity;

c)      be neatly affixed to the building and any damage to the building caused to the exterior of the building by the erection of the advertising structure must be promptly repaired with materials to match those of the existing building;

d)      comply with the Advertising Code of Ethics; and

e)      comply with the requirements of the Roads and Maritime Services Authority.

 

Reason:     To confirm the terms of Council’s approval.

 

23.    No storage of goods or equipment external to any building on the site being permitted.

Reason:     To ensure the premises are kept in a neat and tidy manner.

 

24.    No signs or goods must be displayed for sale or stored on the footpath in front of the premises at any time without the prior approval of Council.

Reason: To prevent the public footpath from being obstructed.

 

25.     All loading and unloading in connection with the use must be carried out during the approved hours of operation in such a manner as not to cause inconvenience to the public. Loading/unloading shall only occur between the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm Mondays to Saturdays.

Reason:     To ensure loading and unloading operations do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements in the area.

 

26.     All machinery must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and being maintained at all times if in use.

Reason:     To ensure that such machines are properly installed and maintained so as to prevent noise generation, vibration and any other disturbances to adjoining premises.

 

27.    The hours of operation of the site being restricted in the following manner for each use:

 

Hotel (accommodation only):

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 24 hours

Reception:           

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 6:00am to 10:00pm

Outdoor areas (i.e. cabana, pool, courtyard):

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 8:00am to 9:00pm

 

Cafe:

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 7:00am to 10:00pm

 

Florist:

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 7:00am to 8:00pm

 

Function Rooms:

Mondays to Sundays:

(including Public Holidays):                                 8:00am to 10:00pm

 

Reason:     To confirm the hours of operation.

 

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

Reason:     To ensure that the development is adequately serviced.

 

29.    All trade waste must be stored within the site boundaries and must be contained in such a manner so as not to cause a nuisance.

Reason:     To provide for correct storage of wastes.

 

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

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

 

31.     The construction, fitout and finishes of the food premises must comply with Standard 3.2.3 of the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code under the Food Act 2003 and AS 4674 - Design, Construction and Fitout of Food Premises.

 

NOTE:       Copies of AS 4674-2004 may be obtained from the Standards Australia Customer Service on telephone 1300 65 46 46 or by visiting the website www.standards.com.au

 

Copies of the Food Standards Code (Australia) may be obtained by contacting the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Authority on telephone (02) 6271 2222, email  info@foodstandards.gov.au or by visiting the website www.foodstandards.gov.au.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the premises comply with the relevant Acts and standards so as to promote sound hygiene and public health.

 

32.     The storage and/or handling of food products externally of the approved food premises are prohibited.

Reason:     To ensure that the premises comply with the relevant Acts and standards so as to promote sound hygiene and public health.

 

33.    The construction, fit-out and finishes of the food premises must comply with the Food Act 2003, the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard  4674 - Design, Construction and Fit-out of Food Premises.

Reason:     To ensure that the premises comply with the relevant Acts and standards so as to promote sound hygiene and public health.

 

34.    All waste and waste receptacles associated with the usage of the premises are to be stored within the site boundaries of the subject premises and are to be contained in such a manner so as to comply with the requirements of the Food Act 2003 and Australian Standard 4674 - Design, Construction and Fit-out of Food Premises.

Reason:     To ensure waste and waste receptacles do not pose a nuisance, danger or risk to public health and safety

35.     The building must not exceed a maximum height of 58.4 metres AHD, inclusive of all lift over runs, vents, chimneys, aerials, antennas, lightning rods, any roof top garden plantings, exhaust flues etc.

          Reason:     Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development requirement.

 

36.     The proponent must advise Airservices at least 3 business days prior to the controlled activity commencing by emailing pds.obs@airservicesaustralia.com and quoting “SY-CA-302”.

          Reason:     Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development requirement.

 

37.     Separate approval must be sought under Regulations for any cranes required to construct the building. Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed controlled activity and consequently, may not be approved under the Regulations. Therefore, it is advisable that approval to operate construction equipment (i.e. cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct.   

Reason: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development requirement.

 

38.     At the completion of the construction of the building, a certified surveyor is to notify (in writing) the airfield design manager of the finished height of the building.

Reason: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development requirement.

 

39.    Owners, staff and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area. The person acting on this consent shall advise any purchaser or prospective tenant of this condition.

Reason:     To ensure the development does not reduce the amount of “on street” parking currently available.

 

40.    Should the proposed development require the provision of an electrical substation, such associated infrastructure shall be incorporated wholly within the development site. Before proceeding with your development further, you are directed to contact Ausgrid directly with regard to the possible provision of such an installation on the property.

Reason:     To provide for the existing and potential electrical power distribution for this development and for the area.

 

 

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

 

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

 

41.     No work must commence until:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

44.    All demolition work must:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the area.

 

46.    All services in the building being demolished must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities before work commences.

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

 

47.    A waste management plan must be prepared in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and must be submitted to and accepted by the PCA before work commences.

Reason:     To ensure the appropriate disposal and reuse of waste generated on the site.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

50.    A Soil and Water Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with Landcom Soils and Construction, Volume 1, Managing Urban Stormwater (Particular reference is made to Chapter 9, “Urban Construction Sites”) and submitted to and accepted by the PCA.  A copy of this document must be submitted to and accepted by PCA before work commences.  The plan must indicate:

 

a)      Where the builder’s materials and waste are to be stored;

b)      Where the sediment fences are to be installed on the site;

c)      What facilities are to be provided to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way; and

d)      How access to the site will be provided.

 

All devices must be constructed and maintained on site while work is carried out.

 

Reason:      To prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of the stormwater network.

 

51.     All wastewater arising from the use of the premises must be directed to the Sewers of the Sydney Water Corporation (SWC) under a Trade Waste License Agreement. The person acting on this consent is advised that pre-treatment of wastewater may be a requirement of the corporation prior to the discharge to sewer. Details of the Corporation’s requirements must be obtained prior to the commencement of work.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements of Sydney Water Corporation for the installation and maintenance of grease traps.

 

52.    The person acting on this consent shall apply as required for all necessary permits including crane permits, road opening permits, hoarding permits, footpath occupation permits and/or any other approvals under Section 68 (Approvals) of the Local Government Act, 1993 or Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.

Reason:     To ensure all necessary approvals have been applied for.

 

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

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

 

54.    The person acting on this consent shall provide details of the means to secure the site and to protect the public from the construction works. Where the means of securing the site involves the erection of fencing or a hoarding on Council’s footpath or road reserve the person acting on this consent shall submit a hoarding application and pay all relevant fees before commencement of works.

Reason:     To secure the site and to maintain public safety

 

55.    A detailed Traffic Management Plan to cater for construction traffic shall be submitted to and approved by Council before commencement of works. Details shall include proposed truck parking areas, construction zones, crane usage, truck routes etc.

Reason:     To ensure construction traffic does not unduly interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or the amenity of the area.

 

56.    The person acting on this consent shall submit a dilapidation report including colour photos showing the existing condition of the footpath and roadway adjacent to the site before commencement of works.

Reason:     To ensure the existing condition of Council's infrastructure is clearly documented.

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent the Certifying Authority (Council or an Accredited Certifier) is that person appointed to issue the Construction Certificate.

 

57.    A levy of $11,130.00 has been assessed as the contribution for the development under Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (a copy of which may be inspected at the offices of the Council).

 

The Section 94A Levy referred to above is based on the estimated cost of the proposed development at time of lodgement of the application indexed quarterly in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014.

 

The Section 94A levy (as adjusted) must be paid to the Council in cash or by unendorsed bank cheque (from an Australian Bank only) or EFTPOS (Debit only) or credit card* before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 payment of Section 94A levies CANNOT be made by Personal Cheque or Company Cheque.

 

*NB        A 1% credit card transaction fee applies to all credit card transactions.

 

(LEVY PAYMENT Reference No. DC001576)

 

NOTE:       Under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014, the proposed cost of carrying out development is adjusted quarterly at time of payment of the levy in line with the Consumer Price Index:  All Groups Index Number for Sydney provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the approved development makes a contribution towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities and public services in the area.

 

58.     A comprehensive fully costed schedule of conservation and maintenance works to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

          Reason: To confirm the terms of Council’s approval.

 

59.    Details of all finished surface materials, including colour and texture, to be used in development, must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design advisor before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure the materials and colours are compatible with the development and surrounding buildings.

 

60.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction illustrating the deletion of the projecting wall sign fronting Stanmore Road.

Reason:     To ensure compliance with part 2.12.4.9 of Marrickville development Control Plan 2011.

 

61.     The colour, materials and artwork of all signage to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

          Reason: To ensure the proposed signage is sympathetic to the heritage item.

 

62.    A photographic archival record of the subject property is to be prepared in accordance with ‘Guide to Photographic Archival Records’ available on Council’s website:

 

http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Marrickville%20Assets/guide%20to%20archival%20records%202012.pdf. 

The record is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:     To provide an archival record of a locally significant building prior to development.

 

63.    An Interpretation Plan for the building prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant, providing for at least one informative panel located so as to be readily visible to visitors, is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason:      To ensure the significance of the building and fabric is clearly identified for guests.

 

64.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction indicating the existing buildings being upgraded to comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

Reason:     To ensure the building is suitable for the proposed use.

 

65.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction addressing the requirements of The Disability (Access to Premises – buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards).

Reason:     To ensure that the premises are accessible to all persons.

 

66.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction indicating the following:

 

a)      Access to the premises via the principal place of entry to the building, complying with AS 1428.1- 2009 ‘Design for access and mobility’;

b)      An accessible toilet complying with AS 1428.1- 2009 ‘Design for access and mobility’;

c)      An accessible lift must be installed.  The stairway lift must be capable of transporting a wheelchair and designed in accordance with AS1735.7 ‘Lifts, escalators and moving walks, Part 7: Stairway Lifts’ as a minimum requirement;

d)      The lift design must comply with AS 1735.12 -1999 ‘Lifts, escalators and moving walkways Part 12: Facilities for persons with disabilities’ as a minimum requirement; and

e)      An accessible counter complying with AS 1428.2 - 2001 ‘Design for access and mobility’;

f)       3 adaptable hotel rooms being provided complying with AS 4299-1995 "Adaptable Housing".

Reason:     To ensure that the premises provide equitable access to all persons.

 

67.    Evidence of payment of the building and construction industry Long Service Leave Scheme, must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. (The required payment can be made at the Council Offices).

 

NOTE:       The required payment is based on the estimated cost of building and construction works and the long service levy rate, set by the Long Service Payments Corporation. The rate set by the Long Service Payments Corporation is currently of 0.35% of the cost of the building and construction work.

 

For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?levy_information/levy_calculator.stm

 

Reason:     To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

 

68.    To ensure the adequate storage and collection of waste from the occupation or the use of the food premises, all garbage and recyclable materials emanating from the premises must be stored in a designated waste storage area. The waste storage area must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 4674 - Design, Construction and Fitout of Food Premises, and must be:

 

a)      Provided with a hose tap connected to the water supply;

b)      Paved with impervious floor materials;

c)      Coved at the intersection of the floor and walls;

d)      Graded and drained to a waste disposal system in accordance with the relevant regulatory authority (Sydney Water);

e)      Adequately ventilated (mechanically or naturally) so that odour emissions do not cause offensive odour as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; and

f)       Fitted with appropriate interventions to meet fire safety standards in accordance with the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

Detailed plans and specifications for the construction of the waste storage area must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

Reason:     To ensure the storage facility for garbage and recyclable matter are suitable for the volume and types of garbage and recyclable material produced by the food business and to ensure that the facility does not provide a breeding ground for pests and must be capable of being easily and effectively cleaned without any waste water entering the stormwater system.

 

69.     Noise attenuation measures being incorporated into the development generally in accordance with the recommendations contained in the DA Environmental Noise Assessment, Document No. 20151386.1/1111A/R0/GC, prepared by Acoustic Logic, dated 11 November 2015 and complying with requirements contained in the Australian Standard 2021-2000 in relation to interior design sound levels, in accordance with details to be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

Reason: To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft.

 

70.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder must sign a written undertaking that they are responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

71.    The person acting on this consent shall provide to Council a bond in the amount of $19,569.60 and pay the related Section 138 (Roads Act) inspection fee of $209.00 (GST inclusive) before the issue of a Construction Certificate to ensure the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works required as a result of this development.

Reason:     To provide security for the proper completion of the footpath and/or vehicular crossing works.

 

72.    Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder shall sign a written undertaking that they shall be responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the proposed development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason:     To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

 

73.    The footpaths adjacent to the site shall be reconstructed and upgraded in accordance with the Draft Marrickville Public Domain Code and Draft Technical Manual. Full detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to Council for approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 before the issue of a Construction Certificate. If in the event that the Public Domain Code has not been adopted at the time of undertaking the works then the footpath shall be reconstructed to Council’s standard plans and specification in place at the time the works are undertaken. Plans shall include the removal of all redundant vehicular crossings to the site on both Stanmore Road and Albert Street.

Reason:     To ensure appropriate public domain works are consistent with Council’s desired future character for the area and of a satisfactory quality.

 

74.    A plan detailing the existing and proposed site drainage layout, size, class and grade of pipelines, pit types, roof gutter and downpipe sizes, and proposed site levels being submitted to and accepted by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Plans shall include any repairs or augmentation of the existing system including the repair/reinstatement of the defective stormwater down pipes and kerb outlets.

Reason:     To assess the adequacy of the proposed/existing site drainage.

 

 

 

SITE WORKS

 

75.     All excavation, demolition, construction, and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of the development, must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above no work must be carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason:     To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

76.     The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction upon completion of the work.

Reason:     To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

 

77.     The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the consent of Council.  The placement of waste storage containers in a public place requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy - ‘Placement of Waste Storage Containers in a Public Place’. 

Reason:     To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

 

78.    All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

a)      compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b)      all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c)      all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d)      sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e)      the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f)       the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g)      suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h)      all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only having access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i)        all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j)        no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k)      the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

 

79.     The works must be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority.  The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA.  The critical stages of construction are:

 

a)      At the commencement of the building work;

b)      For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c)      Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d)      After the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

 

Reason:     To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

80.    If it is necessary to excavate below the level of the base of the footings of a building on the adjoining allotments, including a public place such as footways and roadways, the person acting on this consent must ensure that:

 

a)      At least 7 days’ notice is given to the owners of the adjoining land of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings.  The notice must include complete details of the work; and

b)      Any building is preserved and protected from damage.

 

Where a dilapidation report has not been prepared on any building adjacent to the excavation, the person acting on this consent is responsible for arranging and meeting the cost of a dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified person.  The report must be submitted to and accepted by the PCA before works continue on site, if the consent of the adjoining property owner can be obtained. Copies of all letter/s that have been sent via registered mail to the adjoining property owner and copies of any responses received must be forwarded to the PCA before work commences.

 

Reason:     To ensure that adjoining buildings are preserved, supported and the condition of the buildings on the adjoining property catalogued for future reference in the event that any damage is caused during work on site.

 

81.    All vehicles carrying materials to, or from the site must have their loads covered with tarpaulins or similar covers.

Reason:     To ensure dust and other particles are not blown from vehicles associated with the use.

 

82.    A certificate of survey from a registered land surveyor must be submitted to the PCA upon excavation of the footings and before the pouring of the concrete to verify that the structure will not encroach on the allotment boundaries.

Reason:     To ensure all works are contained within the boundaries of the allotment.

 

83.     A clear unobstructed path of travel of not less than 1,000mm must be provided to all exits and paths of travel to exits.

Reason:     To provide safe egress in case of fire or other emergency.

 

84.     The coolroom which is of sufficient size for a person to enter must have:

 

a)      a door which is capable of being opened by hand from inside without a key;

b)      internal lighting controlled only by a switch which is located adjacent to the entrance doorway inside the coolroom;

c)      an indicated lamp positioned outside the coolroom which is illuminated when the interior lights are switched on; and

d)      an alarm that is -

(i)    located outside but controllable only from within the coolroom; and

(ii)   able to achieve a sound pressure level outside the coolroom of 90dB(A) when measured 3 metres from the sounding device,

in accordance with Clause G1.2 of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

 

Reason:     To ensure the safety of users of the coolroom.

 

85.    Fixtures for bathroom and kitchen taps, showerheads, dishwashers, toilet cisterns and urinals must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating.

Note:       Information on the star rating scheme, and all 'star' rated products are available to view at the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) website: www.waterrating.gov.au.

Reason:     To conserve water.

 

86.    New or replacement toilets must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating and being 6/3 litre dual flush or more efficient.

Note:       Information on the star rating scheme, and all 'star' rated products are available to view at the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) website: www.waterrating.gov.au.

Reason:     To conserve water.

 

87.    All roof and surface stormwater from the site and any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, shall be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and being discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code and Australian Standard AS3500.3-2003 ‘Stormwater Drainage’.

Reason:     To provide for adequate site drainage.

 

 

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

88.     You must obtain an Occupation Certificate from your PCA before you occupy or use the building.  The PCA must notify the Council of the determination of the Occupation Certificate and forward the following documents to Council within 2 days of the date of the Certificate being determined:

 

a)      A copy of the determination;

b)      Copies of any documents that were lodged with the Occupation Certificate application;

c)      A copy of Occupation Certificate, if it was issued;

d)      A copy of the record of all critical stage inspections and any other inspection required by the PCA;

e)      A copy of any missed inspections; and

f)       A copy of any compliance certificate and any other documentary evidence relied upon in issuing the Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

89.     Occupation of the building must not be permitted until such time as:

 

a)      All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b)      The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c)           An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

 

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

 

90.    The informative panel/s which form part of the Interpretation Plan for the building to be installed in readily a visible location to visitors to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason:      To ensure the significance of the building and fabric is clearly identified for guests.

 

91.    Before the issue of any Occupation Certificate (interim or final), the works described in Conservation Works Schedule within the Heritage Impact Assessment by Paul Davies dated March 2016 must be completed and certified by Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor.

Reason:     To ensure the ongoing conservation of the Heritage Item in accordance with the Management Document.

 

92.    Before the issue of any Occupation Certificate (interim or final), compliance with the terms and conditions of Determination No. 201300593 dated 4 August 2014, to reinstate the former watchtower to the building being completed in accordance with the approval with a Final Occupation Certificate issued.

Reason:     To ensure the re-instatement of the watchtower is undertaken prior to the occupation of the building.

 

93.     The owner of the premises, as soon as practicable after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued, must:

 

a)      Forward a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and the current Fire Safety Schedule to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Council; and

 

b)      Display a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule in a prominent position in the building (i.e. adjacent the entry or any fire indicator panel).

 

Every 12 months after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued the owner must obtain an Annual Fire Safety Certificate for each of the Fire Safety Measures listed in the Schedule.  The Annual Fire Safety Certificate must be forwarded to the Commissioner and the Council and displayed in a prominent position in the building.

 

Reason:     To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

 

94.     a)      Upon completion of the required noise attenuation measures referred to in the           “Before the Issue of a Construction Certificate” Section of this Determination, and           prior to the occupation of the development a report must be prepared and           submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction by an accredited Acoustics           Consultant certifying that the final construction meets AS2021-2000 as set down in           the subject condition of this consent. Such report must include external and internal           noise levels to ensure that the external noise levels during the test are           representative of the typical maximum levels that may occur at this development;           and

 

b)      Where it is found that internal noise levels are greater than the required dB(A) rating due to faulty workmanship or the like, necessary corrective measures must be carried out and a further certificate being prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with the requirements as set down in Part a) of this condition.

 

Reason:     To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft and to ensure that the noise attenuation measures incorporated into the development satisfactorily comply with the relevant sections of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

 

95.    Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, Council must be notified that the premises are being used for the preparation, manufacture or storage of food for sale so that the premises can be registered on Council’s food premises database.

Reason:     To notify Council of your intention to commence the business so as to be included on Councils Food Safety register.

 

96.    Before the commencement of food handling operations, the food business operator must notify the NSW Food Authority. You may notify the NSW Food Authority via the Internet on www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au or by contacting the Council for a notification form.

Reason:     To comply with the requirements of the Food Act 2003.

 

97.    All works required to be carried out in connection with drainage, crossings, alterations to kerb and guttering, footpaths and roads resulting from the development shall be completed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Works shall be in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”.

Reason:     To ensure person acting on this consent completes all required work.

 

98.    You are advised that Council has not undertaken a search of existing or proposed utility services adjacent to the site in determining this application.  Any adjustment or augmentation of any public utility services including Gas, Water, Sewer, Electricity, Street lighting and Telecommunications required as a result of the development shall be at no cost to Council and undertaken before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To ensure all costs for the adjustment/augmentation of services arising as a result of the redevelopment are at no cost to Council

 

99.    The existing stone kerb adjacent to the site is of local heritage value and is to be preserved at no cost to Council. Any damage to the stone kerb will require the replacement of the damaged individual stone units before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To ensure that items of local heritage value are preserved.

 

100.  All redundant vehicular crossings to the site along Stanmore Road and Albert Street shall be removed and replaced by kerb and gutter and footpath paving in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications” before the issue of the Occupation Certificate and at no cost to Council. Where the kerb in the vicinity of the redundant crossing is predominately stone (as determined by Council's Engineer) the replacement kerb shall also be in stone.

Reason:     To eliminate redundant crossings and to reinstate the footpath to its normal condition.

 

101.  The footpaths adjacent to the site on Stanmore Road and Albert Street shall be reconstructed in accordance with the Draft Public Domain Technical Manual and Council’s standard plans and specification. The above works shall be undertaken at no cost to Council and before the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason:     To provide suitable means of public pedestrian access to the development and to ensure that the amenity of the area is in keeping with the standard of the development.

 

102.  Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate the person acting on this consent shall obtain from Council a compliance Certificate(s) stating that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works on Council property required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily and in accordance with Council approved plans and specifications.

Reason:     To ensure that all Road, Footpath and Civil Works required to be undertaken as a result of this development have been completed satisfactorily.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

·        A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) has not been carried out.

·        The approved plans must be submitted to the Customer Centre of any office of Sydney Water before the commencement of any work to ensure that the proposed work meets the requirements of Sydney Water. Failure to submit those plans before commencing work may result in the demolition of the structure if found not to comply with the requirements of Sydney Water.

·        The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works are required to be constructed by your own contractor. You or your contractor must complete an application for ‘Construction of a Vehicular Crossing & Civil Works’ form, lodge a bond for the works, pay the appropriate fees and provide evidence of adequate public liability insurance, before commencement of works.

·        Any natural light or ventilation gained by the window(s) within 900mm of the boundary will not be taken into consideration in the event that the adjoining property owner makes application to Council to carry out building works on their property. The window has been consented to on the basis that alternative sources of light and ventilation are available to the room.

·        Buildings built or painted before the 1970's may have surfaces coated with lead-based paints. Recent evidence indicates that lead is harmful to people at levels previously thought safe. Children particularly have been found to be susceptible to lead poisoning and cases of acute child lead poisonings in Sydney have been attributed to home renovation activities involving the removal of lead based paints. Precautions should therefore be taken if painted surfaces are to be removed or sanded as part of the proposed building alterations, particularly where children or pregnant women may be exposed, and work areas should be thoroughly cleaned before occupation of the room or building.

·        Contact “Dial Before You Dig” before commencing any building activity on the site.

·        Useful Contacts

 

BASIX Information

( 1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

 

Department of Fair Trading

( 13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

 

Dial Before You Dig

( 1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

 

Landcom

( 9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

 

Long Service Payments Corporation

( 131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Food Authority

( 1300 552 406

www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

 

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

 

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

( 131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

 

Sydney Water

( 13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

 

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

 

( 1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

 

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

 

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

( 13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

 

 

 

B.      THAT those persons who lodged submissions in respect to the proposal be advised of the Council's determination of the application.

 

C.      THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standards:

 

Premises:                                               308-314 Stanmore Road PETERSHAM

Applicant:                                               43 Hubert Street Pty Ltd/ Scott Andrew  Feneck

Proposal:                                                to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 12 room hotel with a ground floor café and florist

Determination:                                       Approval

DA No:                                                   201600108

Lot and DP:                                            Lot 1 in DP 723900 and Lot 1 in DP 723936

Category of Development:                    14. Other

Environmental Planning Instrument:     Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land:                                      Neighbourhood Centre B1

Development Standard(s) varied:         Clause 4.3 Height

                                                               Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation:                        Height of the existing heritage listed building already exceeds prescribed limit and works are within the existing approved height of the building

                                                               FSR- building already exceeds FSR and additional floor area is within a proposed attic area

Extent of variation:                                 Height: 13.9%

                                                               FSR: 48%

Concurring Authority:                             Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:                         

 

 

Premises:                        308-314 Stanmore Road PETERSHAM

Applicant:                        43 Hubert Street Pty Ltd/ Scott Andrew  Feneck

Proposal:                         to demolish part of the premises and carry out alterations and additions to convert the existing residence into a 13 room hotel with a ground floor café and florist.

Determination:                 Consent subject to conditions

DA No:                            201600108

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 6

Subject:         Development Application - 106 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill 

File Ref:         16/4718/106715.16        

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This development application involves the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part two and three storey building containing 17 dwellings. The proposal complies with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013, in particular in respect of height and floor space ratio, and achieves general compliance with the planning provisions applicable to the site. Despite this, a number of issues remain unresolved including an inadequate communal open space (under the SEPP 65 requirements), landscaped area and car parking, privacy issues due to first floor balconies, and some technical traffic circulation issues.

These issues, however, can be readily addressed by modifications to the design including the deletion of one unit (to increase communal open space and arrive at compliant car parking) and the deletion of the first floor balconies (to mitigate privacy impacts).

To address these matters, the recommendation includes suitable deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the development application be granted 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 two to three storey multi dwelling housing development consisting of 17 dwellings with basement car parking.

 

2.0       Application Details

 

Applicant                                 :           Mr A Harb

Owner                                     :           Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd

Value of work                          :           $5,898,335

Lot/DP                                     :           Lot 3, DP: 345408, Lot 1, DP 359745

Date lodged                             :           1/04/2016

Date of last amendment         :           N/A

Application Type                     :           Local

Construction Certificate          :           No

 

3.0       Site and Surrounding Development

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Carlton Crescent, bounded by Prospect Road to the West and Lackey Street to the East. An existing warehouse building is located on the site. Surrounding development comprises residential flat buildings and detached dwellings. 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)

106 Carlton Crescent

3

345408

Torrens

1,631m2

106 Carlton Crescent

1

359745

Torrens

708.2m2

TOTAL AREA

2,339.2m2

 

4.0       Development History

 

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

 

No.

Determination Date

Proposal

Determination

06.1985.277

15.10.1985

Alterations to office

Approved

06.1986.439

28.11.1986

Amendment to BA 277/85

Approved

05.1994.87

02.05.1994

Advertising sign above roller shutter in front wall by Sydney Anglican Home Mission

Approved

06.1994.324

27.03.1995

New Awning for Anglican Home Mission

Refused

16.2001.11

06.12.2001

Fire upgrade

Approved

10.0215.70

14.07.2015

Multi-dwelling housing

Refused

 

The following table summarizes the background to the current application:

 

Application Milestones

Date

Event

File no

14.07.2015

A previous similar DA for the site was refused for the following reasons:

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

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

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

i.   Principle 1: Context: The form and colours and materials do not relate satisfactorily to the surrounding context.

ii.  Principle 3: Built form: The built form is unsatisfactory.

iii.  Principle 4: Density: The proposed density is excessive.

iv. Principle 6: Landscape:

·   There is inadequate landscaping on the site including deep soil and communal open space.

v.  Principle 7: Amenity: The courtyards are undersized.

vi. Principle 9: Social Dimensions and housing affordability: Most units are 3 bedroom and do not provide an adequate housing mix which includes smaller units.

vii.     Principle 10: Aesthetics: The aesthetic resolution is poor including in respect of:

·   Roof forms;

·   Strongly expressed masonry divisions between each unit which protrude above the roof surface;

·   Bland walls facing the side boundaries;

·   Fenestration patterns;

·   Boundary walls; and

·   Finishes and materials selection.

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

i.   Part 1, Local Context – Building Separation;

ii.  Part 1, Local Context – Street setbacks;

iii.  Part 2, Site Design – Deep soil zones;

iv. Part 2, Site Design - Open Space: The proposal only provides 6% of the site area as communal open space, whereas the RFDC nominates at least 25%.

v.  Part 2, Site Design - Open Space: The proposed private courtyard areas are undersized.

vi. Part 3, Building Design – Minimum apartment sizes: Units 6 and 8 are undersized.

vii.     Part 3, Building Design – Ceiling heights: The ceiling heights are inadequate.

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

a.    cl. 4.4, Floor space ratio: The proposal significantly exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the site;

b.    cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: the request regarding contravention of clause 4.4 in respect of floor space ratio is not well founded and cannot be supported.

c.    cl. 5.10, Heritage conservation: The relationship with nearby heritage items is not considered satisfactory;

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

a.    Part C1, Access and Mobility: The provision of disabled access within the development is unsatisfactory;

b.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 3: Preferred Development: The form of the proposal is not appropriate in the context;

c.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 4: Housing Density: The density is excessive;

d.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 5: Siting, Building Height and Solar Access: The northern courtyards of the southern units receive inadequate solar access;

e.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 6: Privacy, Views and Outlook: Elevated courtyards on south and side boundaries result in unacceptable overlooking of the adjacent properties;

f.     Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 8: Open Space and Landscaping: Not all courtyards meet the minimum  area requirements;

g.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 8: Open Space and Landscaping: The area of communal open space is inadequate;

h.    Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 8: Open Space and Landscaping: The landscape area is inadequate;

i.      Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 11: Stormwater drainage: The stormwater drainage has not been satisfactorily resolved;

j.      Part C5, Multi-unit Development in Residential Flat Zones, Part 12: Site Facilities: Inadequate detail has been provided in respect of site facilities including letterboxes and clothes drying;

k.    Part D1, Planning for Less Waste, Bin presentation: Bin presentation has not been adequately addressed given that the proposal has almost no street frontage.

10.0215.70

04.03.2016

Provisional DA submitted

17.2016.52

15.03.2016

Letter sent to applicant raising the following issues:

·   The floor space ratio appears to be compliant with the requirements of Ashfield LEP 2013, please provide 1:100 plans to enable Council to undertake its own calculations

·   Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised the following concerns.  Please address these issues by way of amended plans.

 

I refer to my previous comments on an earlier version of the proposal for this site which I prepared on 13 April 2015. Substantial revisions have been made to this scheme and these appear to promise a more acceptable character in the development than had previously been the case. While some concerns about materials (the predominance of masonry, apparently concrete, in blocks, walling and paving, might be met through an agreed change to the schedule of materials, colours and finishes, the apparently serious overshadowing of heritage listed properties to the south appears to require some substantial change in block massing for an improvement to be secured.

 

The small separation of the new development from the heritage listed properties is reliant upon landscaping for the achievement of reasonable mutual privacy. Screening devices are also shown on the upper level balconies and these would be necessary to prevent overlooking. The situation is further exacerbated by the need to elevate floor levels for prevention of flooding.

 

It would seem that this is a situation in which the heritage concerns closely parallel the planning concerns, including amenity of the neighbouring heritage items, which underpins their future.

 

·    The proposal fails to comply with the minimum landscaped area requirement of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 and this variation will not be supported.

·    The submitted SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement should also include a report which explains the compliance of the proposal with the nine Design Quality Principles and the Apartment Design Guide.

·    The upper level balconies facing towards the adjoining properties to the north and south of the site are likely to result in adverse privacy impacts and should be removed.

·    The building separation between the southern side of the development and the adjoining properties is inadequate in respect of SEPP 65.

·    The side setbacks are inadequate to provide sufficient amenity to the adjoining properties.

·    A professionally prepared landscape plan nominating species and pot sizes be submitted.  It is also suggested that the landscape concept should include more canopy trees in the communal open space area.

·    The applicant proposes direct connection into Sydney Water pipe and must refer the application to Sydney Water to obtain their permission to drain to the pipe.  Sydney Water will provide feedback on the required storage volume for the OSD tank and the required stormwater discharge rate. 

·    Please consult with Sydney Water regarding the location of the proposal in relation to their existing pipe.  Not that the Sydney Water may require a setback from the pipe which would affect the overall site layout and design.

·    The configuration of the bin presentation area is not compatible with collection by Council waste collection truck. Please not that Council collection staff will not enter the property to wheel the bin to the truck as suggested in the waste management plan submitted with the documentation.  Furthermore, it is not possible for the number of bins required to be presented on the verge in front of the property.  As a result the applicant would need to commit to private waste collection for this site.

17.2016.52

01.04.2016

Development Application lodged “As-is” with no change to the above.

10.2016.67.1

03.08.2016

Letter sent to applicant identifying the following issues:

1.  SEPP 65:

 

Although SEPP 65 applies to the proposal, it has not been accompanied by a design verification statement or a design explanation. In addition, SEPP 65 has not been addressed in the SEE.

 

2.  Landscape area:

The landscape area is significantly deficient and should be amended to comply. It is suggested that deletion of units 5 and 13 and their replacement with deep soil and canopy tree planting along with any other necessary measures would produce a better site planning result which could provide:

a)   safer and less claustrophobic pedestrian access from the front of the site;

b)   a better landscaped presentation when viewed from Allman Avenue; and

c)   a suitably proportioned area of communal open space (12m x 10m as a minimum).

 

3.  Stormwater Drainage:

(1) Sydney water may require a set back from their pipe – please provide written advice from Sydney Water that the proposed arrangement is satisfactory; and

(2) Sydney water will need to determine OSD requirements: Please provide a copy of the advice from Sydney Water.

 

4.  Traffic:

Council’s traffic engineer has provided the following comments:

“The Driveway profile at the boundary line is not in compliance to AS2890.1:2004 section 3.2.2.

Carlton Crescent is a (sub-arterial) regional road. Vehicles should be made to come off the road and   wait and hold aside within the property whilst giving way for an opposing vehicle coming up the ramp. The driveway access off Carlton Crescent has to be designed to AS 2890.1:2004 Section 3.2 and site distance for pedestrians established and designed at driveway to Section 3.2.4. At least the first 6 metres in from the property line is to be designed to a maximum of 1:20 grade.

It is considered that the full 6.0 metre frontage should be used for layback and driveway access and pedestrian sight view. This full frontage driveway width shall extend for a distance at least 6 metres in from the boundary line. The ramp access point and side pedestrian access (to the property) and mail box area will need to be set back at least 6 metres in from the boundary line. Vehicles exiting the driveway shall be made to exit at a point at least 2.0 metres away from corner walls if the corners cannot be treated for appropriate pedestrian splay view distances according to Section 3.2.4.”

The applicant is to demonstrate what appropriate measures would be adopted to warn opposing vehicles approaching up and down the ramp (e.g. traffic lights, signs, mirrors).

 

5.  Privacy:

a)   The balconies and planters on level 3 should be deleted.

b)   The planter boxes along the rear boundary are too low to protect the property to the rear from overlooking. An alternative design should be provided which maintains a masonry boundary fence of 1.8-2m yet an adequate height wall to avoid overlooking from the courtyards. It may be possible to step up gradually to a higher wall from the boundary.

 

6.  Disabled Access:

All ground floor of all units should be visitable by a person with a disability and should provide at least one bathroom on the ground floor that is useable by a person in a wheelchair. Only a few of the units comply with these requirements.

 

7.  Waste Management:

a)   The bin storage area along the pedestrian entry path is not appropriate and should be replaced with a garbage room in the basement.

b)   Council’s waste collection service will not enter the site to collect bins nor is there space available in front of the property to place bins for collection. As a result, the development must rely on private bin collection service and this must occur on the site. This will require access and manoeuvring in the basement by a small truck.

 

8.  Floor Space Ratio:

The shading on the FSR diagrams provided suggests that some areas have been excluded from the gross floor area calculations that should not have been. This may result in a non-compliant FSR and should be checked. Please note that stairs should be included on all levels (except the basement).

 

9.  Side Setbacks:

The side setbacks should generally be increased to at least 1.5m (some minor variations may be acceptable).

 

10. Scale of Drawings:

The plans lodged with the application appear to have been reduced slightly in the printing process and consequently do not scale correctly. Please correct this in any amended plans.

 

11. Materials and Finishes:

The proposal relies excessively on painted render, especially on lower levels where it is more subject to wear and tear. It is recommended that lower levels adopt a greater use of face brick, especially boundary walls and the bases of garden beds and planter boxes.

Due to the location of the heritage item to the rear of the site, the materials and finishes should make some reference to this structure and adopt a dark or muted face brick, especially where the proposal is visible adjacent to the item (i.e. from Allman Avenue). In particular, it is suggested that the masonry wall on the rear boundary be finished in a suitable dark red toned face brick.

17.2015.70

 

 

5.0       Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

 

The site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013.

The property is located within the vicinity of heritage item No. I-469 at 7 Allman Avenue.

 

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

 

6.0       Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

6.1       The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

6.1.1    Local Environmental Plans

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

 

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

 

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Summary Compliance Table

Clause No.

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

2.3

Zone objectives and land use table

Zone R3 Medium density residential

Multi-dwelling housing

Yes

4.1

Minimum subdivision lot size

500m2

2,339.2m2

N/A

4.3

Height of buildings

12.5m

10.9m

Yes

4.4

Floor space ratio

0.7:1

0.7:1

Yes

5.10

Heritage Conservation

Located in the vicinity of:

·  Heritage Item No. I – 469 (7 Allman Avenue, Summer Hill)  C42

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).

The matter has been reviewed by Council’s heritage advisor and is considered satisfactory. See attached comments.

 

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.

A heritage management document has been submitted.

 

Yes

6.2(3)

Flood Planning

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

6.2(3)(a)

 

is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

6.2(3)(b)

 

will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

6.2(3)(c)

 

incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

6.2(3)(d)

 

will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of the river banks of waterways, and

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

6.2(3)(e)

 

is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

Flood affectation assessed as satisfactory by Council’s engineer.

Yes

 

 

As demonstrated in the above table above table, the proposed development 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

 

The applicant has provided a Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment which concludes that:

 

The risk posed to the receptors is moderate and will require remediation and/or management.

 

The site can be made suitable for the proposed development provided that the following recommendations are implemented to address the data gaps and to minimise the risks:

 

1. Prepare a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) to outline remedial measures for the site;

2. Prepare a Validation Assessment (VA) report on completion of remediation; and Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment

3. Undertake a Hazardous Materials Assessment (Hazmat) for the existing buildings prior to the commencement of demolition work.

 

Should the application be approved, these recommendations would be included as conditions of development consent.

 

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65:

Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Complies

28

Determination of Development Applications

28(1)

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

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

Yes

 

28(2)

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

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

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

(c)  the Apartment Design Guide.

Yes

28(2)(b)

The design quality principles

1.

Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

The proposal responds appropriately to the character of the locality in that it is of a low discrete scale which is sympathetic to the character of adjacent buildings.

Yes

2.

Principle 2: Built form and scale

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

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

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

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

Yes

3.

Principle 3: Density

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

The density is consistent with the FSR nominated for the site by ALEP 2013.

Yes

4.

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

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

 

Yes

5.

Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

The landscaping satisfactorily addresses the following:

·    A large central communal landscaped area is provided;

·    Provision for deep soil planting is provided around the perimeter of the site;

 

Despite this, the landscape area fails to meet Council’s requirements by 3.5% (82m2). This is approximately the area occupied by the footprint of Unit 5. It’s deletion from the scheme would result in adequate landscaped area and also a less claustrophobic entry path as well as opportunity for the planting of several large canopy trees. Amendment recommended by way of deferred commencement condition of consent.

No -

Condition

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 wellbeing.

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

Residential amenity is adequate:

·    Suitable internal layouts;

·    Adequate solar access and cross ventilation;

·    Adequate visual and acoustic privacy;

·    Suitable site layout.

Yes

7.

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well-lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

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

Yes

8.

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.

Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

A suitable range of units sizes is provided from 2 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 satisfactory in the context of the site.

Yes

28(2)(c)

Apartment Design Guide

Part 3

Siting the development

3B

Orientation

On merit.

 

Orientation to the street is appropriate in the context.

Yes

3C

Public domain interface

On merit.

 

Appropriate in the context.

Yes

3D-1

Communal open space

Communal open space: min. 25% site area:

585m2

19%

(452m2)

 

Deletion of Unit 5 would result in an additional 143m2 of communal space and a total area of 595m2 and a compliant area of 25%.

Condition

 

 

Solar access to communal open space

Excellent solar access to communal open space.

Yes

3D-3

Communal open space is designed to maximise safety

Safety

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

Yes

3E-1

Deep soil zones

7% min dimension 3m:

164m2

16%

(380m2)

Yes

3F1

Building Separation

(up to four storeys)

6 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and side boundaries

 

3 metres between habitable rooms/balconies or blank walls and side boundaries

·   Side boundaries: 0.7m

This is considered inadequate by

·   Internal separation: 9-11m

·   Rear boundary: 4-7m

·   North boundary: 1.5-6m

 

Generally these distances are considered adequate to provide adequate privacy given that the proposal is generally of a two storey townhouse form (it only falls under SEPP 65 by virtue of a small three storey element). Suitable location of courtyard walls and planting assist in this regard.

The only unsatisfactory elements are the upper level balconies which would result in an unnecessary intrusion upon adjacent properties and are recommended for deleted by way of deferred commencement condition.

Condition

3F-2

Privacy

 

Satisfactory apart from first floor balconies which will be deleted by way of deferred commencement condition.

Condition

3J-1

Car parking

· 88m of railway or light rail station; or

· In or within 400m of B3/B4 land

Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013

Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013

Yes

Part 4

Designing the Building

4A-1(1)

Solar & daylight access

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

100%

Yes

4A-1(3)

Solar & daylight access

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

0%

Yes

4B-3(1)

Natural ventilation

Natural cross ventilation: min. 60% of apartments

100%

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 have ground floor courtyards.

N/A

4E-1(2)

Private open space & balconies

Min. Courtyard size/depth:

· 15m2/3m

All units comply.

Yes

4F-1(1)

Common circulation spaces

Max. apartments off a single core: 8

N/A – All apartments are accessible at ground level

N/A

4F-1(2)

Common circulation spaces

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

N/A – All apartments are accessible at ground level

N/A

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 site is well separated from road and traffic noise.

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.

The configuration of the site does not permit any apartments to directly address the street. This is acceptable given the site circumstances.

Acceptable

4L-2

Ground floor apartments

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

No courtyards have a street interface.

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.

Use of roof space is not considered appropriate in this medium density zone.

Yes

4N-3

Roof design

Roof design incorporates sustainability features.

The roof will be appropriately insulated.

Yes

4O

Landscape design

 

The landscape area and design is considered of inadequate size with inadequate provision of canopy trees. Conditions will be applied requiring:

· 4 canopy trees in the location of Unit 5; and

· 2 canopy trees in the western central courtyard.

Condition

4P-1

Planting on structures

Min. Soil depths:

· 12-18m trees: 1.2m deep & 10m x 10m

· 8-12m trees: 1.0m deep & 6m x 6m

· 6-8m trees: 0.8m deep & 3.5m x 3.5m

· Shrubs: 0.5m – 0.6m deep

· Ground cover: 0.3m – 0.45m deep

· Turf: 0.2m deep

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

Yes

4Q-2

Universal design

Adaptable housing in accordance with Council policy.

Only 2 of the units are adaptable whereas Council’s policy requires all units to be accessible at ground level and have visitable bathrooms.

 

A deferred commencement condition of consent will be applied.

Condition

4R-1

Adaptive reuse

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

New construction - not applicable.

N/A

4S-2

Mixed use

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

Residential use only – not applicable.

N/A

4T-1

Awnings and signage

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

No awnings proposed – not applicable.

N/A

4T-2

Awnings and signage

Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.

No signage proposed – not applicable.

N/A

4U

Energy efficiency

 

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

Yes

4V

Water management

 

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

Yes

4W

Waste management

 

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

The waste management and collection arrangements would be satisfactory.

Yes

4X-3

Building maintenance

Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.

Much of the proposal is painted render. To increase durability, low maintenance materials (e.g. dark coloured face brick) will be proposed at ground level and for fences and dwarf walls.

Condition

 

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

The proposal is not located on a classified road and does not propose excavation within 25m of a rail corridor. As such, it is not subject to the provisions of the SEPP.

 

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

 

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to the site.

 

6.3       The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

 

The Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy IDAP applies to the site. Please see Section 6.8 below.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed development is generally acceptable and with recommended modifications to reduce the number of units, deletion of balconies and other changes will ensure that its impact on the locality is acceptable.

 

6.6       The suitability of the site for the development

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal was notified to all adjoining and nearby affected property owners and occupants, and Councillors from 7 April 2016 until 2 May 2016. Notification was checked during site inspection and was acceptable.

 

6.7.1    Summary of submissions

 

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

 

Submission

Owners’ Corporation - Summer Hill NSW 2130

J. Carreno - Summer Hill NSW 2130

S. Ho - Summer Hill NSW 2130

K. Tong - Summer Hill NSW 2130

 

 

Submission Issue

Assessing Officer’s Comment

The boundary wall with units 3 and 4 of 104 Carlton Crescent provides excellent privacy and protection and should be retained.

There is no purpose served by the removal of this wall and a condition will be added requiring its retention.

Potential damage to the landscaping or structure of adjacent properties.

Conditions will be applied requiring the preparation by the developer of a dilapidation report and rectification of any damage to adjacent properties resulting from construction.

Proposal is more satisfactory than previous scheme.

Agreed.

Concern about damage to trees near boundary with 104 Carlton Crescent.

There should be no need for any structures on adjacent properties to be moved or damaged during the construction process. Conditions will be applied requiring the preparation by the developer of a dilapidation report and rectification of any damage to adjacent properties resulting from construction.

Over development in Summer Hill.

The proposal, along with other development in the vicinity, is generally consistent with the density of development envisaged by Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Loss of “small village vibe”.

This development is unlikely to have a material impact on the specific character of the locality.

Excessive through traffic.

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineer and the traffic generation is within the capacity of the local road network.

Exacerbation of on-street parking shortages.

The proposal is deficient in car parking spaces and a condition will be applied to reduce the size of the development so that compliance is achieved.

Strain on local infrastructure.

Should the proposal be approved, the developer will be required to pay development contributions which help fund new community infrastructure.

Stormwater drainage issues.

Conditions will be applied to ensure that the development applies best practice in storm water drainage design which should result in the correction or improvement of any existing storm water issues.

Height of buildings is greater than the existing warehouse.

Although the buildings are greater in height than the existing warehouse, they are considerably lower than the maximum height limit for the site and the height is considered acceptable.

Loss of privacy to properties at the rear in Allman Avenue.

Conditions will be applied to:

·    Delete first floor balconies;

·    Preserve of the rear boundary walls to a height capable of preserving privacy to the Allman Avenue properties.

Overshadowing to adjacent Allman Avenue properties.

The proposal involves the lowering of an existing high masonry boundary wall adjacent to properties on Allman Avenue. This will significantly increase the amount of solar access to these buildings notwithstanding the provision of some planting along the boundary.

Balconies facing Allman Avenue should be removed.

Conditions will be applied requiring the removal of any upper level balconies.

Large first floor bedroom windows could impact on privacy of adjacent properties in Allman Avenue.

Bedroom windows are not generally considered to present an unacceptable privacy impact due to the low intensity use of these rooms.

Any new boundary fence should be constructed and maintained by the developer.

Conditions will be applied requiring the construction of low maintenance face brick fences on all boundaries of the site at the developer’s cost.

The colour of any new buildings should be conservative.

Given the isolated nature of the site and its lack of visibility from the street, the proposed contemporary character is considered acceptable.

Lawn and trees to southern boundary should be common property.

These elements are part of the required private open space of the adjacent units. Communal area is provided in the centre of the development.

Construction will be noisy and disruptive for surrounding residents.

Standard conditions will be applied setting construction hours and noise restrictions.

 

6.8       The public interest

 

Matters of the public interest have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

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

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C1: Access, Adaptability and Mobility

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Part C1

Access, Adaptability and Mobility

2.3(i)

 

Universal Accessible Design

Villas and Townhouses, being dwellings which are one, two or three storeys, within R3 Medium Density Residential Zone where each dwelling has its own ground level entry and private open space:

 

All ground level apartments must comply with universal accessible design principles in design checklist 1.

Townhouse style

Noted

2.4

Adaptable Housing

10%

12%

Units 1 and 17 have been nominated as adaptable.

Yes

2.5

Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements

Site conditions

The site conditions are complicated by flood affectation. The height limit, however, is ample and would not preclude modification of the proposal to provide compliant access.

No

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.

Only 2 of the 17 units comply with this requirement.

 

This can be resolved by way of deferred commencement condition.

No -

Deferred commencement condition

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.

 

This can be addressed by way of condition.

No –

Condition

6.4

Access from street to dwelling entry

Access from the street into the entry area of each townhouse by a person with a disability.

Only 2 of the 17 units comply with this requirement.

 

This can be resolved by way of deferred commencement condition.

No -

 

Deferred commencement condition

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 2 of the 17 units comply with this requirement.

 

This can be resolved by way of deferred commencement condition.

No

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.

The ground level private open spaces are accessible.

Yes

6.7

Access to car parking

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

Lift has been provided.

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 generally satisfactory in scale and appearance.

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 character of the lychgate is acceptable in the streetscape but its setback is not consistent with adjacent development. Conditions will be applied to increase its setback to 4.4m.

Condition

3.5(b)

 

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

The lychgate is not adequately set back.

 

Conditions will be applied to any consent to increase its setback to 4.4m.

Condition

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 buildings are adequately 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 bichromatic (two colour) face brick with gabled/hipped terra cotta tiled pitched roof forms with no reflective materials that may cause glare.

The built form is appropriate.

Yes

3.5(e)

 

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

Not applicable due to the hatchet style form of the site.

N/A

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.

N/A

3.5(g)

 

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

The basement ramp is well screened from the street.

Yes

3.6

Fences and walls

 

 

 

3.6(a)

 

Front fences and walls to be compatible with the streetscape.

The lychgate is set too far forward but this can be addressed by way of condition.

Condition

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 lychgate is set too far forward but this can be addressed by way of condition.

Condition

4

Housing Density

4.3

Floor Space Ratios

0.7:1

0.7:1

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.

The lychgate is set too far forward but this can be addressed by way of condition.

Condition

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.

Generally satisfactory.

Yes

5.8

 

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

Generally consistent with surrounding properties.

Yes

5.9

Building Height

12.5m as per height for R3 Medium Density Residential Zones, Code M in Ashfield LEP 2013.

9.5m

Yes

5.9(a)

 

3 storeys maximum height

3 storeys

Yes

5.9(b)

 

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

No fourth storey proposed.

N/A


 

5.11

 

Height of the first floor no to exceed

3.4m.

Up to 4.2m.

Unavoidable due to required flood levels.

Satisfactory

5.12

 

Additional 4th storey in roof space permitted subject to:

a) consistent with any conservation area listing;

b) space wholly contained within a roof not exceeding 30º (excepting dormer windows); no lower than 22dand roof ridge does not exceed the maximum building height.

c) sunlight, privacy, views and ventilation protected; and

d) compliant with LEP height limit.

No fourth storey proposed.

N/A

5.13

 

No increased wall heights or larger than average dormer windows permitted to achieve the additional level permitted under cl. 5.12.

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.

No principal areas of private open space on adjacent properties would be overshadowed unacceptably by the development.

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.

All courtyards will receive adequate solar access.

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.

Solar access will be significantly increased to the buildings to the south.

Yes

5.16(d)

 

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

All north facing windows would receive excellent solar access.

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.

All windows comply.

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 proposed at first and second floor level and are unacceptable. A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring their deletion.

Condition

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.

Balconies are proposed at first and second floor level and are unacceptable as they would overlook the private open space of adjacent properties. A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring their deletion.

Condition

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 not required.

N/A

6.4

 

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

Elevated courtyards on south and side boundaries result in unacceptable overlooking of the adjacent properties which has not been adequately addressed by way of detailed design. These can be addressed by way of condition.

Condition

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.

Walls adjacent side boundaries are excessively high – will be lowered by the proposal.

No

6.10

 

All dwellings should have an open outlook to an area of landscaping or open space not compromised by privacy measures.

Complies.

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 courtyards meet the minimum area requirements.

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.

N/A

N/A

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: 175m2

452m2

 

 

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.

The landscaped area is deficient.

No

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.

Complies.

Yes

9.4

 

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

No shared entries proposed.

N/A

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.

All units face north and have excellent exposure to northern winter sunlight.

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, & 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.

Council’s engineer has reviewed the proposal and has assessed it as acceptable subject to conditions.

Yes

12

Site Facilities

12.8

Storage

Must be adequately screened from frontage.

All storage is well concealed 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 been nominated.

Yes

12.10

Clothes drying

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

No communal clothes drying facilities are proposed.

N/A

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.

No

12.12

Television aerials

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

Not nominated but can be included via a condition.

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

3 spaces

Yes

4.2

Bicycle and Motor Cycle Parking

Bicycle spaces:

·   1 space per 10 units = 2

 

Motor cycle spaces:

·   1 space per 25 spaces = 1

Bicycle spaces:

·   0

 

Motor cycle spaces:

·   0

(note: could be easily located in each unit’s ample basement storage area).

No

 

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 = 24

 

Visitor spaces:

·   1 space per 5 units = 3

 

Car wash bay:

·   1 space = 1

 

TOTAL:  29

Residential spaces:

·   22

 

Visitor spaces:

·   3

 

Car wash bay:

1 space = 1

 

Car parking is deficient by:

·   2 resident spaces

·   1 visitor spaces:

Total deficiency: 2 spaces

 

This is indicative of overdevelopment. It could, however, be rectified by the deletion of unit 5 which would result in a requirement for 22 resident spaces which is the number provided.

No

 

Deferred commencement condition to delete unit 5

5.0

Design Requirements

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

Satisfactory or capable of compliance.

Yes

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C12: Public Notification

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Section 2

Notification Process

 

The application was notified in accordance with this part.

Yes

 

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

PartD1: Planning for Less Waste

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

 

Bin Numbers

 

Residential (17 dwellings):

·   1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=9 bins

·   1 x 240L recycling bin/2 dwellings=9 bins

·   TOTAL: 18 bins

Residential:

TOTAL: 20 bins

 

Yes

 

Bin Presentation

 

Bins cannot be presented on the street for collection by Council but this has been reviewed by Council’s waste services & determined to be acceptable in this instance.

Yes

 

It is considered the application, subject to appropriate conditions, will achieve acceptable compliance with the aims and objectives of the AIDAP 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 conditions.

Yes

Heritage Advisor

No objection.

Yes

Environmental Health Officer

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

SEPP 65 Advisor

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

Waste Management

Supported.

Yes

 

External Referrals

Referral Body

Comments

Support

NSW Police

Supported subject to conditions.

Yes

 

8.0       Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

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

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

See 8.0

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION


See 7.7

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

 

The proposal complies with the provisions of Ashfield LEP 2013, in particular in respect of height and floor space ratio, and achieves general compliance with the planning provisions applicable to the site. Despite this, a number of issues remain including inadequate communal open space (under the SEPP 65 requirements), landscaped area and car parking, privacy issues due to first floor balconies, and some technical traffic circulation issues.

 

These issues, however, could be readily addressed by modifications to the design including the deletion of one unit (to increase communal open space and arrive at compliant car parking) and the deletion of the first floor balconies (to improve privacy impacts).

 

To address these matters, suitable deferred commencement conditions have been recommended and with the required modifications will result in an acceptable development.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Heritage Advice

2.

Plans of Proposal

3.

Submissions

4.

Conditions

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 7

Subject:         Section 82A Review Application - 669 King Street, St Peters  

File Ref:         DA201600157.01/103738.16         

Prepared By: Albert Madrigal - Development Assessment Officer, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

 

The report concerns a review request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to review Determination No. 201600157, dated 1 June 2016, being a refusal of a development application to carry out building works and use the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence. The review request was not required to be notified in accordance with Council's notification policy.

 

The development seeks retrospective use of the ground floor as commercial offices (including the use of 2 unauthorised offices constructed at the rear of the site) and building works to the first floor dwelling. The development results in a departure of 32.87sqm or 26% from the FSR development standard prescribed by Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011). The application was accompanied by a written request under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the variation which is supported. The extent of the proposed non-compliances is not considered to result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

The matter is referred to the Administrator for determination due to the extent of the departure from the FSR development standard, which exceeds officer’s delegation. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the review request must be determined no later than 1 December 2016.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Section 82A review request is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in accordance with Part E of this report and including endorsement of action B contained therein.

 

 

PART A - PARTICULARS

 

Location:                     Western side of King Street, between May Street and Goodsell Street, St Peters. The western (rear) boundary of the site adjoins May Lane.

 

                                                           Image 1: Location Map

DA No:                         201600157.01

Application Date:        4 July 2016. Additional information submitted on 25 August 2016.

Proposal:                     To carry out building works and use the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence.

Applicant:                    John Yiek Ng

Estimated Cost:          $18,000

Zoning:                        B5 - Business Development

 

 

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

 

Improvements:            2 storey mixed use development

 

                     Image 2: The Site

 

Current Use:               Mixed-use development

 

Prior Determinations:          Determination No. 200000157, dated 23 June 2000, approved the use of the premises for the manufacture of latex products with ancillary retailing and to erect associated signage.

 

                                      Determination No. 200200107, dated 5 July 2002, approved alterations and additions to the premises; including the use of the ground floor for the manufacture of latex products with ancillary retailing and the first floor as an associated dwelling.  That consent was modified on 28 November 2003 under Determination No. 200200107.02 to construct a balcony off the first floor kitchen on the above property.

 

Environment:              Mixed-use, commercial and industrial

PART D - ASSESSMENT

 

1.      The Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the western side of King Street, between May Street and Goodsell Street, St Peters. The western (rear) boundary of the site adjoins May Lane. The site contains a legal description as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 136754. The site contains and area of approximately 150.39sqm.

 

The site contains a 2 storey mixed use building with the ground floor being dedicated to a commercial use and the first floor being a residential use. The rear of the site contains a single parking space within a garage structure with direct access to May Lane. The streetscape generally consists of commercial, industrial and mixed-uses.

 

2.       Background

 

Approval was granted by Council under Determination No. 200000157, dated 23 June 2000, to use the premises for the manufacture of latex products with ancillary retailing and to erect associated signage.

 

Determination No. 200200107, dated 5 July 2002, approved alterations and additions to the premises; including the use of the ground floor for the manufacture of latex products with ancillary retailing and the first floor as an associated dwelling.  That consent was modified under Determination No. 200200107.02 on 28 November 2003, to construct a balcony off the first floor kitchen on the above property.

 

Determination No. 201600157, dated 1 June 2016, refused a development application to carry out building works and use of the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence on the above property.

 

The application sought approval for the following unauthorised works:

 

Ground Floor

 

·        Change of use of the ground floor from an industrial use to a commercial use with the provision of 4 office rooms within the ground floor of the building, including the conversion of an existing undercroft area at the rear of the building into 2 office spaces.

 

First Floor

 

·        Unauthorised conversion of the first floor balcony into a kitchen; and

·        Use of 2 additional bathrooms; including 1 bathroom within the patio area.

 

Additionally, the application sought approval for the following proposed building works:

 

Ground Floor

 

·        Close the existing internal access between the ground and first floors by means of a new wall so that the respective uses are independent;

·        Reinstate the wall between the rear pedestrian access and the existing garage;

·        Remove the ground floor storage area adjoining the garage to provide a separate pedestrian entryway from May Lane and provision of new steps with landing.

 

First Floor

 

·        Reinstate the rear access to the first floor residence by re-opening the doorway /access that led to the lane and that provide access to the ground level open space courtyard;

·        Construction of a new wall to separate the hall and the lounge room of the dwelling; and

·        Construction of new skylights over existing Bedroom 1 and 2.

The development application was refused for the following reasons:

 

1.       The development exceeds the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the applicant failed to provide a submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 to justify the variation to the FSR development standard.

 

2.       The development does not provide adequate solar access and natural air ventilation to the property. Accordingly, the development fails to comply with the objectives and controls relating to overshadowing and solar access as contained in Part 2.7 – Solar Access and Overshadowing of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

3.       The development is unsatisfactory regarding the provision of adequate private open space. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to Part 2.18 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

4.       The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

5.       The proposed development results in a substandard level of residential amenity for the occupants of the site and cannot be supported.

 

6.       In view of the above, approval of the application would not be in the public interest.

 

3.       Review Request

 

A development application review request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has been submitted to Council on 4 July 2016. The applicant submitted amended plans and additional information to address the reasons for refusal under Determination No. 201600157. 

 

Details of the amended plans and additional information in relation to the development are provided below:

 

Ground Floor Plan

 

·        Retain the change of use proposal from an industrial use to a commercial use, including the provision of 4 unauthorised ground floor offices as proposed under DA201600157 (including the unauthorised construction of 2 offices within a building undercroft at the rear of the site);

·        Brick up access of stairway entry on the ground floor to the first floor to maintain the dwelling and commercial space as 2 separate tenancies. It was observed on a site visit on 26 August 2016 that this was already completed; and

·        Re-install a fire rated wall in the garage in accordance with Determination No. 200200107.02.

 

First Floor Plan

 

·        Remove the unauthorised first floor kitchen and reinstate the first floor balcony in  accordance with Determination No. 200200107.02;

·        Remove the first floor bathroom and reinstate the side patio in  accordance with Determination No. 200200107.02;

·        Retain the unauthorised first floor bathroom adjacent to the patio;

·        Provision of a skylight for Bedroom 3 as proposed under DA201600157;

·        Retrospective approval for a skylight in Bedroom 2; and

·        Remove first floor cupboard and provide doorway access to reinstate the rear access to the first floor residence from the rear lane in accordance with Determination No. 200200107.02.

 

Clause 4.6 Submission

 

The applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 objection pursuant to MLEP 2011 in relation to the development’s variation to the Floor Space Ratio Standards under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011. This matter will be discussed in the next section of the report.

 

It is noted that the application seeks approval to carry out minor building works and approval for the use of the ground floor as a commercial premise with additional office space at the rear. A separate Building Certificate must be obtained to regularise the unauthorised building works.

 

A copy of the site plan and ‘as-built’ and proposed floor plans and elevations of the development submitted with the application are reproduced below:

 

                                  Image 2: Existing (‘as-built’) Ground Floor Plan

 

                                       Image 3: Proposed Ground Floor Plan

                                    Image 4: Existing (‘as-built) First Floor Plan

 

                                  Image 5: Proposed First Floor Plan

 

                                   Image 6: Existing (‘as-built’) Roof Plan

 

                                         Image 7: Proposed Roof Plan

 

                                             Image 8: Elevations

 

                                                Image 9: Section Plan

 

4.       Merit Assessment

 

An assessment of the additional information submitted by the applicant as part of the Section 82A review request is provided below.

 

The assessment concludes that the amended plans and additional information submitted by the applicant satisfactorily addresses the reasons for refusal contained in Determination No. 201600157.

 

(i)         Reason for refusal 1: The development exceeds the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and the applicant failed to provide a submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 to justify the variation to the FSR development standard.

 

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 applies to the land under MLEP 2011. The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 160.7sqm which equates to an FSR of 1.07:1 on the 150.39sqm site. This results in a FSR departure of 32.87sqm or 26% which does not comply with the FSR development standard.

The amended plans reinstate the balcony and patio of the first floor area, thus reducing the proposed GFA as proposed under the refused application (DA201600157) from 171.8sqm to 160.7sqm. However, the retention of the 2 unauthorised offices at the rear of the site (constructed within a former undercroft area of the building) under the S82A Review Request continues to contribute to the exceedance in FSR of the site.

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

·        The variation does not result in any adverse internal amenity impacts. The additional 2 offices are located on the ground floor level at the rear of the building and occupy what was previously a very low amenity undercroft area. The undercroft area had poor light and sun access and its removal is of no particular consequence in terms of amenity within the site;

·        The additional floor space that was created through the construction of the offices has no influence on the bulk and scale of the building on the site. This is because the offices are located in the former undercroft area and thus their construction did not alter the approved building height, setbacks, deep soil landscaping, or site coverage. The variation is therefore of no consequence in terms of building height, bulk and scale;

·        The ground floor undercroft location of the offices negates any visual or streetscape impacts. The offices are not visible from the laneway (because of the intervening presence of the existing garage), are not visible from neighbouring properties, and are not visible from King Street. The variation is therefore of no consequence in terms of urban design, streetscape or visual impact;

·        The variation is numerically minor. The offices have a combined floor area of slightly less than 20sqm (approximately 10sqm each). The offices will not have a discernible impact on the intensity of the use of the property.

·        From a town planning perspective the additional floor space that has been constructed does not manifest in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Strict application of the development standard would therefore be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the site;

·        The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and the objectives for development within the B5 business development zone. The zone objectives envisage and encourage a range of compatible uses and specifically business and residential (noting the enabling provisions of clause 2.5 of the LEP). The additional floor space relates to business use and the residential use of the upper floor remains. The additional floor space promotes viable business use of the ground floor level of the building and the mix of uses is as encouraged by the zone objectives;

·        The variation does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning; and

·        There is no public benefit that would be achieved by maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

As demonstrated in the assessment provided in this report, the FSR variation does not result in any adverse amenity impacts (visual, overshadowing or privacy) for the residents of adjoining properties and the development results in negligible visual impacts to the street.

 The unauthorised offices do not add any additional bulk, height or scale to the building, being constructed within a former undercroft area within the existing building footprint. The development does not increase the site coverage over the site, and maintains the existing parking space and private open space areas.

The proposal conforms to the desired land use objectives of the B5- Business Development zone under MLEP 2011, which encourages a mix of compatible land uses to support the business centre. The proposal maximises the use of an otherwise underutilised undercroft area with poor amenity by creating additional commercial floor space in the vicinity.

The variation to the FSR standard is reasonable in context of the change in planning controls over the site. Under the previous determination for the development (Determination No. 200200107, dated 5 July 2002), the maximum FSR permitted for the site was 1:1 pursuant to Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2001 (MLEP 2001). The development was approved with an FSR of approximately 1:1, which complied with the development standard.

The gazettal of MLEP 2011 reduced the permissible FSR of the site from 1:1 to 0.85:1. While the unauthorised offices at the rear of the site have increased the overall GFA and FSR of the development (approximately 20sqm and 7% respectively), a substantial portion of FSR increase is due to the reduction of the FSR development standard under Clause 4.4 of  MLEP 2011, not due to any substantial increase in the GFA of the site. Accordingly, the FSR variation is considered reasonable in view of the planning context of the site and the minor increase to the GFA of the building.

It is considered that the contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State and regional environmental planning, and that there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard for the proposed development. In view of the above discussion, the variation to the FSR development standard under Clause 4.4 of MLEP 2011 is supported.

 

(ii)        Reason for refusal 2: The development does not provide adequate solar access and natural air ventilation to the property. Accordingly, the development fails to comply with the objectives and controls relating to overshadowing and solar access as contained in Part 2.7 – Solar Access and Overshadowing of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

The amended plans submitted with the S82A review request provide adequate solar access and natural air ventilation to the development in accordance with the objectives and controls of Part 2.7 of MDCP 2011 and Part 4 of MDCP 2011 for the following reasons:

 

·        The reinstatement of the first floor balcony in accordance with the approved plans under Determination No 200200107.02 (resulting in the deletion of the unauthorised kitchen) will maximise solar access and natural air ventilation to the first floor living/dining room;

·        The deletion of the unauthorised bathroom, reinstatement of the first floor patio and removal of the canopy roof over the first floor patio in accordance with the approved plans under Determination No 200200107.02 will allow direct solar access and natural air circulation to penetrate through the bathroom and bedroom windows bordering the patio;

·        The proposed skylight over Bedroom 1 will maximise ambient solar access to the bedroom; and

·        1 out of the 2 additional offices will have no access to an operable window. Control (C13), Part 2.7.5.3 of MDCP 2011 requires commercial development to be designed to maximise direct solar access to the building and reduce reliance on artificial lighting and heating. However, given the existing site constraints (the offices being constructed in an undercroft area, narrow site width and existing building being built on the zero lot line of the side boundaries of the site), the provision of 1 additional office without an operable window is considered reasonable in this instance.

 

(iii)       Reason for Refusal 3: The development is unsatisfactory regarding the provision of adequate private open space. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to Part 2.18 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

 

The amended plans submitted with the S82A review request reinstate the first floor residential balcony with a total area of approximately 9sqm as approved under Determination No. 200200107.02. The amended application addresses the private open space objectives under Part 2.18 of MDCP 2011 in that the amended plans reinstate a usable outdoor recreation space approved for the first floor residential component of the development as approved under Determination No. 200200107.02.

 

(iv)       Reason for Refusal 4: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The amended plans and additional information submitted with the S82A review request demonstrate that the development promotes the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that:

 

·        The modified proposal resolves the inadequate solar access, private open space and natural air ventilation for the property resulting from the unauthorised building works on the first floor residence and maintains the integrity of the originally approved development under Determination No. 2002107.02;

·        The conversion of the industrial use on the ground floor to a commercial use and additional construction of 2 offices at the rear of the site is in keeping with the objectives of the B5- Business Development Zone under MLEP 2011 in which commercial/mixed-uses are permissible in the zone and the zoning objectives encourages a mix of business uses to support the viability of business centres;

·        The provision of 2 offices at the rear of the site maximises the otherwise underutilised undercroft area of the building with poor amenity with regard to solar access;

·        No adverse amenity impacts arise from the proposal with regard to overshadowing, privacy or urban design/streetscape impacts; and

·        The application is not envisaged to provide any adverse parking/traffic impacts to the vicinity. The application maintains the provision of 1 car parking space for the entire site as approved under Determination No. 2002107.02. Given the site is located approximately within 200 metres walking distance to  St Peters Station and bus stops servicing King Street, it is considered that any minor intensification of the use of the site is offset by the existing car parking space and close proximity to frequent public transport services. In view of the above, the development is not considered to present any adverse parking or traffic issues.

 

(v)          Reason for Refusal 5: The proposed development results in a substandard level of residential amenity for the occupants of the site and cannot be supported.

 

In view of the improved solar access, natural air ventilation and private open space for the development as discussed previously, the amended plans demonstrate that the proposal maintains adequate internal amenity for the residents of the building.

 

(vi)         Reason for Refusal 6: In view of the above, approval of the application would not be in the public interest.

 

This matter is satisfied by the S82A review request for the following reasons:

 

·        The amended plans improve solar access, natural air ventilation and private open space for the residents of the site in accordance with the objectives and controls of Part 2.7, Part 2.18 and Part 4 of MDCP 2011;

·        The development provides negligible urban design/streetscape impacts on the surrounding vicinity;

·        The development is not likely to generate a substantial demand in parking and/or traffic considering the low intensity use (containing 4 office spaces), existing parking space and close proximity to public transport services; and

·        The development conforms to the desired land use objectives of the B5- Business Development zone of MLEP 2011 in that it will facilitate a mix of business uses in the vicinity.

 

5.       Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

 

Under Section 82A (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Council, when considering a request to review a Determination, must:

 

(a)     notify the request for review in accordance with:

(i)    the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)   a development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b)     consider any submissions made concerning the request for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c)     in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, be satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

As part of the review request the applicant has made amendments to the development. It is considered that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

 

6.       Conclusion

 

The request has been reviewed in accordance with Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration.

 

The Section 82A review request is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

 

 

PART E – RECOMMENDATION

 

A.      THAT the review request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to review Determination No. 201600157 dated 3 May 2016 be APPROVED and a new Determination be issued approving the application to carry out building works and use the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL

 

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

 

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

Date Submitted

Job No. NG24/15

Dwg. No. 2

Site Plan

3 March 2016

Casa Studio

4 July 2016

Job No. NG24/15

Dwg. No. 3

Proposed First Floor Plan

3 March 2016

Casa Studio

4 July 2016

Job No. NG24/15

Dwg. No. 4

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

3 March 2016

Casa Studio

4 July 2016

Job No. NG24/15

Dwg. No. 8

Front & Rear Elevations

3 March 2015

Casa Studio

4 July 2016

Job No. NG24/15

Dwg. No. 9

Section A-A

3 March 2015

Casa Studio

4 July 2016

 

and details submitted to Council on 4 July 2016 and 25 August 2016 and with the application for development consent and as amended by the following conditions.

 

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

 

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

(b)  any relevant requirements of this consent,

 

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

 

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

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

3.   The use of the ground floor commercial tenancies complying with the following requirements at all times:

 

a)      The commercial use must be restricted to the ground floor commercial tenancies. Any residential use on the ground floor of the premises is prohibited;

b)      The office/reception window display area at the front of the property (adjacent to King Street) must be maintained at all times with no roller shutters being installed across the shopfronts;

c)      The hours of operation are restricted to between the hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday and not at any time on Sundays or public holidays;

d)      All loading and unloading in connection with the use must be carried out wholly within the property from the dedicated loading space at the rear of the site, during the approved hours of operation and in such a manner so as to not cause an inconvenience to the public;

e)      No storage of goods or equipment external to any building on the site is permitted; and

f)       No signs or goods must be displayed for sale or stored on the footpath in front of the premises at any time without the prior approval of Council.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the commercial uses are confined to the ground floor areas, to preserve the streetscape and character of the area and to ensure that the operation of the premises does not interfere with the amenity of the locality.

 

4.   The dwelling on the first floor of the premises must be used exclusively as a single dwelling and not be adapted for use as backpackers’ accommodation, sex services premises, serviced apartments or a boarding house and not be used for any industrial or commercial purpose.

Reason:     To ensure that the dwelling is used exclusively as a single dwelling.

 

5.   1 off-street car parking space must be provided, paved and maintained at all times in accordance with the standards contained within Part 2.10 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Parking.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Reason:     To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

 

9.   Separate Development Consent or Complying Development Certificate must be obtained prior to the erection of any advertisements or advertising structures.  The office/reception window at the front of the property (adjacent to King Street) must not be painted with advertisements and no flashing lights are to be installed on the premises.

          Reason:     To confirm the terms of Council’s approval.

 

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

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

 

 

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

 

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

 

11.     No work must commence until:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

13.     Sanitary facilities must be provided at or in the vicinity of the work site in accordance     with the WorkCover Authority of NSW, Code of Practice ‘Amenities for Construction’.      Each toilet must be connected to the sewer, septic or portable chemical toilet before     work commences. Facilities must be located so that they will not cause a nuisance.

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

 

14.     All demolition work must:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

   Reason:  To protect the amenity of the area.

 

16.     All services in the building being demolished must be disconnected in accordance with     the requirements of the responsible authorities before work commences.

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

 

17.    A waste management plan must be prepared in accordance with Part 2.21 of     Marrickville    Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management     and must be submitted to and accepted by the PCA before work commences.

   Reason:  To ensure the appropriate disposal and reuse of waste generated on the site.

 

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

 

   Enquiries for site fencing and hoardings in a public place, including the need for Council    approval, can be made by contacting Council's Infrastructure Services Division.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

For the purpose of interpreting this consent the Certifying Authority (Council or an Accredited Certifier) is that person appointed to issue the Construction Certificate.

 

20.     Before the issue of a Construction Certificate an amended plan shall be submitted to     the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction indicating the existing building upgraded to comply     with the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) in     relation to:

 

a)      smoke detection systems;

b)      balustrades;

c)      exit signs;

d)      portable extinguishers;

e)      mechanical ventilation;

f)       egress;

g)      energy efficiency of the any air conditioning and ventilation system and artificial lighting and power.

Reason:     To ensure the building is suitable for the proposed use

21.     Before the issue of Construction Certificate, amended plans must be submitted to the     satisfaction of the Certifying Authority that indicates that the shopfront of the building     fronting King Street is reinstated with transparent glass on the ground floor. The internal     wall fronting the glass shop front must be removed.

             Reason:   To improve the streetscape presentation of the building.

 

SITE WORKS

 

22.     All excavation, demolition, construction, and deliveries to the site necessary for the     carrying out of the development, must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm     Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above no work     must be carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

   Reason:  To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

23.     The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction     upon completion of the work.

   Reason:  To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

 

24.     The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the     consent of Council.  The placement of waste storage containers in a public place     requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy - ‘Placement of Waste     Storage Containers in a Public Place’.  Enquiries are to be made with Council’s     Infrastructure Services Division.

   Reason:  To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

 

25.     All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

 

a)      compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b)      all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c)      all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d)      sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e)      the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f)       the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g)      suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h)      all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only having access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i)        all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j)        no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k)      the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

 

Reason:     To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

 

26.     The works must be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA     agrees, by another certifying authority.  The last inspection can only be carried out by     the PCA.  The critical stages of construction are:

 

a)      At the commencement of the building work;

b)      For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c)      Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d)      After the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued in relation to the building.

 

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

 

Reason:     To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia)

 

27.     All vehicles carrying materials to, or from the site must have their loads covered with     tarpaulins or similar covers.

  Reason:   To ensure dust and other particles are not blown from vehicles associated with the use.

 

28.     A certificate of survey from a registered land surveyor must be submitted to the PCA     upon excavation of the footings and before the pouring of the concrete to verify that the     structure will not encroach on the allotment boundaries.

  Reason:   To ensure all works are contained within the boundaries of the allotment.

 

29.     A clear unobstructed path of travel of not less than 1,000mm must be provided to all     exits and paths of travel to exits.

   Reason:  To provide safe egress in case of fire or other emergency.

 

 

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

 

30.     Occupation of the building shall not be permitted until such time as:

 

a)      All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b)      The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c)      An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

 

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

 

31.     A Building Certificate must be obtained for all the unauthorised works carried out in the     property before the occupation of the building.

             Reason:    To regularise all unauthorised works within the building.

32.     The owner of the premises, as soon as practicable after the Final Fire Safety Certificate     is issued, shall:

 

a)      Forward a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and the current Fire Safety Schedule to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Council; and

b)      Display a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule in a prominent position in the building (i.e. adjacent the entry or any fire indicator panel).

 

   Every twelve (12) months after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued the owner shall    obtain an Annual Fire Safety Certificate for each of the Fire Safety Measures listed in    the Schedule.  The Annual Fire Safety Certificate shall be forwarded to the    Commissioner and the Council and displayed in a prominent position in the building.

 

  Reason:   To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

·        A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) has not been carried out.

 

 

·          Useful Contacts

 

BASIX Information

( 1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

 

Department of Fair Trading

( 13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

 

Dial Before You Dig

( 1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

 

Landcom

( 9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

 

Long Service Payments Corporation

( 131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

 

Marrickville Council

( 9335 2222

www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au

Copies of all Council documents and application forms can be found on the web site.

 

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

 

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

( 131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

 

Sydney Water

( 13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

 

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

 

( 1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

 

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

 

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

( 13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

 

 

 

B.      THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standards:

 

Premises:                                               669 King Street ST PETERS

Applicant:                                               John Yiek Ng

Proposal:                                                Review request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to review Determination No. 201600157, dated 1 June 2016, being a refusal of a development application to carry out building works and use the ground floor as a commercial premises and first floor as a residence.

Determination:                                       Approval

DA No:                                                   DA201600157.01

Lot and DP:                                            Lot 1 in DP 136754

Category of Development:                    Mixed Use

Environmental Planning Instrument:     Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land:                                      B5 Business Development

Development Standard(s) varied:         Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation:                        Strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unnecessary;

                                                               The majority of the FSR variation is a technical breach as a result of change in planning controls on the site;

                                                               The additional FSR has negligible streetscape/urban design impacts;

                                                               There are no adverse shadowing or privacy impacts or adverse internal solar access amenity impacts to the development as a result of the FSR variation.       

Extent of variation:                                 26%

Concurring Authority:                             Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary Department of Planning and Environment.

Date of Determination:                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 8

Subject:         Planning Proposal for 55-63 Smith Street, Summer Hill  

File Ref:         16/4718/106676.16         

Prepared By: Con Colotouros - Senior Strategic Planner & Projects, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This Planning Proposal application seeks to permit additional land uses on the subject site. It has been put on preliminary public exhibition and public submissions have been received and are commented on in this report. This process is in place in order for Council to understand from the community what the key issues of concern are, so that they be able to be addressed upfront in the process. Consideration of the application was later deferred pending the applicant submitting additional information. This report recommends that Council agree to particular additional land uses for the reasons stated in Part 5 of the report, being Office premises, Business premises, Recreation facility (indoor), Self Storage Units

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       Council resolve to progress a Planning Proposal to amend Ashfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 to add the following additional uses to “Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses” of the LEP for the properties at 55-63  Smith Street Summer Hill:

·             Office premises

·             Business premises

·             Recreation facility (indoor)

·             Self Storage Units

          and that the applicant’s Planning Proposal be amended to reflect the Council’s resolution;

2.       accompanying the Planning Proposal there must be a site specific Development Control Plan produced by the applicant addressing the matters covered in the planning report, with the content being approved by Council;

3.       Council forward the Planning Proposal as amended  in clause (1) to the Department of  Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination to allow the LEP plan making process to commence under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act);

4.       Council resolve to request The Department of Planning and Environment to issue a written authorization to Council’s General Manager to exercise and implement delegations in accordance with Section 23 of the EP& A Act 1979 to facilitate the plan making process following the Gateway Determination;

5.       following Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal be progressed by Council, be put on formal public exhibition, and procedures carried out as required under the EP& A Act 1979, with a later report on the public exhibition being submitted to the Council for consideration on whether to continue to finalise the Planning Proposal; and

6.      people who made a submission as part of the preliminary community engagement process be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

1.0       OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROPOSAL

55-63 Smith Street, Summer Hill is currently zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential under the Ashfield LEP 2013 (see Figure 1).

Under the previous Ashfield LEP 1985, 55-63 Smith was originally zoned as a “Light Industrial” site, and later rezoned to “2C – Residential”. The buildings currently on the site reflect the previous light industrial zoning and the site has had various types of land use approvals/development consents, some of which continue up to this point in time.

The current property owner wishes to continue using the existing buildings, and to have non-residential uses.  However, due the current R3 - Medium Density Residential zoning the site owner is having difficulty obtaining tenants for those buildings because the zoning in the main does not permit many business/employment land uses. In addition, there is an ongoing reliance on using ‘existing use rights’ to continue any existing approved use. For example, there is an approval for second had furniture storage in one of the buildings on the site, and if the premises were vacated, only the same or a very similar land use could use the building. 

Given this situation, the property owner has submitted a Planning Proposal (in Attachment 1) to permit additional land uses on the site as follows: 

-      Office Premises

-      Business Premises

-      Recreational Facilities (indoor)

-      Warehouse or Distribution Centres

-      Light Industries

-      Self Storage Units

 

The Planning Proposal proposes to keep the current land zoning, and to add the above proposed land uses into the Schedule 1- Additional permitted uses of the Ashfield LEP 2013.

 

 

Figure 1 Extract - Ashfield LEP 2013 Land Zoning Map showing 55-63 Smith Street Summer Hill and existing R3 – Medium Density Zone

A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of a proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment and provides the justification for proceeding, produced in accordance with the Department Guidelines -A Guide to preparing Planning Proposals. The applicant’s Planning Proposal essentially argues that the additional land uses sought are reasonable, that there will be benefits as the building use and surrounding land will remain activated, the buildings will be improved in appearance, that the proposed uses will provide local services, and that the proposal fits within the parameters of Council’s Urban Planning Strategy 2010. 

 

The proposal was lodged in late 2015, and was put on preliminary exhibition in order to obtain public feedback. Submissions received are commented in Part 4 of this report. (The application was later deferred by the applicant pending additional information being placed in the Planning Proposal, see Part 5 below).

 

2.0  LOCAL CONTEXT

 

As shown in Figure 2 the site is surrounded mostly by houses and apartments to the east, north and south. The neighbouring site to the west has a 3 storey residential development currently completing construction, which will also retain and reuse the heritage building at 67 Smith Street and maintain its front garden setting.  

 

 

Figure 2 Aerial photograph

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 – Buildings along Smith Street

 

 

 

3.0  EXISTING BUILDINGS AND APPROVED LAND USES.

 

It is necessary to understand the existing or potential land uses on the site, by way of existing development approvals. Figure 4 shows a diagrammatic plan of the site, with the premises containing several different building parts. Also shown are previous development applications. The site also contains a driveway leading to an internal loading dock.

 

It is noted that under Clause 41(f) of the EP&A Regulations 2000 an existing light industrial use has scope to change to another light industrial use or to a commercial use, and Clause 45 of the Regulations also enables changes in the proportions in which various parts of a building may be used. However, the applicant advises this does not apply to his site because the existing previously approved uses under the previous Ashfield LEP1985, shown below in Figure 4, do not fit under any of the current LEP light industrial and commercial use definitions, and that attempts to lodge development applications with Council has confirmed such advice. The owner must therefore only continue to use the buildings in the same or very similar form to that approved, provided the previous approvals are still active.

 

 

 

Figure 4- Approved Development Applications

 

 

 

 

4.0 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

The Planning Proposal was notified between 3 November and 4 December 2015. The following submissions (originals contained in Attachment 2) were received:

 

Table 1

 

Persons making submission

Issues raised

Officer Response

Leanne Findlay

Summer Hill

Additional uses proposed could destroy the streetscape and atmosphere of Summer Hill.

It is agreed that any new land uses should not compromise the streetscape and atmosphere of Summer Hill. Refer to Part 5 and Attachment 4 of this report which examines the impacts of each of the proposed land uses.

 

Proposes uses are not consistent with the zoning.

Some, not all, of the proposed land uses technically fit under the umbrella of objective no 3 of the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone of the Ashfield LEP 2013 which states: “To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents”. Refer to Part 5 of this report.

 

Adverse effect on adjacent heritage item at 67 Smith street and opposite Quarantine Conservation Area (off Smith Street).

It is agreed that any building form that results from new land uses should not compromise the setting of the adjacent heritage item and Conservation Area.  However, this is not a land zoning issue and the application does not pertain to building work. 

David Rollinson

Summer Hill

 

 

 

 

Former Ashfield Council previously considered (under the Ashfield LEP 1985) whether a light industrial zoning for the site should remain and determined that such a land use was not suitable for the site.

It was the current land owners who sought the change to the zoning - this was in the context of knowing at the time that the then ‘existing use rights’ provisions would allow a change from an existing non-conforming (not permissible in the LEP) use to another non- conforming use, e.g. from a factory use to a shop. However, the planning legislation was subsequently changed for existing use rights, removing the ability to have different types of non-conforming land uses.

It was also understood at the time of the previous rezoning under the Ashfield LEP 1985 that the existing approved building uses more characteristic of a light industrial zoning could continue to operate, as has been the case in order to keep the premises activated.


 

 

The site is abutted by residential uses and it is not appropriate to bring back a light industrial use that would impact on resident amenity.

It is agreed that any new land uses should not affect the amenity of adjacent residential properties - Part 5 and the referenced Attachment 4 of this report examines the impacts of each of the proposed land uses.

 

Redevelopment of the site for medium density residential should occur.

Redevelopment is a matter for the site owner to determine whether to pursue, such as demolition and construction of new medium density residential development. Consideration of the current and short term future is required, and a situation where buildings are left empty or derelict should be avoided, and would be contrary to the economic and orderly use of the site.

 

The Real Estate agency on behalf of the owner has been receiving interest in occupying the premises.

The site owner has advised that he has difficulties finding tenants that would meet the exact criteria of each of the previous development consents.

 

Under Clause 41(f) of the EP&A Regulations 2000 an existing light industrial use has scope to change to another light industrial use or to a commercial use and Clause 45 also enables changes in the proportions in which various parts of a building may be used, and so the additional use proposed are not necessary.

The applicant says that the existing approved uses (shown above in Figure 4) do not fit under any of the light industrial and commercial use definitions and he cannot rely on the Regulations. The applicant advises that he has attempted to lodge development application with Council and has also received such advice.

 

 

After the preliminary exhibition period the following submissions were received.

 

Thea Norton

Croydon

Objects to any noise generating activities, such as Recreation Facilities (indoor) on the basis that the existing gym use at the front of the site is causing noise problems, primarily due to an absence of adequate development consent conditions. This noise results from keeping front doors open, having a noisy internal operation and playing loud music. Complaints have been lodged with Council.

Agrees that location is appropriate for some commercial uses, and storage facilities.

The site owner was formally advised the noise complaint, and the operator of the gym advised that operations would be modified. No further complaints from local residents have been received.

Any potential future indoor gym should have development consent conditions applied to control noise issues, such as having adequate window glazing, noise isolating airlocks for front entries, and restricted hours of operation. A site specific DCP could draw attention to this issue.

 

5.0       Conclusion on acceptable additional land uses.

Following completion of the public exhibition a meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the proposal and which land uses were considered by Council officers to fit within the R3 zone land uses objectives. The applicant agreed to defer Council’s determination of the Planning Proposal, and chose to update the Planning Proposal (as contained in Attachment 1- March 2016), and to also supply a site layout plan showing how the existing buildings and land uses could be accommodated (Attachment 4 received in July 2016 ). This also included advising that a “Self Storage Units” land use (such as for use by local residents) could be considered in lieu of a “Storage Premises” (as originally applied for). The applicant’s explanatory letter and site layout diagram in Attachment 4 shows how the existing building can accommodate a mix of proposed uses under the maximum 0.7:1 FSR in the Ashfield LEP and how car parking and servicing can be accommodated on the site.

Attachment 3 analyses each of the proposed uses, and in addition identifies that the proposed Light Industry, Warehouse and Distribution, and Storage Premises land uses do not technically meet the explicit objectives of the R3 Zone in the Ashfield LEP 2013 which state: “To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents”.

The remaining propose land uses of Office premises, Business premises, Recreation facility (indoor), Self Storage Units technically fit within the objectives of the R3 Zone in the Ashfield LEP 2013, and should be supported by Council for the following reasons:

-      the existing buildings will continue to be used, achieving an orderly and economic use of the site, potentially improving the condition and appearance of the existing buildings and thereby ensuring activation of the area for public safety and streetscape amenity, and ensuring the buildings are not left derelict.

-      these land uses can potentially be managed via development consent conditions to have a low impact on neighbouring residential properties.

-      land uses conform to Council Urban Planning Strategy 2010 – which is also a requirement of the Department’s Planning Proposal guidelines for fitting in with local strategies. Relevant parts of the Urban Strategy include Part 6 - A Thriving Place to do Business - Part 04 – Foster Local Business, Part 7 - Sustainable Environments - Part 05 – in that the additional uses make more use of public transport - given the site is within close walking distance to the train station, and reuse of existing buildings.

 

Pursuant to the Department’s guidelines, the applicant’s Planning Proposal should also be updated to provide the necessary timelines, and any other detailed information required for the proposal’s documentation to be complete. 

A site specific Development Control Plan should be produced and focus on the following issues.

-      Any future development application for each building compartment will need to document the building operations for the entire site, to ensure that the requirements of a DCP are met, such as car parking and servicing. 

-      No nuisance caused to adjacent residential properties, including controlling hours of operation, and noise attenuation.

-      Location of on-site employee car parking.

-      Location of on-site vehicular deliveries.

-      Location of waste storage areas.

-      Improvement of the current building appearance and potential enhancement of the historic streetscape.

 

The Development Control Plan should be prepared at the applicant’s cost and be forwarded to Council for review and approval.

 

6.0       NEXT STEPS

The Council is required to determine whether or not to proceed with the Planning Proposal. If Council resolves to proceed with the Planning Proposal the next steps are to follow the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP plan making process.

To summarise:

1.    Council considers whether to initially support the Planning Proposal including the amendments proposed by Council officers and to commence the LEP plan making process (current stage).

2.    The Planning Proposal incorporating any amendments is submitted to Department of Planning and Environment.

3.    Department of Planning and Environment undertakes an assessment and, if supportive of the Proposal, will issue a Gateway Determination which will give Council the authority to continue the process and specify whether any additional studies are required.

4.    Council formally exhibits the Planning Proposal.

5.    Council considers submissions received and following community engagement decides whether or not to amend/re-exhibit the proposal and submit it to Minister /Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal if the plan making function is delegated to Council.

6.    The plan is then notified and comes into effect.

 

7.0   LEP (PLAN-MAKING) DELEGATION FORMER ASHFIELD LGA

In November 2012 the Minister for NSW Planning & Infrastructure delegated certain powers to Council to make and determine an LEP amendment. This enables Council to exercise the Minister’s Plan making functions after the Gateway Determination stage (i.e. to draft and make the LEP in addition to the standard steps). The delegations operate when Council requests NSW Planning and Environment to issue a ‘Written Authorisation to Exercise Delegation’ (called the Authorisation). This Authorisation can be issued to Inner West Council as part of the Gateway Determination. 

The previous Ashfield Council resolved to use the delegation on the proviso that the previous Ashfield Council General Manager exercises the delegation with prior approval from Council whenever a Planning Proposal is processed. The delegation was subsequently granted. The Department’s “Guidance for merged Councils on planning functions” advises this delegation can continue. It is therefore recommended that Council give the current General Manager authorisation to exercise the relevant delegation.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Council is now required to determine whether to proceed with the Planning Proposal, and to forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination. This will put Council in control of the process and lead to the formal public exhibition and later Council assessment of the Planning Proposal as to whether the proposed LEP amendments should be gazetted.

It is recommended Council endorse the Planning Proposal in an amended form as proposed by the Council officers report in Part 5 limiting the additional land uses to “Office premises”, “Business premises”, “Recreation facility (indoor)” and “Self Storage Units”. Council should also require preparation of a site specific Development Control Plan to ensure that the land uses have a low and satisfactory impact on adjoining residential premises.

It is also is recommended that Council seek permission from the Gateway Panel  to use the Council ‘Authorisation’ to process the Planning Proposal and authorise the General Manager to activate the delegation as part of the plan-making process.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Planning Proposal

2.

Public Submissions

3.

Applicant's Letter and Site Layout

4.

Land Use Analysis

 


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 9

Subject:         Planning Proposal for 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain 

File Ref:         16/6014/89179.16        

Prepared By: Steve Roseland - Senior Strategic Planner, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

At the February 2016 Policy Meeting Council considered a report and resolved to request a Gateway Determination from the Minister for Planning for a Planning Proposal to rezone parts of the subject site to General Residential (R1), Business Park (B7), Public Recreation (RE1) and retain Local Centre (B2) for the rest of the property.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council resolve to make the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 amendment to rezone parts of the subject site at 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain to General Residential (R1), Business Park (B7), Public Recreation (RE1) and retain Local Centre (B2) for the rest of the property as detailed in the exhibited Planning Proposal and supporting documentation.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the February 2016 Policy Meeting Council considered a report (see Attachment 1) and resolved (C14/16P) to request a Gateway Determination from the Minister for Planning for a Planning Proposal to rezone parts of the subject site to General Residential (R1), Business Park (B7), Public Recreation (RE1) and retain Local Centre (B2) for the rest of the property.

 

 

The proposed rezoning of the site by the Proposal does not include any changes to the built form or existing development consent and is drafted to reflect the land uses already approved on the site as part of development application approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) D/2013/406 and to be consistent with Council’s long term strategic plans.

On 8 April 2016 Council received a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal from the Department of Planning acting as delegate for the Greater Sydney Commission.

The Gateway Determination was reported to the May Policy Meeting where Council resolved (C245/16P) to place the Proposal on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the Gateway requirements.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Submission overview

In accordance with the endorsed community engagement plan and Gateway Determination requirements, the Planning Proposal (see Attachment 2), and supporting documentation were placed on public exhibition from Tuesday 21 June 2016 to Monday 18 July 2016. Consultation was undertaken as follows:

·   Approximately 204 letters were sent to owners / occupier of properties within close proximity of the subject site

·   Notice in the Inner West Courier

·   260 visitors viewed the exhibition material on the ‘Have Your Say’ section of Council’s website

·   The proposed amendments and supporting documentation were made available in hard copy form for review at Leichhardt Service Centre, Leichhardt Library and Balmain Library

 

This process generated 13 submissions, ten (10) from residents/owners, two (2) from public authorities and the owner of the property. These submissions raised a number of issues as follows:

·   Increased traffic including both number of vehicles and movements and less on-street parking available because of the proposed development

·   Conversion of serviced apartments to residential dwellings supported

·   Rezoning of the nine (9) live/work terraces on Broderick Street to Business Park (B7) not supported

·   Ensure adequate public access is provided to the foreshore land to be dedicated to Council for public recreation

·   Need to restore the ferry service to Balmain West and undertake a wharf upgrade

·   Formal street addresses for the nine (9) live/work terraces to be constructed on Broderick Street to remain 100-102 Elliott Street to discourage use of Broderick by traffic deliveries

·   Noise generated from commercial uses affecting residential amenity

·   Air conditioning unit location away from Broderick Street

 

Consultation with Public Authorities

The Gateway Determination required formal consultation with the following public authorities:

·   NSW Roads and Maritime Services;

·   NSW Department of Education and Communities;

·   NSW Health;

·   NSW Department of Family and Community Services;

·   Ambulance Service of NSW;

·   NSW Police Force;

·   Sydney Water; and

·   Energy Australia

 

Responses were received by Sydney Water and NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

Sydney Water raises no objection to the Proposal with access to services available to the site and any detailed requirements to be provided at the section 73 application phase.

RMS has reviewed the Proposal and raises no objection as the proposed LEP amendment is unlikely to have any significant impact on the classified road network.

 

Matters Raised In Submissions / Proponent Comments / Officer Responses

Summary of matters raised and frequency:

Traffic and Parking

7 submissions

Conversion of serviced apartments to residential dwellings

5 submissions

Rezoning of the nine (9) live/work terraces on Broderick Street to Business Park (B7)

5 submissions

Public access is provided to the foreshore land to be dedicated to Council

1 submission

Restore the ferry service to Balmain West

1 submission

New Broderick Street properties to retain formal Elliott Street address

1 submission

Noise generated from commercial uses affecting residential amenity

1 submission

Air conditioning unit location away from Broderick Street

1 submission

 

 

Table 1 - Traffic and Parking

Issue

Parking in local streets is already difficult now and it will worsen under the proposed planning proposal with increased pressure on available on-street spaces. The rezoning will increase traffic in adjoining streets, in particular Broderick Street.

Council response

The Proposal does not propose to reconfigure the approved development and its parking provision, which is in accordance with Council policy.

The majority of properties in Broderick Street have existing off-street parking provision.

No additional on-street parking or traffic impacts on local streets beyond what is currently approved in the existing development consent are anticipated by the proposed rezoning.

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Table 2 - Conversion of serviced apartments to residential dwellings

Issue

The owner of the site has argued that operating nineteen (19) serviced apartments dispersed through multiple buildings is not a viable commercial use. Conversion of the serviced apartments will contribute to net dwelling provision in the Inner West Council area.

This change is supported by all five (5) of the submissions received on the matter.

Council response

The Proposal does not seek to change the built form or height of the approved development and the owner of the site has informed local residents through community consultation that the form/height will not change as part of any future amendment to the current development approval.

In preparing the Proposal Council supported the conversion of the serviced apartments to residential dwellings and the change was allowed to proceed to public exhibition by the Department of Planning and Environment issuing a Gateway Determination.

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

Proceed with proposed rezoning to facilitate the conversion of the serviced apartments to residential dwellings.

 

 

Table 3 - Rezoning of the nine (9) live/work terraces on Broderick Street to Business Park (B7)

Issue

Four (4) resident submissions do not support the rezoning of the live/work terraces to Business Park (B7). The reasons given are as follows:

- commercial elements of the live/work terraces will result in greater impacts, primarily traffic and parking, upon the existing residents of Broderick Street. 

- both sides of Broderick Street should be zoned Residential (R1) to reflect the residential nature of the street.

Council response

The proposed rezoning of the site by this Proposal from B2 to B7 does not include any changes to the built form or existing development consent, including parking provision and traffic movements. Prior to approval the design and location of the nine terraces on the north side of the street was partly to minimise visual impacts of the proposed development on properties across Broderick Street to the south.

The proposed rezoning is drafted to reflect the land uses already approved on the site as part of development application D/2013/406 and be consistent with Council’s long term strategic plans.

As detailed in the Planning Proposal rezoning the entire site to residential will likely result in all land specifically zoned for commercial purposes being lost, with associated job losses and see a further decrease in employment generating lands within the Council area.

The zone objectives and permitted land uses in Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 which best reflect the future use of the nine (9) live-work terraces in Building A2 is Zone B7 Business Park. Clause 6.12 (Residential accommodation in Zone B7) aims to facilitate exactly this type of development. The street has never been wholly residential in nature with intensive commercial operations underway on the subject site for decades. This built form and land use is specifically designed to assist in the revitalisation of employment areas and to provide a transition between adjoining land use zones, especially commercial to residential.     

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

Table 4 - Public access is provided to the foreshore land to be dedicated to Council

Issue

The potential privatization by default of the Harbour foreshore land to be dedicated to Council if adequate public pedestrian access to this future public recreation land is not provided through the western end of the site to be rezoned.

Council response

The dedication of the Harbour foreshore land has already been negotiated and agreed as part of development approval D/2013/406. These approved plans include direct pedestrian access from Elliott Street and pedestrian links through the site at the western end of Broderick Street. The planning proposal will also rezone the Harbour foreshore that is to be dedicated to Council from B2 to RE1 Public Recreation.  

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Table 5 - Restore the ferry service to Balmain West

Issue

Restoration of the ferry service to Balmain West, with a wharf upgrade, to provide public transport options for both new and existing residents.

Council response

Reinstating the ferry service to Balmain West would require investigation by RMS.

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Table 6 - New Broderick Street properties to retain formal Elliott Street address

Issue

Street addresses for the nine (9) live/work terraces should remain as 100-102 Elliott Street to encourage deliveries via the main driveway.

Council response

Car parking on the subject site, both for residents and visitors, has been approved (D/2013/406) in accordance with Council requirements.

Primary access to the whole of the subject site, 100-102 Elliott Street, is from the Elliott Street frontage. 

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Table 7 - Noise generated from commercial uses affecting residential amenity

Issue

Noise generated from business or light industry uses may seriously degrade the amenity of local residents.

Council response

The proposed rezoning is drafted to reflect the land uses approved on the site as part of development application D/2013/406 and be consistent with Council’s long term strategic plans. The commercial land uses on site are already approved as part of this existing consent. 

Concerns have been raised previously by both the owner of the site and local residents about the impact that serviced apartments, as a commercial land use, will have upon both existing and future residents. In drawing up the Proposal for this site Council has taken these concerns into consideration and is proposing to rezone the site to facilitate the change from serviced apartments to residential dwellings.

As detailed in the Planning Proposal rezoning the entire site to residential will result in all land specifically zoned for commercial purposes being lost, with associated job losses and see a further decrease in employment generating lands within the Council area.  

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Table 8 – Air conditioning unit location

Issue

Current approved plans require that air conditioning units be located in the car park to ensure that fumes and noise generated by the systems do not affect the amenity of residents along Broderick Street. No amendment to the current plans should be approved by Council to allow these units to be moved.

Council response

The proposed rezoning of the site by this Proposal does not include any changes to the built form or existing development consent.

When assessing any future modification to the development consent lodged Council will take into consideration the potential impacts of any changes on the amenity of existing residents, including any proposed re-location of air-conditioning units.   

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 

Submission on behalf of Toga Developments Sydney

RPS consultants have prepared a submission on behalf of Toga, the landowner of the site.

Toga do support the Proposal to rezone the land at 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain however have raised concerns with the Business Park (B7) zone proposed on the southern portion of the site.

 

 

Table 9 - Conversion of serviced apartments to residential dwellings

Issue

Rezoning to General Residential (R1) for those buildings on-site which include serviced apartments is supported. Operating nineteen (19) serviced apartments dispersed through multiple buildings is not a viable commercial use and the conversion will contribute to the net dwelling provision in the Inner West Council area.

Council response

The Proposal does not seek to change the built form or height of the approved development and the owner of the site has informed local residents through community consultation that the form/height will not change as part of any future amendment to the current development approval.

In preparing the Proposal Council supported the conversion of the serviced apartments to residential dwellings.

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

Proceed with proposed rezoning to facilitate the conversion of the serviced apartments to residential dwellings.

 

Table 10 - Rezoning of the nine (9) live/work terraces on Broderick Street to Business Park (B7)

Issue

Toga objects to the proposed rezoning of a portion of the site to Business Park (B7) for the following reasons:

-  the approved land uses within Building A2 do not meet the objectives of the Business Park (B7) zone regarding the provision of a range of office and light industrial uses. Live work spaces are designed and intended for different types of non-residential uses than either offices or light industrial

-  the site is isolated and a small portion of proposed Business Park zoned land is unsuitable as B7 zones are generally consolidated areas with multiple landholdings with appropriate transport and traffic accessibility for larger vehicles

-  if the intent is to ensure ongoing economic uses with respect to live-work terraces Local Centre (B2) is better suited

Council response

The proposed rezoning is drafted to reflect the land uses already approved on the site as part of development application D/2013/406 and be consistent with Council’s long term strategic plans, which includes retention of employment generating land. The zone objectives and permitted land uses in Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 which best reflect the desired future use of the nine (9) live-work terraces in Building A2 is Zone B7 Business Park. Clause 6.12 (Residential accommodation in Zone B7) aims to facilitate exactly this type of development. This built form and land use is specifically designed to assist in the revitalisation of employment areas and to provide a transition between adjoining land use zones, especially commercial adjoining residential.

Council, supported by clause 6.12, has used the Business Park zone to encourage provision of live/work premises such as that approved on the subject site and at various other locations within the former Leichhardt Municipality. This is to provide a range of options on employment generating land within the Council area and ensure its preservation through flexibility as the demand for different types of commercial space changes close to Sydney CBD. 

As detailed in the Policy report (Attachment 1) and Proposal (Attachment 2) the subject site landowner’s original intent to achieve the desired outcome of conversion of serviced apartments to residential dwellings was to rezone the entire site to General Residential (R1). This would likely have resulted in all land specifically zoned for commercial purposes being lost, with associated job losses outlined by RPS consultants and see a further decrease in employment generating lands within the Council area. In arguing for the entire site to be rezoned to General Residential (R1) RPS Economic and Market Assessment concluded that the Local Centre (B2) zoning could actively harm the retail strips along Darling Street in Balmain and Rozelle, attracting potential demand away from the town centres. Additionally future amendments or development applications on-site could potentially also result in an active street frontage requirement along Broderick Street if this portion of the site were to remain zoned Local Centre (B2), an outcome which local residents have been very opposed to and continue to raise as an issue of concern with Council. 

To best reflect the existing JRPP approval (D/2013/406) and to preserve and revitalise employment generating land in the Council area Business Park (B7) was determined to be the zone most suitable for the portion of the site where the nine (9) live/work terraces are currently being constructed.              

Action required / amendment to exhibited Planning Proposal

No change

 

 


 

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION

Council has fulfilled all the requirements of the Gateway Determination issued (8 April 2016) by the Department of Planning and Environment as delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission.

It is recommended that Council resolve to make the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 amendment to rezone parts of the subject site at 100-102 Elliott Street, Balmain to General Residential (R1), Business Park (B7), Public Recreation (RE1) and retain Local Centre (B2) for the rest of the property as detailed in the exhibited Planning Proposal and supporting documentation (see Attachment 2).

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

February 2016 Policy Meeting Report

2.

Planning Proposal (Publicly Exhibited)

  


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 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

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 10

Subject:         Establishment of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for the Inner West Council 

File Ref:         15/5804/106096.16        

Prepared By: Judy Clark - Manager Development Assessment, Marrickville and Elizabeth Richardson - Manager Assessments, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

 

SUMMARY

This report responds to an Administrator’s minute that requested a report on the establishment of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP). It is considered that the most expedient and appropriate way to introduce an IHAP to cover the Inner West Council (IWC) area is to adapt and tailor the existing Leichardt Planning Panel (LPP) model with revisions to the operational guidelines and delegations, essentially to ensure that that the IHAP has capacity to determine development (and related) applications in a timely manner, is representative of the interests of the community within the expanded geographic area, and that only matters are referred to it that are appropriate for referral to an independent expert body.

A suite of documents is also included (Attachments 1 to 3) that outline the proposed Operational Guidelines and Code of Conduct and Charter to support implementation of an IWC IHAP, to be called the Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP). With these requirements in place it is intended that the IWPP builds on the achievements and experience gained through the establishment of the LPP in February 2015, and promotes a system that is fair, balanced and provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in decision making about certain development proposals.

Recommendations numbered 1 to 6 inclusive below were considered by the Joint Local Representation Advisory Committee at their meeting on 13 September 2016, where they endorsed the recommendations subject to inclusion of 3 additional recommendations as follows:

 

“7.     The IWPP, as proposed, be implemented as a provision arrangement to manage

          risk while the Inner West Council is under administration, to be reviewed at the end of the administration period by the incoming elected council;

8.       Replace Point 10 of the site inspections section on page 51 with: “site inspections are open to the people within the notification area”; and

9.       Delete “boarding houses” from Point 7 of the proposed delegations appearing on page 47 of the agenda.”

 

Additional Recommendations 8 and 9 are simple to implement, do not conflict with the integrity of the proposed IHAP model and can be readily integrated into final documentation and therefore have been incorporated into the officer’s recommendation below with some rewording for clarity.

Additional Recommendation 7 is not supported as it is preferred that the elected Inner West Council retains the option to consider a report on the previous full 12 months operation of the new IWPP (as proposed by Recommendation 6 below) to inform any decision about its future, rather than nominate the IWPP as a provisional body at this stage. It is proposed to collect comprehensive data including survey information from all stakeholders as part of the 12 month review report.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council:

1.       establishes an independent hearing and assessment panel to be known as the Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) as outlined in this report and in accordance with the details contained in the following procedural documents - Operational Guidelines, Code of Conduct  and Charter (Attachments 1, 2 and 3);

2.       requests the Interim General Manager arrange an Expression of Interest to recruit and appoint a pool of suitably qualified and experienced independent experts and community members to the IWPP;

3.       upon its commencement, delegates authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993 to the Panel to determine all matters delegated to it, as per Attachment 5;

4.       at the relevant time, gives public notice of the commencement of the IWPP and cessation of the LPP;

5.       notes the estimated recurring cost of the IWPP of $163,800 per annum to be funded from the existing LPP budget, and allocate additional funds to cover the estimated recruitment cost of up to $30,000;

6.       requests officers provide an annual report to Council on the activities and outcomes of the IWPP in the previous 12 months;

 

7.       replace Point 10 of the Site Inspections Section in the Operational Guidelines with “site inspections are open to the people within the notification area”; and

 

8.       delete boarding houses from point 7 in the proposed list of delegations (Attachment 5)

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

At the extraordinary meeting of Council on 24 May 2016, an Administrator’s minute called for a report from staff for the potential to establish an IHAP across the Inner West Council area.

 

IHAP Models and Best Practice

IHAPs have been a component of the planning system in New South Wales since 2008 and operate in a number of (former) Sydney Councils including Waverley, Leichhardt, Manly, North Sydney, Mosman, Warringah, Holroyd and Lane Cove. These are all decision making IHAPs that operate in a determining role, having been granted delegated authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993.

There is no one size fits all model for the structure of a council decision making IHAP. However, a review of current literature and other council IHAP constitutions (or charters) and operational guidelines identify the following common features:

1.    For each panel hearing meeting the decision is made by a small number of members (typically not exceeding 4) one of whom is the designated Chairperson, with a quorum of at least 3 members. The LPP is an exception to this as it has 5 members. In relation to the optimum Panel size for the IWPP, a panel membership of 4 persons is recommended to reflect contemporary IHAP models operating in Sydney, noting that the careful selection of members is the most critical success factor for good decision making, not the number of members.

2.    Members are drawn from a pool of qualified professionals from a range of disciplines such as planning, urban design, environmental law, heritage, public administration, architecture, arboriculture and social planning and include community representatives with similar professional expertise.

3.    Incorporation of robust contact protocols for interaction with interested parties to eliminate lobbying.

4.    Various operational documents written in plain English regarding appointment and selection of members, meeting notification and governance, practices and procedures, matters the panel will deal with (delegations) and recording of/justification for decisions.

5.    Transparent management of conflicts of interest, member obligations and conduct through a separate “Code of Conduct” document based broadly on the Model Code of Conduct for Councillors.

 

It should be noted that under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, DA fees are statutory maximum fees that cannot be increased, nor can additional fees be levied to cover the cost of administering an IHAP.

A suite of tailored draft supporting documents to establish the IWPP that reflect best practice are included as Attachments 1 to 3 inclusive and are discussed in more detail later in this report.

 

The Leichhardt Planning Panel Experience

The former Leichhardt Council operates an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) known as the Leichhardt Planning Panel (LPP) with full delegation to act as a determination body. The LPP commenced in February 2015.The delegation model is considered to be best practice, and is recommended to be the basis for the IWPP.

The LPP meets monthly including January (during the day) with the option (and funding) to hold two additional meetings per annum on an as-needs basis. The Leichhardt Planning Panel in its current format can deal with approximately 140 applications per annum.

This is principally limited by the amount of time taken by the Panel on its meeting day to undertake site inspections in the morning and hold the public meeting in the afternoon.  Due to increased travel time across the expanded IWC, it is possible that fewer items may be able to be dealt with per meeting than these current arrangements.

The Leichhardt Planning Panel has $161,000 allocated in the 2016/2017 adopted budget for the Leichhardt Service Centre, which allows for fourteen (14) meetings per year if required. The budget allocation includes panel member remuneration, catering and use of the community bus for site inspections.

The LPP is well established and has a high level of acceptance and support across all stakeholders groups. Since its inception, benefits have included:

a)    High-quality, transparent, and expert independent oversight of development matters;

b)    Demonstrated high levels of satisfaction and confidence in the decision-making process from those that attend Panel meetings (both applicants and submitters);

c)    A marked reduction (in the order of 30%) in the number of appeals to the NSW Land and Environment Court, resulting in a saving to Council of between $50,000 (minimum) - $350,000 (maximum) on legal and consultant expert costs;

d)    Increased efficiency through removal of business paper agenda duplication; and

e)    Allowing the Council more time to focus on policy development matters. Principally, this was through the replacement of the former Building and Development Council meeting, with the Policy Meeting of Council.

 

Delegations

The Inner West Council is expected to determine approximately 1,400 Development Applications per annum. Critical to the success of a new Inner West Council  Planning Panel is consideration of which matters should be referred to it, to ensure only those applications that are appropriate for review by an independent decision making body are captured, and that the IWPP has the capacity to determine applications in a timely, efficient manner.

With only an Administrator representing the Council as the authority in the present interim arrangements, delegation of this authority to an independent panel has advantages from a risk management and governance perspective.

To identify appropriate delegations for an IWPP, analysis of the number and category of development applications referred to Ashfield and Marrickville Councils and the Leichhardt Planning Panel in 2015 is provided in Attachment 4. This analysis highlights significant differences in the delegations specific to the determination of development applications at each (former) Council.

The delegations at the former Marrickville Council were significantly more extensive that those at the other councils, and as a consequence only a small number of  DAs were determined by the elected Council (31) with approximately 95% determined by staff (compared to 80% by staff at former Leichhardt Council and 86% by staff at former Ashfield Council).

In relation to the likely workload for the IWPP there are 3 important matters to note:

a)      The problematic impact of mandatory referrals required by the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to Clause 4.6 variations exceeding 10% in Marrickville and Ashfield, and 60%/40% in Leichhardt for the FSR and landscaped area controls (Council officers are seeking further advice from the Department of Planning and Environment about this issue).

b)      The rationalisation of three very different approaches to officer delegations to ensure consistency is necessary, but in doing this it will not be possible or appropriate to carry forward every existing delegation of each former Council to the IHAP, and conversely some matters that were previously determined by officers under delegation will now require referral to the IHAP.

c)      In relation to call up processes for development applications, different practices existed at each former Council as follows:

Ashfield

·     One Councillor could call up a matter to Council for determination at any time with no requirement to specify a reason(s).

Leichhardt

·     The Leichhardt Council Determination of Applications Policy required that an application be referred to the Planning Panel for determination where at least two Councillors have made such a request to the Manager Assessments. For applications where submissions from eight or less properties have been received, these are not able to be determined by officers until an assessment report has been made available on Council’s website for a period of at least five (5) business days. It had been the practice to advise applicants/objectors in correspondence prior to the commencement of that 5–day period that that they have the option to ask two Councillors to call the matter up for determination at a Leichhardt Planning Panel for determination, during that 5 day period.

Marrickville

·     At any time prior to determination, a Councillor could register an interest in a DA with the Manager, Development Assessment. If the matter could otherwise be determined by an officer under delegation, a full assessment report was prepared and sent to those Councillor(s) who had registered an interest so they could have the benefit of an objective assessment of the facts. Councillors then had 3 business days to advise the Manager, Development Assessment whether or not they wished to call the DA up (to the Development Assessment Committee). If call up was made, a form signed by 3 Councillors was required to be submitted, including a statement as to why the matter was called up. This statement was included in the report synopsis.

 

Typically existing IHAPs operating in Sydney councils do not incorporate call up provisions, including the newest IHAPs established in post amalgamation environments, such as the Cumberland Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and the City of Parramatta Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel.

It is not proposed to include a call up process for development applications to the IWPP in this model, as the public interest is best managed through transparent and appropriate delegations that balance the costs and benefits of referral triggers, and acknowledge the contribution of independent experts to the DA process. Call up is not favoured in the best practice model as it increases corruption risk, lacks procedural fairness and is perceived as supporting undue influence through private lobbying.

Current literature on planning panels is clear that the best practice approach for the referral of applications to an IHAP is that it should be predictable and have clear criteria with a low level of discretion. This adds greater certainty to the community and applicants as to what matters are dealt with by the Panel.

The alternative is to establish a process by which the Administrator would take on the former role of Councillors and be solely responsible for determining, upon request, which specific development applications are referred to an IHAP for determination in a situation where an application could be determined under delegation. From a probity and good governance perspective such an approach is not supported.

New delegations have been drafted and are provided in full detail in Attachment 5. These delegations seek to ensure that matters referred to the IHAP are appropriate, achieve a reasonable level of alignment with community interest and expectations across the entire IWC area, and manage probity issues.

The proposed delegations are summarised as follows:

 

A.   Where a recommendation for approval is made:

1.       Major development on Council property;

2.       Where an applicant or submitter is an Administrator, Councillor or senior member of staff (Team Leader or above);

3.       Where an application involves a variation to a development standard in excess of 10% except as provided for by any special concession agreed to by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment;

4.       Where the applicant has offered to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in conjunction with the development application.

5.       An application with an estimated cost of development in excess of $10 million, except applications where Council is not the consent authority.

6.       An application with unresolved objections/submissions received in writing from 10 or more properties.

7.       An application for the establishment of a new brothel, sex services premises or boarding house.

8.       An application involving total demolition of a building listed as a heritage item or a contributory item in a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

B.   A request made under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 where there is no substantial change in recommendation on the matters subject of the Review.

 

C.  Development on community land in accordance with Section 47E of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Role of Councillors

The new Inner West Council faces a considerable challenge to integrate three former organisations and set new standards for excellence in the delivery of services. In the planning context major issues will include setting the framework for and delivering a new Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. This will be occurring alongside many State Government initiatives including a new District Plan, Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy, Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor, Bays Precinct as well as major infrastructure projects such as WestConnex, Sydney Metro and others.

It is therefore important for the Council going forward to focus on these major strategic initiatives and set its new planning policy direction for the future. Having a planning panel in place to deal with major development applications will provide additional opportunity for newly elected Councillors to work with the community on its land use strategy and responses to regional and metro wide projects.

 

Supporting Documentation

1.   Operational Guidelines (Attachment 1)

The Operational Guidelines outline the procedures for notifying and conducting Panel meetings and site inspections, hearing speakers and recording decisions.

The key elements of the Operational Guidelines are as follows:

 

Site Inspections

Site inspections will ordinarily take place for all applications to be considered on the same day as the Panel hearing meeting for that item, at the discretion of the Panel Chairperson. The purpose of the site inspection is for the Panel as a group to obtain an understanding of the application and its context, and any relevant issues. Site inspections are not an opportunity for either proponents or opponents of a development to influence or lobby the Panel. The Panel members may ask questions or seek clarification on certain matters and certain issues may be described by “registered” persons present at the site visit to assist understanding of the issues.

 

Meetings

Meetings will be held monthly on a regular schedule during business hours, including in January, with the exact location to be advised via the agenda. Additional meetings may be held from time to time if there is a high number of pending applications to be referred to the Panel. Meeting agendas and reports will be publically available at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. Speakers must register to speak prior to the meeting. Persons who have not lodged a submission during the DA assessment period (other than the applicant or their representative) are required to provide a brief written summary of the matters that the person wishes to address the Panel about.

Speakers will be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes with the option for the Chairperson to grant an extension.

The Panel may deliberate, conclude and determine the matter in the public (open) meeting. However, the Panel may decide to adjourn briefly for the express purpose of deliberating if considered warranted, to reflect on the submissions made to them and discuss together the appropriate weight and response to issues raised prior to their final determination. If this occurs, the Panel will return to the public (open) meeting to conclude and determine the matter.

The decision and reasons and the voting pattern (if not unanimous) will be recorded in the minutes.

 

2.   Code of Conduct (Attachment 2)

The Code of Conduct outlines the standards of conduct expected of the Inner West Council Planning Panel members and their responsibilities in areas such as conflicts of interest, gifts and access to personal information.

The key elements of the Code of Conduct to note are as follows:

 

Conduct Obligations

Members are bound by obligations to act lawfully, honestly and consider issues objectively and consistently. Panel members must act with respect, professionalism and courtesy towards one another, Council officers and persons addressing the panel at hearing meetings.

 

Interactions with others involved in matters referred to the Panel

Panel members’ interaction with stakeholders is restricted to occur only within the formal hearing meeting process. Lobbying by any party either for or against a development, including the Administrator, is prohibited.

Panel members are also prohibited from influencing Council staff in the preparation of assessment reports.

 

Conflicts of interest

Members of the Panel are designated persons as defined by Section 441 of the Local Government Act, 1993. Each Panel member must complete a Pecuniary Interest Declaration Return as required by the Local Government Act, 1993.

Panel members must avoid or appropriately manage any conflict of interest and the Code of Conduct contains disclosures requirements that reflect those that apply to former Councillors under the provisions of the model Councillor’s Code of Conduct.

The Code of Conduct contains provisions relating to gifts and benefits and protection of confidential and personal information. There are also provisions that relate to reporting breaches of the Code, and the powers of the General Manager to impose sanctions for breaches.

 

3.   Charter (Attachment 3)

The Panel Charter contains the Panel Constitution and details of the Panel’s functions and an overview of the Panel members’ obligations, together with an explanation of the structure of the Panel and the membership qualification requirements.

The key elements of the draft Panel Charter to note are as follows:

 

Matters to be dealt with by the Panel

The list of matters that would be delegated to the Panel are included in the Charter. The categories are provided in Attachment 5.

 

Panel membership

This report recommends that the Panel for a hearing meeting comprises four (4) members (including the Chairperson) and three (3) members form the quorum for a meeting.

The Chairperson and members will be drawn from a pool of suitable qualified persons (and shall include community representatives), intended to be appointed by the General Manager following a public Expression of Interest process. Panel members will be selected for a particular agenda based on relevance of expertise, also taking into account any declarations of interest and availability.

Each appointed Panel member will be required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to comply with the Code of Conduct, Operational Guidelines and Charter. The MOU has not been included as part of this report as it is essentially an employment contract document.

 

Term, trial period and remuneration

It is recommended that Council follows the practice of other Councils (including former Leichhardt Council) and appoint Panel members for 2 years with an option for a further 2 year appointment.

Panel members will be entitled to be paid if selected as a member for a hearing meeting, with exact remuneration determined by the General Manager. Estimated costs are discussed below under the heading “Financial Implications”.

 

Governance

Determination shall be by a majority vote, and the voting pattern shall be recorded in the minutes, together with reasons for any decision contrary to the officer’s recommendation. If a DA is refused against officers’ recommendations the reasons must be capable of being defended in the Land and Environment Court. In the case of deferral, the Panel must state the issues to be addressed by the applicant to enable the application to be brought back to the Panel for final consideration (this may be via electronic means).

 

Recruiting Panel Members

The terms of the current members of the LPP are due to expire in December 2016. To transition from the LPP to the IWPP, reappointment of members of the current LPP is proposed. Concurrently, a public Expression of Interest (EOI) process is required to broaden the membership of the new IWPP, to ensure that the membership pool contains enough persons with suitable technical expertise and experience, and that it is representative of the interests of the community within the expanded geographic area.

To ensure that a transparent, independent and robust selection process occurs, and that the composition of the Panel is balanced between technical expertise and appropriate interpersonal and engagement skills, a one off allocation of $30,000 (maximum) is required for external assistance with panel selection.

Given the necessity to conduct an EOI, it is anticipated that the IWPP would commence in October 2016. Upon commencement of the IWPP, the current LPP would cease.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Establishment and operating costs have been estimated based on 12 meetings per year with the option for four (4) additional meetings on a needs basis, with a sitting Panel of four (4) members per meeting, paid on a sessional basis.

Estimated costs are modelled on the rates paid to the LPP members (with a small increase for CPI as the rates have not been reviewed since February 2015), and an allocation for ancillary costs (catering, community bus hire, etc.) as follows:

·    Panel member remuneration per meeting (total) $9,800 inclusive of GST X 16 meetings = $156,800.

·    Ancillary costs (catering, bus for site inspections, etc.) = $7000

·    Recurring  cost = $163,800 per annum

·    Recruitment  $30,000 (one off)

TOTAL = $193,800

 

Based on these estimated costs of operation, the recurring annual cost of the IWPP of $163,800 per annum could be funded from the existing LPP budget, noting that additional funds are required to be allocated to cover the one off cost of recruitment of up to $30,000.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The Manager, Development Services, Ashfield was involved in the preparation of this report.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Appropriate notice of the commencement of the Inner West Planning Panel will be provided.

 

 

CONCLUSION

This report responds to an Administrator’s minute that requested a report on the potential establishment of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP). It is considered that the most expedient and appropriate way to introduce an IHAP to cover the Inner West Council (IWC) area is to adapt and tailor the existing Leichardt Planning Panel (LPP) model, but  with a reduced sitting panel of four (4) members for each meeting. Transitional arrangements for the existing LPP are proposed in conjunction with a concurrent EOI to recruit a membership pool for the IWPP that it is representative of the interests of the community within the expanded geographic area.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) Operational Guidelines

2.

Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) Code of Conduct

3.

Inner West Planning Panel (IWPP) Charter

4.

Analysis of DAs Not Determined by Staff by Branch in 2015

5.

Development Applications to be Delegated to the IWPP

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 11

Subject:         Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program   

File Ref:         16/6032/101106.16        

Prepared By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery 

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

 

SUMMARY

The Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program was established by the State Government and funding of $14million provided to merged Councils to deliver new or improved infrastructure or services to the community. 

This report outlines the governance and project framework that supports the consultation, assessment and delivery of the Program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT

1.       Council adopt framework that supports the consultation, assessment and delivery of the Program; and

2.       the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel are to allocate projects and funds according to the option with the highest community support.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program was established for Councils to fund projects that deliver new or improved infrastructure or services to the community and must meet the following criteria*:

·    Have been through a community consultation process

·    Demonstrate social and/or economic benefits to the community

·    Consider issues of sustainability and equity across the broader community

·    Demonstrate project feasibility and value for money, including full lifecycle cost

·    Did not have funds allocated by the former councils

·    Give consideration to the processes and procedures outlined in the capital expenditure review guidelines

 

* Criteria issued by the NSW Government

 

By December 2016, councils are to notify the Office of Local Government of their three year plan for allocating the Stronger Communities Fund.  This requirement means that tight timeframes must be adhered to in order to achieve the deadline.

The Stronger Communities Fund is to be spent or committed by 30 June 2019 and all funding acquitted before 31 December 2019.

 

Infrastructure position

This one off opportunity to spend $14million additional funds has required careful consideration of the infrastructure position of the new Inner West Council.  The Inner West Council has an asset portfolio to the value of $1.6 billion.

Council already has an ambitious program to deliver considerable new community assets, with upcoming major projects including 2 new childcare centres (Leichhardt and Marrickville South), 2 new libraries (Dulwich Hill and Marrickville), new town centre (Ashfield) and aquatic facilities (Ashfield).

Rather than allocate all the available money to one or two new large scale projects, where all the funds would be exhausted, Inner West Council is aiming to deliver community benefits across the new LGA.

It will also be important that the community feels that the money and projects are geographically spread across the new Inner West Council area.  It is therefore proposed to allocate spending equally in each ward per option, but the category spend will be based on the need and community feedback.

Some more detail on the asset value and condition appears in the figure below:

           

 

Current annual renewal spending is approximately $25 million or 1.5% of the total asset value. The Stronger Communities Fund provides the opportunity to accellerate annual renewal spending and thereby reduce the backlog of assets considered to be in an unsatisfactory condition. It also provides an opportunity to address some program areas having strategies which are not suffieciently funded.

Background work undertaken on asset needs across the Inner West indicates that the priority categories for funding expenditure are:

 

Categories

 Transport

Roads

Footpath

Kerb & gutter

Traffic facilities

Stormwater

Recreation and Sustainability 

Parks

Water Sensitive Urban Design

Greenway

Community Facilities

Child care centres renewal and compliance

Townhall facades rehabilitation

Accessibility upgrades

Way finding

 

 

Consultation and engagement with the community

Council is seeking community input into the allocation of $14million for the Major Projects component of the Stronger Communities Fund. 

 

Information provided to communities:

Fact sheets will be prepared for each category with three options of what could be achieved with a range of funds. The funding would be spread across the five ward areas and the community would not be asked to pick and choose specific projects.

Data may include evidence such as existing master plans, engagement undertaken to date, community satisfaction surveys for the former councils and asset conditions. The information would be in the form of high level summaries as the engagement program needs to accommodate a two-hour forum for former committee members and broader community, so must be easily digestible. Council’s Asset Managers will prepare this information in collaboration with the engagement team.  

 

Engagement Program

The community would be asked to contribute to the funds allocation through:

1.       Engagement forum – tentatively booked for Wednesday 12 October

It is proposed that the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program be the single focus of a broad, open to the whole community, engagement forum

2.       Your Say Inner West – online budget allocator tool which would replicate information provided to people at the forum but enable all residents to have a say via an electronic format.

3.       Engagement at the community festivals to be held in October – Ashfield’s Feast of Flavours, Marrickville Festival, and Norton Street Italian Fiesta.

 

The community will be asked to consider the priority categories and provide input as to which of three options are preferred:

 

Assessment and Decision Making Framework

Council will undertake that the option with the highest community support will be endorsed and the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel are to allocate projects and funds accordingly.  Individual projects will be scoped and costed and then a schedule of projects will be provided to the Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel.

The Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel is prescribed by the State Government and is to include:

·    Administrator or delegate

·    State Members of Parliament or representative

·    Regional Coordinator of the Department of Premier and Cabinet or delegate

·    Other members, appointed by the Administrator, as required

·    An independent probity adviser, appointed by the Administrator to advise the Panel on their deliberation and assessment process

 

Letters inviting participation in the Panel have already been sent.

The Stronger Communities Fund Assessment Panel will assess the projects and make recommendations to council for funding prior to the December deadline.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding of $14million has been provided by the State Government to deliver the Stronger Communities Fund Major Projects Program.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The engagement program will be supported by an extensive communication and marketing campaign for community members to engage - either in person or online. The key messaging will stress that:

·    this opportunity to allocate funds is a once in a lifetime event to benefit participants own communities with tangible results

·    this is an authentic participatory process   ie the Assessment Panel will allocate projects and funds with the highest community support

 

Beyond inviting community members to participate at the forum and the community festivals, all publicity will drive traffic to Council’s online engagement hub www.yoursayinnerwest.com (YSIW) for submissions through the online budgetary tool. This will include:

·    Council column in local newspaper

·    Media releases

·    Council websites – click through link

·    Social media blasts – click through link

·    Council e-newsletter – click through link

·    YSIW e-newsletter ­­– click through link

 

It is to be expected that the blanket publicity coverage, the ease of participating online and the importance of the engagement will yield a high number of good quality, representative, community submissions in addition to those collected at the forum and the community festivals.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 12

Subject:         Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/105000.16         

Prepared By: John Stephens - Traffic Manager, Leichhardt  

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

 

SUMMARY

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016 are presented for Council consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016 be received and the recommendations be adopted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A meeting of the Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee was held on 1 September 2016 at Ashfield. The minutes of the meeting are shown at Attachment 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Projects proposed for implementation in 2016/17 are funded within existing budget allocations.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 September 2016

  


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 13

Subject:         Anti-Poverty Week 2016 Grants  

File Ref:         3125/101693.16         

Prepared By: Lynne George - Manager Community Development, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

Anti-Poverty Week 2016 is being held from 16 to 22 October, 2016. The United Nation’s International Anti-Poverty Day is Monday 17 October 2016 and is recognised as the day for the eradication of poverty.  Poverty and severe hardship affect more than a million Australians and more than a billion people world-wide. As in past years, events are held in local communities across Australia with the aim of strengthening public understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and disadvantage; and encouraging citizens to become involved in actions designed to prevent or reduce poverty and hardship.  This report outlines Council’s contribution to Anti-Poverty Week 2016.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council endorses donations of $1,660 each to The Girls Refuge, Exodus Foundation and Aboriginal Women and Children’s Crisis Service, as part of its 2016 Anti-poverty Week activities.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Anti-Poverty Week was established in Australia in 2002 and this year is being held for 16 to 22 October, 2016.  Monday 17 October 2016 is the United Nation’s recognised day for the eradication of poverty.  Anti-Poverty Week is a week where all Australians are encouraged to organise or take part in an activity designed to prevent or reduce poverty.

In recognition of Anti-Poverty Week, it is proposed to donate $1,660 to each of the following organisations working to support people living in poverty across the Inner West LGA:

·     The Girls Refuge (previously the Young People’s Refuge) offers a three month stay in a safe, home-like environment for girls aged 13 to 17 years who are going through a difficult time and are homeless or at risk of homelessness due to family breakdown, domestic and family violence, trauma, child abuse, disengagement with education, misuse of drugs and alcohol, mental health issues and interaction with the justice system.

·     Exodus Foundation provides a range of social health and wellbeing services to disadvantaged, at risk and homeless people, including up to 1,000 meals per day to homeless and struggling Australians, crisis intervention and support, health and financial services.

·           Aboriginal Women and Children’s Crisis Service (previously Jean’s Place) is an inner west service providing support services and crisis accommodation for Aboriginal women and children escaping domestic or family violence who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

 

 

 

Council will also mark Anti-Poverty Week on 17 October 2016 by presenting Council’s Community Grants (Petersham branch) to successful applicants as well as presenting the cheques to The Girls Refuge, Exodus Foundation and Aboriginal Women and Children’s Crisis Service.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding of $5,000 is allocated in the current Operating Budget for this purpose.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 14

Subject:         The Metropolitan Orchestra - Fee Waiver Request 

File Ref:         16/4718/107165.16        

Prepared By: Aaron Callaghan - Senior Parks and Open Space Planner, Leichhardt 

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

The Inner West Council has recently received a request from The Metropolitan Orchestra (TMO) requesting bookings for the Balmain Town Hall in 2017 for their rehearsal plan.  The bookings requested a full fee waiver to the value of $4,681.00. The rehearsal plan forms part of their performance program (performances will be conducted at Eugene Goossens Hall, Ultimo). The request has been made at this time to inform the preparation of their 2017 season brochure due to be launched in October 2016.

The fee waiver requested is being submitted to Council to provide transparency and probity for Council in meeting its financial obligations under the Local Government Act.  Moving forward this reporting will also assist in developing a framework for a consistent and ratified approach to fee waivers with respect to community partners.

The former Leichhardt Council's Community & Cultural Plan 2011-2021 identified The Metropolitan Orchestra (TMO) as a Major Partner and as playing a role in enlivening arts and cultural life in the local area.  A Draft Major Partnerships Policy, which would provide the framework for considering and approving major support for organisations, has been developed, however has not yet been finalised following the creation of the Inner West Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       Council approve the fee waiver for The Metropolitan Orchestra for the 2017 calendar year; and

2.       Council advise The Metropolitan Orchestra that changes in the fee waiver policy will be considered by Council in the near future as part of a development of a new grants framework and integrated fees and charges for the Inner West Council. 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Leichhardt Council developed a partnership with The Metropolitan Orchestra (formerly Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra) for rehearsal and performance space in the local area in 2010. The Council resolution (C370/10) includes:

 

1.  That Council notes that Leichhardt residents have a high interest in music, drama and the performing arts, and that the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra is a Balmain based Chamber Orchestra, established to provide outstanding musical experience accessible to local audiences in local venues, and

2.  That Council provides a fee waiver to the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra for the second three series of rehearsals and performances starting in August 2010 and concluding on 13 November 2010.

3.  That Council notes that the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra will provide 20 complimentary tickets for Seniors Council, Youth and local disadvantaged groups for each concert as a community benefit.

4.  That Council notes that the refundable bond of $500 is to be paid upon booking confirmation.

5.  Acknowledging the potential for the Balmain Town Hall to host the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra on a regular basis, and noting the Leichhardt 2020+ community vision that Council and the community work together for a sustainable and liveable Leichhardt,

a.    That Leichhardt Council convene a working group to discuss with the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra the development of a potential 3 year Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations addressing the following considerations

i.   the potential for the Balmain Town hall to be the home base for the Metropolitan Chamber Orchestra

ii.  fostering locally-produced chamber music that enlivens arts and cultural life

iii.  the community benefit arising from a 3 year-relationship between the two organisations, including access to rehearsals and performances by people who would not otherwise have this opportunity

iv. the business relationship underpinning such an Agreement, including sponsorship notices, acknowledgement of Council in MCO publicity,  fee waivers and associated matters.

 

During 2015, TMO commenced performing at the Eugene Goossens Hall at the ABC Ultimo Centre. TMO continue to provide 20 complimentary tickets for local disadvantaged groups. TMO has continued to use Balmain Town Hall largely for rehearsal space (free of charge).  During 2015 and 2016 TMO performed Cushion Concerts at Balmain Town Hall. (This included free venue use and grant funding from Council).  In recent years the TMO has also performed one concert in Council's Site & Sound Program (venue fee waiver program run annually at Leichhardt Town Hall) and have performed at Classics at Callan Park, for which they received payment (through Council's Events budget).

During 2016, TMO's booking requests repeatedly changed and included additional hall booking and meeting room booking requests made on short notice. TMO's 2016 hall bookings for rehearsals are currently valued this year at $4,681.00.

In addition to the above TMO have ten further bookings from 22 March to 9 April 2017.

Balmain Town Hall   -   8 sessions           $ 3,176

Leichhardt Town Hall -1 Weekend               $ 678

Total                                                              $ 3, 854

 

The additional events are for rehearsals except for a weekend booking on 9 April for a performance. These additional rehearsals relate to Council supported events including Site and Sound and Classics in the Park (Callan Park).  (Refer to Attachment 1).

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Fee waivers for use of the Balmain Town Hall in 2015/16 have equated to a total of $36,614.86.  Similarly fee waivers for use of the Leichhardt Town Hall in 2015/16 have equated to a total of $104,606.71.

It is critical that community facilities such as the Town Halls are fully utilised and support ongoing community and cultural needs. The value of fee waivers however needs to be balanced with the ongoing maintenance of the building and the ability of Council to service and maintain the facility sustainably into the future.  Both the Leichhardt Town Hall and Balmain Town Halls have heritage listings and as such the costs in maintaining them are significant.  Both are in need of upgrades.

 

 

 

 

Table 1.0 Fee Waivers vs. Infrastructure Improvements Leichhardt and Balmain Town Halls 2015-17

 

Town hall

Income 15/16

Maintenance Spent 15/16

Capital  Projects 15/16

Capital  Projects  Carried over to 16/17

Fee Waiver Totals

Balmain

($35k)

$52k

 

$400k

$36,614

Leichhardt

($15k)

$21.3k

 

$150k

$104,606.71

Leichhardt - windows

 

 

 

$29k

 

Leichhardt - repaint

 

 

 

$200k

 

Leichhardt

 

 

$1.8k

 

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s Manager Property and Commercial Services Leichhardt is generally supportive of the fee waiver as the proposed use demonstrates community benefits. The Manager of Property and Commercial Services has suggested that in reviewing any future partnership arrangements that Council require TMO to perform a certain number of concerts in Balmain and Leichhardt Town Halls. Participating in Site and Sound and Classics in Callan Park is also viewed as positive and should be made a requirement for substantial fee waivers.  Opportunities for open rehearsals are also a consideration that Council may like to consider into the future. This way the public would benefit from being able to sit quietly and enjoy music and the TMO would benefit from wider exposure.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil to date but community consultation will be undertaken as part of the exhibition of Council’s 2017/18 fees and charges policy.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The fee waiver requested is being submitted to Council to provide transparency and probity for Council in meeting its financial obligations under the Local Government Act, 1993.  Moving forward this reporting will also assist in developing a framework for a consistent and ratified approach to fee waivers with respect to community partners. It is recommended that Council approve the fee waiver request for the Metropolitan Orchestra for the 2017 calendar year. Further it is noted that changes in the fee waiver policy will be considered by Council in the near future as part of a development of a new grants framework and integrated fees and charges framework for the Inner West Council.  It is recommended that Council consider requiring a certain number of concerts or other community benefits in exchange for fee waivers.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

The Metropolitan Orchestra Booking Requests for 2017

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 15

Subject:         Request for Chrissie Cotter Gallery Fee Waiver - AGNSW Staff Charity Exhibition   

File Ref:         16/3293/102396.16         

Prepared By: Victoria Johnstone - A/Arts and Cultural Development Coordinator, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

Council is advised of a request from Emma Smith (Curator, Art Gallery of NSW) to waive the Chrissie Cotter Gallery 15% commission for the AGNSW Staff Charity Fundraiser Exhibition at Chrissie Cotter Gallery from 12 to October 2016. All funds raised will go to Save the Children Fund, Australia.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       the report be received and noted; and

2.       Council waive the 15% commission for the AGNSW Staff Charity Fundraiser Exhibition at the Chrissie Cotter Gallery, 12 to 16 October 2016.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

From 12 - 16 October 2016, Curator Emma Smith will hold a fundraising art exhibition at Council’s Chrissie Cotter Gallery to raise funds for Save the Children Fund. Over 25 artists, a majority of whom work at the Art Gallery of NSW, are donating artworks for the exhibition.

The artists’ donations are outright and they will not be seeking a percentage of the sales. All funds raised from the sale of artworks will go to Save the Children Fund.

The Save the Children Fund, commonly known as Save the Children, is an international non-governmental organization that promotes children's rights, provides relief and helps support children in developing countries.

Council received a letter on 5 August 2016 from curator, Emma Smith, requesting that Council waive the 15% commission on any works sold as all funds raised from the sale of the artworks will go directly to Save the Children Fund. This request was accompanied by a letter from Nikki Kerridge, Single Giving Manager, Save the Children Fund Australia, authorising Emma Smith to fundraise on behalf of the charity.

Last year the Art Gallery of NSW staff held a fundraiser event at Chrissie Cotter Gallery for The Fred Hollows Foundation. Marrickville Council approved waiver of the fees. The exhibition was a great success and a large sum was raised for The Fred Hollows Foundation.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council’s 2016/2017 Fees and Charges include a 15% commission for all works sold at the

Chrissie Cotter Gallery. Hirer’s are also required to pay a refundable bond of $200 to cover

any potential maintenance requirements following the exhibition.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Emma Smith and Dot Kolentsis - Authority to Fundraise

2.

AGNSW Fee Waiver Request

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 16

Subject:         Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator  

File Ref:         16/4718/88986.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator. This policy was placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act. The Policy has been amended in response to the submissions received. It is recommended that the amended Policy be adopted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council adopt the amended Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator, shown as Attachment 1 to this Report and publish it on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council at its Meeting of 5 July 2016 resolved to place the Expenses and Facilities Policy for the Administrator on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act. The Policy was exhibited at the three Customer Service Centres as well as on the “Your Say Inner West” webpage on the Inner West Council website.

During the public exhibition period, there were 542 visits to the public exhibition webpage and 492 users viewed or downloaded the policy. Council received 7 submissions on the Your Say Inner West webpage. A summary of the comments made in the submissions in relation to the Policy are shown in the table below:-

 

Comment on Policy

Officer Response

The Policy does not state the consequences if there is a private benefit to the Administrator.

 

On page 2 of the Policy it states that any substantial private benefit received by the Administrator is to be paid back to Council.

The provision of technology and reimbursement of technology costs is excessive. There should be no need to access the internet from home and there is no need for the Administrator to be provided with a work mobile phone. One plan to cover all data usage should be used.

 

 

The Policy reflects the provision of technology, phone and internet usage levels that was previously provided to the former Councillors and is in line with best practice for NSW local government.  The internet usage is a reimbursement up to the limits outlined in the Policy so if the plan costs less, then the Administrator will only be reimbursed for the cost of the plan. If Council organises the data plan it will seek the cheapest plan possible.

There is no limit on the cost of refreshments and this should not include alcohol.

The Policy has been amended to include an annual limit for refreshments. It is considered reasonable that alcohol can be served at civic events as was the case for the former Councillors, however Council has a policy that no alcohol refreshments be served prior to a Council Meeting.

The Administrator should choose one office location and only have modest office space at the two other locations and not be provided with parking permits. The existing Town Halls should be utilised for functions.

The Policy has been amended to provide for one office space at the Leichhardt Service Centre and utilisation of meeting rooms at the other locations. The reference to parking permits has been removed.

The Administrator should only have access to one secretary.

The Policy has been amended to clarify that secretarial services will be provided from the Leichhardt Service Centre.

The Policy should include a limit on accommodation expenses specifying a limit for metropolitan and rural accommodation.

It is difficult to put a monetary limit on accommodation as it will depend on where the Conference is held however the Policy has been amended to state that the accommodation is to be no more than a 4 star rated venue.

The Meal allowance rate is excessive.

 

This is the rate specified by the Australian Tax Office.

The Policy should not include reimbursement of any expenses for the Administrator’s spouse.

The Policy states that this reimbursement is very limited to specific circumstances. The same provisions applied to the former Councillors and is considered best practice in NSW local government.

The Policy should not include reimbursement of any training or conference costs.

The same provisions applied to the former Councillors and is considered best practice in NSW Local Government.

The General Manager should not be the approver for expenses where the General Manager reports to the Administrator.

The Policy requires approval for conferences and training to be reported to a Council Meeting for transparency and accountability. The General Manager was the approver for all other expenses for the former Councillors and this is considered best practice in NSW Local Government.

The Administrator should only be entitled to either a laptop or an ipad, not both

 

The same provisions applied to the former Councillors and this is considered best practice in NSW Local Government to allow them to carry out their civic functions.

The Policy should not include Carers allowance this should be paid out of the Administrator’s salary.

The same provisions applied to the former Councillors and this is considered best practice in NSW Local Government.

The Policy should not include the provision of cab charges, own transport should be used and there should not be both cabcharges and a vehicle allowance

 

The same provisions applied to the former Councilors and this is considered best practice in NSW Local Government. A vehicle allowance applies to any person who uses their own vehicle for work purposes eg. to attend meetings or events, this excludes travelling to and from work.

The Policy does not provide accountability or transparency as the Administrator himself is responsible for approving reimbursements.

That is not correct the Administrator must seek approval from the General Manager for any reimbursements.


 

There are contradictions in the Policy. For instance, the policy expressly states that the Administrator cannot receive a general allowance. The policy then states the Administrator’s internet access above $100 per month will be deducted from their general allowance.

In line with the Office of Local Government’s Guidelines on Provision of Facilites and Reimbursement of Expenses Policies a general allowance with no reconciliation of expenses is not allowed however the Administrator is paid a Salary as determined by the NSW Governor. The Policy has been amended to rename allowance to Salary.

The Administrator should not be provided with a multifunction device as the office would have these devices.

The Policy states that this is upon request and may not be necessary. Multifunction devices were provided to the former Councillors to carry out their civic duties.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Policy was publicly exhibited in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act and has been amended in response to the submissions received.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The draft policy has been amended in response to the submissions received. The amendments are shown in red in Attachment 1. Once adopted by Council this policy will be published on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Amended Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy for Administrator

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 17

Subject:         Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC Members  

File Ref:         16/4718/88987.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC members. This policy was placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act. It is recommended that the amended Policy be adopted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council adopts the amended Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC members, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report, and publish it on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council at its Meeting of 26 July 2016 resolved to place the Expenses and Facilities Policy for IAG/LRAC members on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act. The Policy was exhibited at the three Customer Service Centres as well as on the “Your Say Inner West” webpage on the Inner West Council website.

During the public exhibition period, there were 47 visits to the public exhibition webpage and 23 users viewed or downloaded the policy. Council received no submissions in respect to the Policy.

Minor amendments to the exhibited policy (shown attached as Attachment 1) have been made by staff to clarify the following items:

·   the reimbursement for internet usage is for both broadband and ipad usage;

·   travel insurance does not apply as there is no provision in the policy for interstate or overseas travel; and

·   substituting the words “IAG/LRAC Terms of Reference” in place of the Local Government Act in the provision for legal expenses.  

 

These minor amendments are shown in red in the amended policy attached as Attachment 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Policy was publicly exhibited in accordance with Section 252 of the Local Government Act.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The Policy once adopted by Council will be published on the Inner West Council website.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IAG and LRAC Provision of Facilities Policy - Amended following Exhibition

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 18

Subject:         Summary of Resolutions - Publishing on Website   

File Ref:         16/4718/104737.16         

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

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for the Summary of Resolutions for the Inner West Council and three former councils to be published on the Inner West Council website, updated on a monthly basis and no longer be reported to Council and committee meetings.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council publishes a dedicated webpage that reports on outstanding recommendations and resolutions for the Inner West Council and three former councils and these reports no longer be reported separately to Council and committee meetings.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville councils had different timeframes, from monthly to quarterly, for reporting outstanding council resolutions to a Council Meeting. Currently, staff are preparing reports on outstanding resolutions for the Inner West Council and three former councils. Consideration of these reports at Council and LRAC meetings will have an impact on the consideration of other council business and for Council Meetings delay agenda items that the public are in attendance to speak to. It is recommended that outstanding resolution reports no longer be reported separately to Council and committee meetings.

As the Inner West Council has four separate reports on outstanding resolutions it is proposed that a dedicated page on the IWC website be setup and updated on a monthly basis. The webpage would provide a snapshot on the number of resolutions implemented since the last update, a year to date figure as well as links to each of the four outstanding resolutions reports. In only 4 months, the Inner West Council has implemented 74% of resolutions which required action as shown in the graph below.

 

 

Council staff surveyed other NSW councils to determine how outstanding resolutions were reported to their communities. From the 20 responses received no other council publishes a report of outstanding resolutions on a dedicated webpage as outlined above. The Inner West Council could be a leader in this regard and this webpage would provide our community, committee members and elected officials with open and transparent information on the implementation of council resolutions.

Once the webpage is implemented Council staff will inform the community and LRAC members. If LRAC members had any questions about the status of a resolution than they could submit a request for information under the protocol that has been established for LRAC members.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 19

Subject:         Proposed Changes to the Schedule for Council Meetings 2016  

File Ref:         16/4718/103208.16         

Prepared By: Popy Mourgelas - Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

SUMMARY

The report proposes changes to the location and schedule of Council meetings for the 2016 calendar year, commencing October to December 2016.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the Administrator determines the change of location to Ashfield and the change of dates to the schedule of Council meetings for the remainder 2016 calendar year.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 5 July 2016, resolved the schedule of Council meetings for the 2016 calendar year. The October to December 2016 Ordinary Council meetings where intended to be at the Leichhardt location and rotated to Petersham in 2017.

It is proposed to continue to hold Council meetings at the Ashfield location for the remainder of the 2016 calendar year. This is based on the relative size and capacity of the venue to accommodate larger public gatherings and events, with a seating capacity of 120, the close proximity to public transport and associated security measures. Council is also investigating options for live streaming of public meetings which provides added flexibility, increasing and expanding public access.

The updated schedule of Council meetings for the remainder 2016 calendar year is:

Date - Time 6.30pm

Meeting

Location

25 October 2016

Ordinary Council

260 Liverpool Road Ashfield

6 December  2016

Ordinary Council

260 Liverpool Road Ashfield

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Governance Managers - Leichhardt and Marrickville.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Updates to the Council meeting schedule will be advertised in the local papers and on Council’s website.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The locations will again be reviewed by Council when preparing the schedule for Council meetings in 2017.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 20

Subject:         Inner West Council Investments as at 31 August 2016 

File Ref:         16/5386/103058.16        

Prepared By: Brian Chen - Team Leader Financial Accounting, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

In accordance with the requirements of clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council is provided with a listing of all investments made pursuant to section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and held as at 31 August 2016.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a report be presented to Council each month listing all investments with a certification from the Responsible Accounting Officer (Chief Financial Officer, Marrickville). Attached to this report are further reports from Council’s Investment Advisors, Prudential Investment Services.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The Investment Holdings report (Attachment 1) for the period to 31 August 2016 reflects Council’s holding in various investment categories these are listed in the table below:

 

 


 

 

 

 

Environmental Commitments

The former Leichhardt Council investment portfolio has 59% of its investments with non-fossil fuel ADIs and the former Marrickville Council investment portfolio has 44% of its investments with non-fossil fuel ADIs.

Attachments 1 and 2 to this report summarise all investments held by Council and interest returns as at 31 August 2016.

The portfolio for Inner West Council had a One-Month Portfolio Investment Return (3.49%) was above the UBSWA Bank Bill Index Benchmark (2.01%). Council has a well-diversified portfolio with 97% of the portfolio spread among the top three credit rating categories (A long term / A2 short term and higher).

The Current Market value is required to be accounted for by the accounting standards and are due to the nature of the investment, and are unlikely to impact on the eventual return of capital and interest to Council. The Current Market Value is a likely outcome if Council were to consider recalling the investment prior to its due date.

A Monthly Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary from Prudential Investment Services, is at Attachment 3.

 

 

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer:

I, Pav Kuzmanovski, hereby certify in accordance with Clause 212 (1) (b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 that the investments listed in Attachment 1 have been made in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 for each of the Branches of the Inner West Council. There will be a review of the separate investment policies in the coming months with the view to develop a consolidated investment policy for the Inner West Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

IWC Investments August 2016

2.

IWC Monthly Interest August 2016

3.

IWC Economic and Investment Portfolio Commentary August 2016

  


Council Meeting

27 September 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

27 September 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

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 21

Subject:         Affordable and Supported Living Housing over Hay Street Car Park, Leichhardt  

File Ref:         16/507/106717.16         

Prepared By: Lyn Gerathy - Manager Property and Commercial Services, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Leichhardt Council resolved, amongst other things, that Council enter into discussions with registered housing providers about a development deed and agreement for a long term lease and, in consultation with the registered housing provider, prepare an application for Pre-DA advice for affordable and other housing over the Hay Street car park.  It is recommended that Council enter into Heads of Agreement with the recommended housing provider to cover the preparation of the Pre-DA application and the negotiation of the agreement for lease and other documents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as information contained in Confidential Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 are classified as confidential under section 10A(2)(c) and/or (d)(i) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as parts relate to information that, if disclosed, would confer a commercial advantage on a party with whom Council is conducting or proposing to conduct business and parts are commercial information that, if disclosed, would prejudice the position of the party which supplied it. 

 

OR if the meeting is not closed:

 

THAT:

1.       Confidential Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with section 10A of the Local Government Act, 1993 as they relate to a matter or matters specified in  sections 10A(2)(c) and (d)(i) of that Act;

2.       Council enters into the Heads of Agreement with Link Housing Limited in the form of Confidential Attachment 3 to the Report; and

3.       authority is delegated to the General Manager to sign the Heads of Agreement for Council.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

In this and previous reports, “affordable housing” is often a generic term to cover social, affordable, key worker, supported living, below market, and other housing.

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2015, Leichhardt Council resolved (C598/15) relevantly to this report:

That Council:

2.       Commence discussions with registered community housing providers about an Agreement for Lease and Development Deed permitting the construction and sub-lease of affordable housing above the Hay Street Car Park in Leichhardt.

3.       Following discussions and in consultation with the community housing provider, appoint an architect to prepare broad concept plans and an external traffic engineer to provide parking advice and traffic impacts, and lodge a Pre-DA for supported housing, affordable housing for key workers and community housing above the ground level Hay Street car park. 

4        Receive a further report after receipt of the Pre-DA advice and the reviewed discussion paper in accordance with Resolution C426/15 with recommendations on the type of affordable, supported and community housing and a list of possible registered community housing providers for this site.

 

Expressions of Interest were invited from registered community housing providers, to be lodged by 23 May 2016.  Three were received.  All had undertaken preliminary investigations.  There were meeting with all three.

Discussions with the housing providers clarified that it was more sensible to select a preferred housing provider to prepare the Pre-DA in consultation with Council than for Council to pause the selection process and do the Pre-DA itself before selecting the preferred provider.  Selection of a preferred provider became urgent due to the closing date for such providers to apply for funding from the NSW Government’s Social and Affordable Housing Fund (“SAHF”). 

On 29 June 2016, the then Interim General Manager under delegated authority approved:

1.       Link Housing is the preferred housing provider for affordable housing over the Hay Street car park.

2.       It is noted that this will allow Link Housing to include this project in its tender to the NSW Government Social and Affordable Housing Fund.

3.       Council will work with Link Housing and its architects and planners on designs and a Pre-DA (as per paragraph 3 of resolution C598/15).

4.       The Local Representation Advisory Committee Leichhardt be briefed.

 

A report on the Expressions of Interest is Confidential Attachment 1

Heads of agreement between Link Housing and Council were prepared and amendments negotiated.  There was a report to the August Leichhardt Local Representation Advisory Committee meeting (“LRAC”).  Then Link Housing decided not to pursue the application for funding from SAHF.  However, Link Housing wanted to proceed with the project with Council.  The report to Council was changed from the version that went to LRAC but the Recommendations were the same, dealing with matters affecting the land but unrelated to the particular housing provider.  At the Council Meeting on 23 August 2016, relevantly to this report:

The Administrator determined that:

1.       the Report be received and noted;

 

The other August resolutions related to the land and are not relevant for this report.

During discussion at the August 2016 Council Meeting, there were comments that further details of Link Housing’s decision not to proceed with its tender for SAHF funding should be provided.  That is one reason this report is being brought to Council this month.  Information from Link Housing about its decision not to proceed with its tender for SAHF is set out in Confidential Attachment 2.  Further, now that it is not urgent to meet the SAHF deadline, it is considered appropriate to bring the recommendation of Link Housing and the draft Heads of Agreement to a Council meeting for determination.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under the proposed Heads of Agreement, the costs of preparation of the plans and additional supporting documents to seek Pre-DA advice will be borne by the housing provider.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

This report is dealing with the recommendation that Council enter into the heads of agreement.  Other issues such as the Affordable Housing Fund, the tenancy/housing mix and implementation of the August 2016 resolutions will be reported to a later meeting.

The preferred housing provider decided not to continue with its application for funds from SAHF but does want to proceed with this project with Council.  The Heads of Agreement were amended.  They have been executed by the housing provider in accordance with a resolution of its Board of Directors.  The signed Heads of Agreement have been delivered to Council.  A copy is Confidential Attachment 3 to this report.  An outline of the principal terms and conditions is in Confidential Attachment 4 with officer’s comments.

The report writer accepts Link Housing’s reasons set out in Confidential Attachment 2.  This housing provider is still recommended to proceed with the next stage (see Confidential Attachment 1).  The execution by link Housing of the Heads of Agreement and return to Council for signing demonstrates the commitment to the project, as the Heads of Agreement require the housing provider (in consultation with Council) to prepare the Pre-DA documents at its cost.

It is recommended that Council enter into the Heads of Agreement with Link Housing.  Work on concept designs will then commence and a Pre-DA application lodged.  The outcomes will be reported to Council.  Input will be sought on the housing/tenancy mix to be negotiated in the initial period covered by the heads of agreement.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This project was supported by the former Leichhardt Council’s Housing Advisory Committee.  It is referred to in the draft Leichhardt Housing Action Plan which was on public exhibition.  Pre-DA advice will be reported to Council.  The DA will be exhibited in the usual way.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The project for affordable housing over the Hay Street Car Park has advanced with the recommendation of a preferred registered community housing provider to work with Council to prepare a PRE-DA Application and a recommendation that Council enter into Heads of Agreement in the form of Confidential Attachment 3.  There will be update reports from time to time including after receipt of the Pre-DA advice.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Report on Expressions of Interest - Confidential

2.

Information from Link Housing - Social and Affordable Housing Fund - Confidential

3.

Heads of Agreement - Confidential

4.

Principal Terms and Conditions in the Heads of Agreement - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 22

Subject:         Cooks River Parklands - Draft Plans of Management and Master Plans 2016-2026: Feedback from Public Exhibition 

File Ref:         14/5451/83829.16        

Prepared By: David Petrie - Coordinator Public Domain Planning, Marrickville 

Authorised By: Josephine Bennett - Director, Community Services

 

SUMMARY

The Cooks River Parklands Plans of Management and Master Plans have been amended to include feedback from the community obtained during the public exhibition period that ran from 4 May 2016 to 15 June 2016.  This report provides an overview of the plans, the process and the feedback received from the community.  The report is seeking Council’s endorsement of the Plans of Management and Master Plans.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in Confidential Attachment 4 of this report are classified as confidential under provisions of Section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a.  Information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

OR, WHERE THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED:

 

THAT:

1.    Council resolves that Confidential Attachment 4 of 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) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.    the report be received and noted;

3.    Council adopts the draft Cooks River Parklands - Plans of Management and Master Plans as attached to this report;

4.    all residents and stakeholders who made submission during the public exhibition be notified of Council’s determination; and

5.    the Plans of Management and Master Plans be used to inform future management and capital upgrades of the Cooks River Parklands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Marrickville Council conducted an extensive research project in 2012 resulting in the development of the Recreation Needs Research - Strategic Directions for Marrickville.  The study identified the community need for improved recreation and environmental outcomes for the Cooks River and its parklands.

In July 2014, the former Marrickville Council initiated the planning process to develop plans of management and master plans for open space along 2.5 kilometres of the Cooks River foreshore.  The project scope includes the following parks and reserves:

·    HJ Mahoney Reserve;

·    Steel Park;

·    Warren Park;

·    Richardson’s Lookout;

·    Cooks River Foreshore;

·    Kendrick Park; and

·    Fatima Island.

 

The draft plans of management (PoMs) and master plans (MPs), Attachment 1, view the Cooks River Parklands as a connected series of open space areas that form the northern riparian corridor of the lower Cooks River.  The draft PoMs and MPs balance interests of passive and organised recreation, biodiversity, stormwater treatment, heritage, pedestrian and cyclist circulation. The project aims to deliver balanced outcomes that facilitate multipurpose infrastructure and provide an environment for all park users.  Proposed actions are based on user needs research, project community engagement, site analysis, design and engineering best practice.

The former Marrickville Council endorsed the plans for public exhibition at the 3 May 2016 Community and Corporate Services Committee meeting. The meeting minutes note that:

1.       “Council resolves that CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 2 of 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) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       the report be received and noted;

3.       the draft Plans of Management and Master Plans for the Cooks River Parklands in ATTACHMENT 1 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and submissions be received for a further 14 days;

4.       a public hearing is convened on the proposed re-categorisation of community land in accordance with the Local Government Act (1993); and

5.       the results of the public exhibition be presented to Council recommending further action.”

 

The plan was on exhibition for six weeks from Wednesday 4 May through until Wednesday 15 June 2016.  During the exhibition period much support was received from the community as well as feedback that has been used to revise elements within the plans to ensure the plans better reflect the community’s vision for the parklands in the future.

 

 

DISCUSSION

How to Use the Plans of Management and Master Plans Document

The PoMs and MPs are a holistic reference guide for the proposed use and upgrade works along the Cooks River between HJ Mahoney Reserve and Kendrick Park including Fatima Island for the next ten years.  The document is divided into seven sections which describe each of the parks separately.

 

1. Project Context

The project context provides an introduction and the background to the project, including definitions, planning framework, integration with the (former) Marrickville Community Strategic Plan, PoM statutory requirements, project objectives and project methodology.

 

2. Existing Site Description (Appraisal) and Site Analysis

Each of the physical elements that occur within the parks is described in their existing condition.  The descriptions include service locations and requirements, contours, existing trees, buildings, furniture and describe existing and associated uses.  Existing constraints and site analysis considered in the design of the project are shown in plan and in photos in this section. 

 

3. Engagement Overview and Common Themes

The community engagement process completed for the project is summarised in this section of the report.  The outcomes are provided with recommendations that were undertaken to produce the proposed park upgrades as listed in the design section.

 

4. Land Categorisation

This section outlines the crown and community land managed by Council.  All crown land is for the purpose of public recreation and community purposes in accordance with the Crown Lands Act 1989. For community land the document categorises specific areas in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and dictates what activities can or cannot take place within the park. The following categorisations are proposed in the draft PoMs:

·    Sportsground;

·    General community use; and

·    Natural area - foreshore. 

 

5. Leasing and Licencing

Leasing and licencing outlines whether there are existing leases and licences as well as allowable future leases and licences within the parks.

 

6. Design

Park upgrades and improvements are outlined in words, plans and imagery.  Upfront design principles set the lens through which decisions are made for all parks upgrades.  The graphic plans highlight the overall design outcomes, the text describe the strategies providing site specific outcomes while images help to articulate the required finish and character of the proposed work. 

 

7. Implementation Plan

Each of the proposed actions and upgrades is costed in an opinion of probable costs schedule.  The upgrades are grouped as potential deliverable projects and prioitoised for delivery according to the outcomes from community engagement.  Projects costs have been integrated into the long term financial plan.

 

Projects

The key design projects and strategies proposed in the draft PoMs and MPs for each park are as follows:

 

HJ Mahoney Reserve

·    Construction of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) initiatives including an ephemeral wetland and swale for water treatment from Wharf Street.  The design provides for recreation nodes including barbecues, a shade structure, picnic facilities, seating, planting and shade trees;

·    Naturalisation of the river edge with a share pathway, shade trees, habitat provision and seating;

·    Retention of the sports field, athletics facilities and amenities building;

 

·    Development of a youth facility with multi use courts, skatable seating and retention of the existing graffiti street art wall; and

·    Pilot trial of a dog off leash area including the sports ground area.

 

Steel Park

·    Implementation of the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Recreation Centre (DAB) expansion master plan;

·    Integration of WSUD initiatives to existing and new car parking areas along with water treatment from Illawarra Road and implementation of associated passive recreation opportunities of seating and shade;

·    Additional seating around the playing fields for sports viewing and terraces on the embankment from Thornley Street;

·    Expansion of the existing children’s playground, water play area, picnic facilities, shade shelters and barbecues;

·    Provision of a vegetative buffer between users and the river near the play facilities to limit water access by users; and

·    Upgrade of the playing fields including re-surfacing, drainage and sports lighting.

 

Richardson’s Lookout, Warren Park and the Cooks River Foreshore

·    Implementation of WSUD initiatives to reduce erosion and treat storm water from Thornley Street and Warren Park;

·    Implement staged exercise circuit with new equipment along the foreshore;

·    Additional vegetation and naturalisation of unused areas under existing fig trees and on dangerously steep slopes (in Richardson’s Lookout) to increase biodiversity, habitat values and provide for a safe park;

·    Provision of a river viewing platform, additional signage, seating and other park furniture; and

·    Retain open space for informal recreation (Warren Park).

 

Mackey Park

·    Naturalisation of the Sydney Water drainage channel with passive recreation items to increase park use opportunities;

·    Increase recreation opportunities along the foreshore with seating and picnic tables;

·    Provide an additional pathway connection from the foreshore to Richardson Crescent;

·    Reconfigure the playing fields to reduce cricket ball conflict with the adjacent children’s playground;

·    Investigate the reconfiguring of the playing field line markings and the addition of new goalpost sleeves to increase flexibility of playing field and reduce turf wearing;

·    Upgrade children’s playground with new equipment, seating, shade and landscaping; and

·    Implement staged exercise circuit with new equipment along the foreshore.

 

Kendrick Park and Fatima Island

·    Retention of Fatima Island as a natural river asset and support the Biodiversity Action Plan strategies;

·    Additional planting areas including the development of a low vegetative buffer (native meadow planting) along the Princes Highway to enable better mental separation from the traffic and additional planting under the fig trees to provide habitat opportunities;

·    Upgrade the existing children’s playground, barbecue facilities and shade structures; and

·    Retain open space for informal recreation and the opportunity for future river swimming access.

 

 

RESOURCING

Several projects will require shared delivery with funding from alternate sources and strong collaboration with stakeholders.  These include:

·    Bank naturalisation of the foreshore edge in HJ Mahoney Reserve.  This project will require collaboration and funding from other sources including Sydney Water; and

·    Naturalisation of the Sydney Water drainage channel in Mackey Park with a new rock lined creek, habitat logs, vegetation, shade trees and passive recreation items including seating.

 

These projects have been discussed with Sydney Water representatives. The draft PoM and MP document was used to support funding applications specifically for the Mackey Park project, which has been successful.  To progress the project, Council has written to Sydney Water providing in-principle support for the project. Detailed investigations and collaborative planning will take place in the coming months, as the initial implementation stage of the project.  A project working group will be established to oversee the project and determine governance, management and ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the project.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of projects has been prioritised according to community engagement and funding availability.  Each project has been given a staging rating of 1 – 3, with a 1 being implemented within 3 years; 2 being implemented 4 to 6 years and a 3 being implemented in >7 years.

The Council funded actions and upgrades proposed in the PoMs and MPs have been included in the Long Term Financial Plan with over 80% of projects funded over 10 years. The full project costings and prioritisation is included as Confidential Attachment 4. A budget shortfall of approximately $3 million exists, however it is envisaged this can be partially funded (by unallocated Section 94 funds) during the development of the 2017/18 -2021-22 Capital Works program.  The funding of the shortfall is highlighted as a priority item for Section 94 funds.

The external / grant funding element of the projects will be incorporated into Council’s Long Term Financial Plan pending details of the scope and funding agreements for each project being reached with Sydney Water. 

A summary of project scenario costs implications are as follows:

 

TOTAL Project costs (excl. external / grant funding)                              $9,203,531

 

Prioritised as follows:

TOTAL priority 1 (excl. external / grant funding)                                     $4,061,750

TOTAL priority 2 (excl. external / grant funding)                                     $1,661,375

TOTAL priority 3 (excl. external / grant funding)                                     $3,480,406

 

Add:

TOTAL External / grant funding costs                                                            $6,249,750

 

Grand Total:

TOTAL Project costs (incl. external / grant funding)                                      $15,453,281

 

Prioritised as follows:

TOTAL priority 1 (incl. external / grant funding)                                             $6,505,500

TOTAL priority 2 (incl. external / grant funding)                                             $5,467,375

TOTAL priority 3 (incl. external / grant funding)                                             $3,480,406

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The development of the draft Cooks River Parklands Plans of Management and Master Plans has been a collaborative process with input sought at multiple stages of the project from internal stakeholders including:  Environmental Services, Library and History Services, Integrated Strategy, Corporate Strategy and Communications, Planning Services, Monitoring Services, Infrastructure Works and Services, Customer Experience, Community Development, Design and Investigation, Major Projects, Resource Recovery, Infrastructure Planning and Property, Finance and Culture and Recreation.  The design of the parks, with the input from so many has produced multi-functional infrastructure that achieves diverse outcomes and value for money.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Project participation in developing the design outcomes

Extensive external engagement with the community and stakeholders was completed during the project initiation.  Information was disseminated to the community via a number of means including social media, business cards, information flyers, the Council website, letter box mail outs, direct emailing and meeting with stakeholder groups. 

A number of interactive engagement sessions were held with the community at different locations to maximise input.  For those that couldn’t attend the engagement events, advertising material provided the ‘Your Say Marrickville’ website details.  The site contained information outlining key dates, an overview of the project and a link to a web survey.

Separately, meetings were held with stakeholders to discuss needs and provide input on designs.  Stakeholder groups that Council met with included AFL New South Wales, Canterbury Council, Cooks River Alliance, Cooks River Valley Association, Cooks River Committee, Canterbury and Western Suburbs Cricket Association, Gallipoli Centenary Peace Campaign, Local Land Services, Marrickville Aboriginal Consultative Committee (MACC), Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club, Marrickville Heritage Society, Marrickville Red Devils, Marrickville SES, Muds Crabs, Newtown Police, Marrickville Police, Police Citizens Youth Clubs NSW (PCYC) Debbie and Abbey Borgia Community Recreation Centre, Residents for Reconciliation, River Canoe Club of NSW, Rockdale Council, St Peters Church History Group, Sydney Water and the Wolli Creek Environment Group.

 

Public Exhibition

The former Marrickville Council endorsed the plans for public exhibition of the plans at the 3 May 2016 Community and Corporate Services Council meeting.  A six week exhibition period concluded on Wednesday 15 June 2016.  During this time signage was installed within each park, a postcard distribution was delivered to 6000 residents within Tempe, Marrickville and Earlwood, an advertisement was placed in the Inner West Courier and posts were placed on the former Marrickville Council Facebook and Twitter accounts.  An email was also sent to all stakeholders including the sporting groups, and where necessary meetings were held to provide an overview of the plans to ensure all questions could be answered.

 

All advertising material highlighted the ‘Your Say Marrickville’ website, which contained information about the project, copies of the report and an online survey that requested respondents to outline whether they supported the proposed plans and if they had any specific feedback.  Hard copies of the report were supplied to the Petersham Service Centre and Marrickville Library. 

 

During the exhibition period the online documents received views from 884 people, who made 84 submissions, totaling 186 comments.  From the 84 submission we received 71% support for the plans, which correlates to more than 97% support from the total who viewed the documents.

 

 

A few items were repeatedly were raised by the community.  These included:

 

HJ Mahoney Reserve

·    Concern over the width, construction material, loss of existing character and pedestrian conflicts from the development of a share (bicycle and pedestrian) pathway connection along the river foreshore;

·    The request to provide a synthetic cricket pitch and cover for summer cricket use of HJ Mahoney Reserve;

·    Concerns with Poplar tree removals occurring sooner than proposed in the master plan.

·    Ensuring the continued use of HJ Mahoney Reserve by a mix of sports users; and

·    Support for the trial of dog off leash in HJ Mahoney Reserve, with requests for further trials if HJ Mahoney Reserve is successful.

 

Steel Park

·    Concerns with Poplar tree removals occurring sooner than proposed in the master plan;

·    Option for including cricket practice nets in Steel or Mackey Park; and

·    Ensuring the continued use of Steel Park by a mix of sports users.

 

Mackey Park

·    The lack of vehicle parking within the park;

·    A perceived risk of ball strike during cricket match play within the children’s playground;

·    Option for including cricket practice nets in Steel or Mackey Park; and

·    Ensuring the continued use of Mackey Park by a mix of sports users.

 

Fatima Island

·    A request for additional strategies to help save Fatima Island from erosion due to the river currents.

 

The feedback was used to amend the Plan of Management and Master Plan design strategies to include the feedback from the community.

 

The full list of comments, Council’s response and amendments made to the report is attached in a schedule as Attachment 2.

 

Public Hearing

A public hearing was held in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A of the Local Government Act (1993). The hearing was held at 6pm on Wednesday 1 June 2016 at the Petersham Service Centre and facilitated by an independent facilitator.  The public hearing was attended by two Council officers and three members of the public.

 

The draft PoMs and MPs proposes the re-categorisation of community and crown land to Sportsground, General Community Use and Natural Area – foreshore. The categorisations meet the core objectives of the Local Government Act (1993) and Crown Lands Act 1989, and Council’s commitment to recreation facilities and services.  The core objectives for each category include:

 

Sportsground (LGA 1993 Section 36F)

·    To encourage, promote and facilitate recreational pursuits in the community involving organised and informal sporting activities and games, and

·    To ensure that such activities are managed having regard to any adverse impact on nearby residences.

 

 

 

General Community Use (LGA 1993 Section 36I)

·    To promote, encourage and provide for the use of the land, and to provide facilities on the land, to meet the current and future needs of the local community and the wider public:

(a)   in relation to public recreation and the physical, cultural, social and intellectual welfare or development of individual members of the public, and

(b)   in relation to purposes for which a lease, licence or other estate may be granted in respect of the land (other than the provision of public utilities and works associated with or ancillary to public utilities).

 

Natural Areas – foreshore (LGA 1993 Section 36N)

·    To maintain the foreshore as a transition area between the aquatic and the terrestrial environment, and to protect and enhance all functions associated with the foreshore’s role as a transition area, and

·    To facilitate the ecologically sustainable use of the foreshore, and to mitigate impact on the foreshore by community use.

 

Attendees of the public hearing were in favour of each of the proposed categorization changes to each of the parks.  No written submissions were received. As such the independent facilitator has recommended that Council proceed with the proposed categorization of the Cooks River Parklands as described in the Plan of Management and Master Plan documents.  A summary report of the public hearing prepared by the independent facilitator is provided at Attachment 3.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The draft Cooks River Parklands Plans of Management and Master Plans have been developed through a community based collaborative process. The high level of community support and the amendments to the plans post exhibition to address community feedback has established a detailed 10 year plan that is consistent with the community vision and values.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Draft Plan of Management and Master Plan Document

2.

Feedback Schedule - Cooks River Parklands

3.

Public Hearing Report

4.

Draft Implementation and Action Plan - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


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

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 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


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 23

Subject:         SSROC Tender for Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs) 

File Ref:         16/507/104990.16        

Prepared By: Cheryl Walker - Resource Recovery / Waste Management Officer, Ashfield and Sarah Le - Sustainability and Resource Recovery Officer, Ashfield

Authorised By: Cathy Edwards-Davis - Director, Public Works and Phil Sarin - Director Environment & Planning

 

SUMMARY

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) Incorporated, an association of member councils including the Inner West Council (IWC), has undertaken a tender process to select a consultant to conduct the works in the project “Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs)”. The former Councils of Ashfield and Leichhardt are in a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in this project. After a thorough tender evaluation, the SSROC Waste Management Group have selected a preferred tenderer.

The full tender report and findings is attached as Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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) and 10A(2)D(i) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       the report be received and noted; and

3.       under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council accept the tender recommended as the most advantageous tender for Tender Number SSROC T2016-02,  Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs).

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

As part of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) Waste Management Group’s work plan for 2016, it was identified that a tender process would be required to appoint a consultant to undertake the works in the project Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs).

The project aims to test the effectiveness of various approaches to improving recycling in Multi-unit dwellings which tend to have lower recycling rates and higher contamination compared to single-unit dwellings. The former Councils of Ashfield and Leichhardt are in a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in this pilot project.

Participating in this project will help residents of selected multi-units dwellings to recycle better and will provide useful insight to inform the planning of future recycling education programs. 

 

 

 

 

Tender Process

The tender process was conducted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the Department of Local Government’s Tendering Guidelines. The Tender Assessment Panel comprised of four (4) evaluation members and one (1) governance/probity evaluation chair (with representation from Resource Recovery/Sustainability Officers and Procurement & Contract Managers). 

Four (4) tender submissions were received and evaluated. The evaluation criteria: quality and consistency as non-price criteria, plus submitting a suitable price (financial/ price criteria) with detailed pricing schedule as per the RFT requirements proved the difference in the overall ranking of one submission over another. 

A detailed price comparison is located in Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project will be funded from the NSW EPA Better Waste and Recycling Funds held by SSROC on behalf of the region, together with small contributions from each of the participating councils. The former Ashfield and Leichhardt Councils had previously agreed to the funding contributions as part of the MOUs. The Inner West Council’s contribution is allocated from the 2016-17 Better Waste and Recycling Funds of both Ashfield Service Centre and Leichhardt Service Centre.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No public consultation was required for this report.

 

 

CONCLUSION

The procurement process has complied with the relevant legislative requirements for tendering and with Council’s Procurement Policy. It is recommended Council accept the successful tender respondent in accordance with the Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

SSROC Inc. Waste Management Group Tender Recommendation Report - Improving Recycling and Contamination Management in Multi Unit Dwellings - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 24

Subject:         SSROC Tender for the Provision of Tree Pruning Services  

File Ref:         16/507/93054.16     

Council at its meeting on 23 August 2016 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 27 September 2016.    

Prepared By: Joe Cavagnino - Procurement & Contracts Coordinator, Leichhardt  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

Inner West Council uses a mix of internal and external contractors for Tree Pruning Services across the Council area. The former Councils of Ashfield, Marrickville and Leichhardt have all agreed to participate in this tender, with a view to entering into a supply contract with a panel of preferred tenderers. After a thorough tender evaluation, SSROC have recommended a panel of contractors for the Inner West region for the above-mentioned services.

The full tender report and findings is attached as Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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) and 10A(2)D(i) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.    the report be received and noted; and

3.    Council enter into a supply agreement with a panel of tree pruning providers for tree pruning services across the Inner West Council area for a period of 2 years with an option to extend for a further 3 x 1 years.

The panel recommended for the Inner West Region is:

·    Asplundh Tree Expert (Australia) Pty Ltd

·    Australian Urban Tree Services Pty Ltd

·    TreeServe Pty Ltd

·    Sydney Arbor Trees Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Inner West Council uses a mix of internal and external providers for tree pruning services across the Inner West Council area. All of the  former Councils of Ashfield, Marrickville & Leichhardt have participated in this SSROC contract over the past and will use the panel of providers for operational needs.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council currently has an operational budget that allows for these services. A panel of pre-qualified contractors will enable the Council’s to seek quotes on individual higher value works, which will provide for a more competitive environment and in turn deliver  value for money.

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Staff of the former Councils of Ashfield, Marrickville & Leichhardt have been consulted and have agreed to participate in the provision of Tree Pruning Services.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This is an operational tender, thus no public consultation was required.

 

 

CONCLUSION

That council enters into a supply contract with the above panel of providers for under the terms offered in the SSROC Preferred Master Supplier Agreement for a period of 2 years with an option to extend for a further 3 x 1 years.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Executive SSROC Tender Recommendation Report - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 25

Subject:         Tender T06-16 - Rehabilitation of Regent Street, Leichhardt Stormwater Line Project  

File Ref:         16/507/106647.16         

Prepared By: Tony Nguyen - Senior Project Engineer, Leichhardt  

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

 

SUMMARY

The proposed works will address the rehabilitation of a deteriorated stormwater line located beneath residential properties within the area of Regent Street, Flood Street, Burfitt Street, Foster Street and Daniel Street, Leichhardt.

 

The full tender report and findings is attached as Confidential Attachment 2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (c) and (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a)    The information within this report, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on persons with whom the Council proposes to or may conduct business; and

b)    It is not in the public interest to reveal all details of these Tenders or the assessment process. Companies have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by Council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by companies could result in the withholding of such information by companies and reduction in the provision of information relevant to Council’s decision.

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

OR, WHERE THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED:

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council resolves that Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 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) and (d) Local Government Act 1993 and as such should be confidential;

2.    the report be received and noted; and

3.    Council adopts the recommendations contained within Confidential Attachments 2 and 3.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council’s CCTV pipeline inspection program has identified that the stormwater pipeline extending from the corner of Regent Street and Flood Street through to Daniel Street, via Burfitt Street and Foster Street, is in poor condition and requires rehabilitation. The majority of the pipeline passes through private properties, located between these streets.

 

The pipeline is in the order of 120 years of age and is constructed of brickwork, with concrete and vitrified clay inlet pipes connecting from the public roads and surrounding properties. The proposed rehabilitation works are essential to maintain the long term integrity of the pipeline for the conveyance of stormwater and to ensure no adverse impacts on the roads and properties above.

 

As the pipeline passes beneath or in close proximity to a large number of dwellings and residential flat buildings, replacement and/or upgrade of the pipeline through traditional methods involving excavation is not feasible. The rehabilitation of pipelines through non-destructive methods, such as pipe lining, is known to significantly extend the life of stormwater assets.

 

The area of stormwater assets for rehabilitation/renewal is shown in Attachment 1.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$350,000 has been allocated in the 2016/2017 Stormwater Program to undertake this rehabilitation project.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council's officers have been liaising with Sydney Water throughout the design processes and were supportive of the project.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Residents affected by the works will be notified prior to the works starting as per Council's policy.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Plan of Proposed Works

2.

Executive Tender Recommendation Report - Confidential

3.

Tender Evaluation Summary Sheet - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 26

Subject:         Formation of an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council  

File Ref:         16/7105/106543.16         

Prepared By: Tanya Whitmarsh - Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

The former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils have strong traditions of voluntarily operating Audit & Risk Committees.  The NSW Governor has recently granted royal assent to major changes to the Local Government Act 1993 that will, among many other things, mandate the operation of an “Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee” at each Council. 

It will take some time for all of the new legislative provisions to commence and subsequently take full effect.  In the meantime, swift revitalisation of the internal audit function supported by a new Audit & Risk Committee is highly desirable for placing Inner West Council on a stronger footing as it navigates its way through an extremely important formative time.  It will also provide an excellent foundation for making the transition to the new legislative framework.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council

1.       Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in Confidential Attachment 3 of this report is classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a.  information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

and, in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Administrator allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

OR, WHERE THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED

 

THAT Council:

1.       resolves that Confidential Attachment 3 to the report be treated as confidential in accordance with Section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, as they related to a matter specified in Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993;

2.       establishes an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council comprising three independent members (including the Chair) and seeks expressions of interest from people who were serving as independent members of the Audit & Risk Committees of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils when those Councils were dissolved;

3.       seeks to appoint one former representative from each of the Audit & Risk Committees of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils and in the event that there is insufficient interest to meet this criterion that a merit selection process be adopted to identify another candidate/s from the pool of interested persons;

 

4.       conducts a merit selection process where more than one person nominates themselves for the role Chair;

5.       contracts independent members of the new Audit & Risk Committee to serve terms as members from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2018;

6.       adopts the proposed Audit Committee Charter and the proposed Internal Audit Charter appearing as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this report; and

7.       sets the remuneration of Audit & Risk Committee members of Inner West Council in accordance with the recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 3.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The operations of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils all featured well established Audit & Risk committees.  When those Councils were dissolved on 12 May 2016 to form the Inner West Council, the committees were also automatically dissolved as a result of the Proclamation that established the new Council.  Since then officers of Council have been carefully monitoring legislative developments of relevance to the establishment and operation of such committees.

Even though the Department of Premier & Cabinet has provided advice encouraging early establishment of new Audit & Risk Committees in newly merged Councils, this aspiration was not mandated under legislation.  The Local Government Act 1993 does not currently make the establishment and maintenance of Audit & Risk Committees compulsory.  However, many a Council has established them in the last 5 to 10 years.  The most active Committees are typically those that have been sponsored by Councils that are particularly active in embracing enterprise risk management.

In February 2016 the NSW State Government released its first tranche of proposals for major changes to the Local Government Act 1993 as part of its Fit For The Future local government reform program.  The proposals were mainly focused on a range of governance and planning functions as well as auditing of Councils.  They included provisions concerning the mandatory appointment of an “Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee” in each Council. 

NSW Parliament recently passed legislation – the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 - to amend the Local Government Act 1993 in line with all of the recommendations for change that were proposed in February 2016.  The amending legislation was given royal assent on 30 August 2016 but only a small number of its provisions have commenced.  The provisions pertaining to the mandatory operation of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committees are among the many that have not yet commenced. 

A transitional provision under the Local Government Act 1993 – see Schedule 8 Section 123 – indicates that the establishment of an Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee is not required until 6 months after the next ordinary election of councillors that follows the commencement of related provisions that have yet to commence.  If the next ordinary election of councillors proceeds as expected in September 2017, this provision to commence compliance with all statutory requirements would be triggered for Inner West Council in March 2018, as long as the other provisions commence before a September 2017 election.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils have strong traditions of voluntarily operating Audit & Risk Committees.  The NSW Governor has recently granted royal assent to major changes to the Local Government Act 1993 that will, among many other things, mandate the operation of Audit, Risk & Improvement Committees. 

 

It will take some time for all of the new legislative provisions to commence and take full effect.  In the meantime, swift revitalisation of the internal audit function supported by a new Audit & Risk Committee is highly desirable for placing Inner West Council on a stronger footing as it navigates its way through an extremely important formative time.  It will also provide an excellent foundation for making the transition to the new legislative framework.

The internal audit function has continued to be active to various degrees since the creation of Inner West Council.  There is a backlog of completed assurance and compliance audits to be reviewed.  Some internal audit activity has continued in line with established audit plans.  Such audit planning needs to be reviewed and refreshed to better support challenges associated with the recent Council merger.

 

Charters for Audit Committees and the Internal Audit Function

A review of Charters for the Audit & Risk Committee and the Internal Audit function of the legacy Councils revealed strong similarities.  New Charters modelled on the ones that were most recently the subject of third party review against international industry standards - set by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - appear to be the best balanced choices for the new Committee.  Those Charters include requirements for annual review of the Charters.  However, it is possible that the Charters and related obligations may need review in less than 12 months as a result of changes in NSW legislation for local government.

Council officers are well positioned to assist incoming Committee members with advice and resources on emerging statutory requirements and better practice approaches from industry leaders such as the IIA, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), the Audit Office of NSW and the NSW Office of Local Government (OLG).  No doubt the OLG will work closely with Local Government Internal Auditors Network (LGIAN) to undertake a major revision of Internal Audit Guidelines issued under Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993.

Proposed inaugural charters for the Audit & Risk Committee and the Internal Audit function appear as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively of this report.

 

Audit Committees of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils

Audit Committees for each of the legacy Councils were composed somewhat differently:

·    Ashfield – comprised three independent members, from which a chair was drawn annually by agreement among Committee members, and two Councillors

·    Leichhardt – comprised two independent members and a Councillor with one of the independent members appointed as chair for the duration of their term on the Committee

·    Marrickville – comprised two independent members and the Mayor (or Deputy Mayor in the Mayor’s absence) with one of the independent members appointed as chair for the duration of their term on the Committee

 

Terms of appointment of independent members to each of the Committees have varied considerably across and within Committees due to a range of historical factors.  In one case an appointment fill a vacancy occurred early this year.  Other appointment periods were close to coming to an end, one appointment had been allowed to roll over without a clear end date and a couple were due to run for approximately another two years.  Standard terms of appointment for independent members were typically three or four years.  Collectively, the total number of independent members of the three former Committees was six (6).

All former Committees normally met four times a year.  At the time that Committees were automatically dissolved on 12 May 2016 Leichhardt and Marrickville had the same person holding the position of chair for their Committees.

Council could go to the market to seek fresh expressions of interest in membership of an Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council.  However, it seems prudent to take advantage of existing expertise among former independent Committee members whose terms were cut short by the Council merger process.  A minimum of three (3) independent members is viable to sustain a strong Audit & Risk Committee until such time as a newly elected Council is in place and ready to review Committee requirements.  The current Internal Audit Guidelines (2010) issued by the NSW Office of Local Government under Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 recommends that an Audit Committee “ideally” comprise three to five members.

It is in the interest of Council to form a new Audit & Risk Committee as soon as possible.  There is a backlog of audit reports to consider and there is a compelling need to have Committee members consider very important requirements for Audit & Risk Committee operation that are emerging as part of legislative changes.  It is likely that recently serving members of former Committees can be brought together more rapidly than ones brought together through an open Expression of Interest process.  The other key advantage of encouraging members of former Committees to serve on the new Committee is that they can draw on recent local knowledge and experience that is particularly valuable during a period of transition. 

It seems prudent to offer former Committee members the opportunity to serve 2 year terms from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2018.  This two year window will increase the chances of retaining the proven skills of experienced and knowledgeable members who may have otherwise been planning on stepping away from Committee once their former terms were complete.  Potential candidates who are uncertain about what legislative changes may bring may be more inclined to commit to a relatively short term appointment.  The arrangement will also give the incoming elected Council reasonable time to consider the performance of the Audit & Risk Committee and any structural changes it may wish to make to its composition and direction.

 

Remuneration Arrangements

Remuneration arrangements for independent members of Audit Committees were quite different across the legacy Councils when the former Committees were dissolved on 12 May 2016.  The standard sitting fees offered to independent members varied.  Two former Councils offered higher remuneration for the Chairs of their Committees compared to fees paid to independent members who did not hold that office.  It also appeared that there were differing practices around review of payment levels.  Two former Councils had a clear policy of indexation of pay increases in line with annual Local Government Remuneration Tribunal determinations.

More details about remuneration arrangements are contained in Confidential Attachment 3 along with recommendations about future arrangements.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Budget funding is already available to support the operation of an Audit & Risk Committee and ongoing operations of the Internal Audit Function.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is in the interest of Council to form a new Audit & Risk Committee as soon as possible.  It is also in the interest of Council to draw upon the expertise of former independent members of Audit Committees from legacy Councils that have merged to become Inner West Council.  Those former members who are willing to help Inner West Council on the early part of its journey as a new entity can bring very valuable knowledge and local experience to the table.

A new Audit & Risk Committee is needed promptly to help Inner West Council to:

1.    Address major legislative changes focused on increasing attention to enterprise risk management, auditing and business improvement

2.    Help sustain and build on momentum created in the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Council around enterprise risk management and internal audit

3.    Provide Council with advice on priorities that align with fresh strategic directions of the recently formed Inner West Council

4.    Establish a reporting regime which ensures that regular reports on the activities of the Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council are presented to the body politic of Council.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Inner West Council Audit & Risk Committee Charter - v1.1 (Exposure Draft)

2.

Inner West Council Internal Audit Charter - v1.1 (Exposure Draft)

3.

Remuneration Arrangements for Proposed Audit & Risk Committee of Inner West Council - Background Report - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 27

Subject:         WestConnex - Advice from Senior Counsel  

File Ref:         16/4718/106314.16         

Prepared By: Joe Strati - General Counsel, Marrickville  

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with a copy of recent advice provided by Mr Robertson SC regarding the legality of approvals given for Stages 1 and 2 of WestConnex.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.    Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 of this report is classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it contains advice that would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed.

 

2.    Council takes no action to challenge the legality of approvals given for Stages 1 and 2 of WestConnex.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 10 May 2016, the former Leichhardt Council resolved, in part, as follows:

That the Manager Legal Services seek advice on options for Leichhardt to challenge the legality of WestConnex as it relates to the Leichhardt LGA.

On 26 July 2016, the Council considered preliminary advice provided by Mr Tim Robertson SC which addressed salvage requirements of heritage material as required by the approval given to Stage 1B of WestConnex.

Attached at Confidential Attachment 1 is Mr Robertson’s further advice dated 12 September 2016 which addresses the broader issue of challenging the legality of approvals given for Stages 1 and 2 of WestConnex.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Nil.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Tim Robertson SC - Legal Advice - Westconnex Approvals - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 28

Subject:         Live Streaming of Council Meetings 

File Ref:         16/4718/106635.16        

Prepared By: Renata Krchnakova - Executive Policy Officer, Ashfield 

Authorised By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services

 

SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of a solution for live streaming of public meetings.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       in accordance with the requirements under the Local Government Act 1993, the information contained in Confidential Attachments 2 and 3 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 for the following reasons:

a)    commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it;

b)    commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

Confidential information provided for assessment by Committee members is not to be shared or published;  and

 

2.       Council implements option 3, using YouTube to webcast Council Meetings commencing from November 2016.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

On 12 July the Joint LRAC requested:

1.    that the Administrator investigates issues and options for the introduction of public streaming of meetings of Inner West Council; 

2.    that the analysis focuses principally on needs for streaming meetings of the body politic of Council;

3.    the analyses considers the potential for eventually extending the use of such technology to facilitate initiatives like community consultations and the staging of innovation or economic development events similar to those sponsored by Boston City Council;

4.    that the analysis provides a range of short term and long term options for consideration which may include recommendations for low cost interim capabilities, capabilities that are scalable and capabilities that offer high standards of fidelity and or functionality; and

5.    the analysis reflects a strong interest in mobile solutions or other capabilities that are not depended upon staging the meeting or event at the site of which the solution is based.

 

Livestreaming Solutions for Inner West Council

The merit of introducing live streaming of public meetings was raised in the June meeting of the Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee. Streaming is the process of delivering multimedia content via the internet, in audio and/or video format from a single content source to multiple viewers. Councils in NSW and other states are introducing live streaming of council’s meetings at a fast pace. Increasing and expanding public access through streaming can significantly enhanced the ability of Inner West Council to meet open government obligations of transparency and accountability. 

While the benefits of livestreaming are well documented there are some legal issues that may be raised in opposition. Liability for defamation for republishing defamatory remarks and privacy considerations are usually the main objections.

In NSW, the Defamation Act 2005 is likely to provide defence to any claim, namely section 29 which provides defence for the “fair report of proceedings of public concern’. Public Council meetings fall within the description of “proceedings of public concern”. 

Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, Council has obligations regarding the disclosure of personal information. This can be managed by ensuring speakers are consenting to their personal information and circumstances being disclosed via the livestream. This can be achieved by developing Inner West Council Recording of Public Meetings policy (see sample Attachment 1), by reading a disclaimer that warns the public that the meetings are live streamed at the beginning of each meeting and by displaying it prominently in the council chambers or meeting rooms.

This item was discussed at the LRAC meeting and was deferred pending legal advice. Council is seeking external legal advice which will be tabled at the Council meeting. It is important to note the Council meetings are already recorded and there are numerous other Australian councils that have been successfully live streaming Council meetings without any concerns. There are community members that are unable to attend meetings in the early evening and this will provide the opportunity to increase the audience of Council meetings.

 

The web streaming solutions:

1.   Fully outsourced solutions – The IT Department Marrickville obtained 3 quotes from providers of ad-hoc services. This solution is based on per event cost. The final recommendation from the IT department was to use provider with the best solution and  lowest quote at $2,145.00[1] per event (Confidential Attachment 2)

 

Advantages:

·   No set up cost immediate start

·   Fully operated and staffed by Webcasting Inc.

·   Live Closed Captioning for event with stenographer on site

 

Disadvantages:

·   Cost, at per event based on 60 (5 meetings per month) council and committee meetings over the next 12 months $128,700

·   Limit on the time of the event 4 hours

·   Limited scope – no opportunities to build or expend as no control and not internal capacity building.

 

2.   Self- Managed Solution with external support – An Australian Company with an expertise in council solutions. It requires initial set up costs for hardware, software and other equipment and ongoing costs for live streaming services, streaming set up and archive storage. This solution can be expanded to include other public meetings. (Confidential Attachment 3

 

Advantages:

·   Short set up time – 2-3 weeks to select and purchase equipment

·   Risk reduction – tried and tested solution

·   Initial training provided, extended training available on cost basis

 

Disadvantages:

·   Set up costs $1,870.00 + hardware $7,000.00

·   Ongoing  service costs - $429.00 per meeting ($25,740.00 - 60 meetings per year) 

·   Ongoing archiving costs - $71.00 (per month) reducing as number of archives increase $22.00 with 21+ archives ($568.00 per year based on average costs)

·   Total running cost approximately $26,308.00 per year)

·   It is a fixed solution that is set up in one or two location permanently

 

3.   Full in-house solution using YouTube as streaming platform. This solution has a low uptake in Australian Local Government, however widely used by councils in the USA, UK and Canada and by Australian Universities to stream lectures, tutorial and seminars. There is a movement by a small group of innovative shires and councils that are joining the YouTube solution, the Alpine Shire and the Rural City of Wangaratta are streaming meeting on their YouTube channels. The former Marrickville Council has a YouTube channel and obtaining one for the Inner West Council is simple as joining YouTube with Inner West Details. This is an innovative solution which minimises costs to Council, has wide application, is very familiar to users and creates new 21st century jobs i.e. Digital Governance Officer. You Tube is a free livestreaming service and is capable to stream to all mobile and hand held devices.

 

Advantages:

·   Equipment Costs approximately $7,000 - 10,000

·   Cost Effective Software and archives free

·   Easy to use for the viewer and accessible on mobile and hand held devices

·   Innovative using existing highly frequented distribution channel

·   Has wide application can be applied across all  community engagement events

 

Disadvantages:

·   Staging in process – initially council meetings in set locations the first meeting October 2016

·   Next stage – Committee meetings February 2017

·   Portable solutions fully tested and supported September 2017

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$10,000 to be funded in the first quarter budget review.

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

IT, Legal, Governance and Communications were consulted and provided valuable feedback which was incorporated in the report.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Policy on Recording of Public Meetings

2.

Webcasting - Confidential

3.

Apstream - Confidential

  


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Meeting

27 September 2016

 

Item No:         C0916 Item 29

Subject:         ICT System Consolidation  

File Ref:         16/4718/108821.16         

Prepared By: Peter Gainsford - Director, Corporate Services  

Authorised By: Rik Hart - Interim General Manager

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for a consolidated computer software / hardware platform for the Inner West Council and to delegate approval to the Interim General Manager to negotiate a contract with TechnologyOne.

A fee proposal will be tabled at the Council Meeting as Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.    Council moves into closed session to deal with this matter as the information contained in Confidential Attachment 1 of this report are classified as confidential under the provisions of Section 10A (2) (c) (di) and (dii) of the Local Government Act 1993  for the following reasons:

c.       information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

d (i)   commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it;

d (ii)  commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council;

 

And in accordance with Sections 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the Chairperson allow members of the public to make representations as to whether this part of the meeting should be closed;

 

2.    in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate the authority to the Interim General Manager to negotiate directly with TechnologyOne and execute a contract for the provision of a new consolidated ICT system; and

3.    the extenuating circumstances are as follows:

a.       the amalgamation of the three former councils;

b.      the need to have a consolidated ICT system as a matter of priority in order to progress the integration of services across Council;

c.       there are only two main service providers in the industry and TechnologyOne capabilities are already well established within two of the three former councils;

d.      the tender process would add a significant and unreasonable time delay in consolidating ICT systems; and

e.       the benefit to Council by partnering with a TechnologyOne solution in providing long term benefits to the Council and the Community.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils operated with a range of different software solutions to support a suite of typical modules that are core to local government business operations.  The table below outlines the core modules and software providers that were in place at the three former Councils.  There are two main software providers that provide fully integrated solutions for Local Government i.e. Civica and TechnologyOne.   Software applications from both of those providers feature among the capabilities inherited from the legacy Councils – see table below. 

 

Core Module

Ashfield

Provider / Software

Leichhardt

Provider / Software

Marrickville  Provider / Software

Financials

Civica

Authority

TechnologyOne

Financials

TechnologyOne

Financials

Property & Rating (P&R)

Civica

Authority

Infor

Pathway

TechnologyOne

Property and Rating

Graphical Information System (GIS)/Mapping

Pitney Bowes

Mapinfo / Exponare

Pitney Bowes

Mapinfo / Spectrum

Pitney Bowes

Mapinfo / Exponare / Spectrum

Electronic Document Management (EDM)

Hewlett Packard

HP TRIM

TechnologyOne

ECM (formerly Dataworks)

Hewlett Packard

HP TRIM

Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Civica

Authority - CRM

TechnologyOne

ECM (webforms)

Merit Technology

Merit CRM

Payroll & Human Resources

Civica

Authority

Frontier Software

chris21

Frontier Software

chris21

Asset Management

Civica

Asset Manager

JRA

Asset Database

Open Office

AssetMaster

 

 

The NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) has been providing support to amalgamated councils through technical forums and advice for ICT managers.  It has identified the following critical emerging trends for ICT.

1.   Moving away from the on premise in house model

2.   Moving to cloud sourced services and managed services

3.   Moving toward volume and transactional based pricing models

4.   Increasing dependency on strategic suppliers

5.   ICT operating model changing from a plan – build – run to an enable – integrate – manage model.

 

The DPC is investigating a whole-of-sector approach for certain purchasing and looking for councils that are prepared to invest in an ICT solution “in a box” shared services arrangement. This is a move away from the alternate model that allows the system owner to select their preferred system which then has to be integrated with other software solutions.  Whilst there may be a loss in the functionality with individual software providers the one solution can provide better integration and economies of scale when rolled out across numerous councils.

TechnologyOne offers an enterprise solution for local government known as OneCouncil which has the following modules:

·    corporate strategy & planning

·    financial management

·    budgeting and payroll

·    property and revenue management

·    procurement

·    inventory and contracts

·    human resource management

·    capital planning and delivery

·    asset and work management

·    customer and community management

·    development and regulatory services

·    policy and compliance management

·    document and records management

 

Civica offers the Authority Enterprise Software Suite for Local Government that includes modules for

·    customer request management

·    e-services

·    electronic document and records management

·    financial management

·    human resources and payroll

·    land information

·    mobile applications

 

Given the choice of the two main software providers there is a firm view among Inner West Council staff that TechnologyOne offers a superior solution compared to Civica.  It also has the advantage of being well established in more than one of three former Councils.  The TechnologyOne solution is well proven throughout local government and has been implemented in many larger local authorities such as Blacktown City Council and Brisbane City Council.

A single integrated enterprise solution will improve efficiencies and lower costs by significantly minimising dependencies on customised software and integration. The end-to-end management of council operations will better facilitate customer self-service and will support improved service delivery.  It will also be a major enabler for the overall integration and consolidation of the merged services of Inner West Council.

The DPC has approached Council about partnering with Cumberland Council and Georges River Council on an implementation framework for the TechnologyOne solution.  The framework would establish a standardised implementation and transition model that could be used by other councils.  

The amalgamation of the former Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils provides a unique opportunity to review all systems and processes.  The TechnologyOne solution enables a suite of common processes across local government to be better integrated across the functions of Council.  The implementation will require a strong project management focus which will be critical to the success of progressing the next stage of this initiative.

This procurement opportunity offers considerable benefit to Council through bulk purchasing across the three amalgamated Councils.  It can deliver major savings in the costs of licensing, implementation and training.

The decision to engage directly with a single preferred supplier rather than conduct an open tender process complies with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, which states that:

“… because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders”

 

The proposed exception to standard procurement requirements for business valued in excess of $150,000 is based upon the following extenuating circumstances:

1.       The amalgamation of the three former councils

2.       The need to have a consolidated ICT system as a matter of priority in order to progress the integration of services across Council

3.       There are only two main service providers in the industry and TechnologyOne capabilities are already well established within two of the three former councils

4.       The tender process would add a significant and unreasonable delay in consolidating ICT systems

5.       The benefit to Council by partnering with a TechnologyOne solution in providing long term benefits to the Council and its community. 

 

In light of the circumstances outlined above, it is recommended that Council delegate authority to the Interim General Manager to enter into negotiations with TechnologyOne and expedite the execution of a contract for the provision of a new integrated ICT system.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Project costs will be met from monies granted from the NSW Government New Council Implementation Fund.  (Details will be tabled in a confidential document at the meeting.)

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

As part of Council’s due diligence Council will ensure that the bulk purchase represents value for money as well as ensure that the agreed technical outputs for the consolidated ICT system are clearly defined in the procurement contract.  Council’s procurement officer and General Counsel will also assist in the finalisation of this contract.

A fee proposal will be tabled at the Council Meeting as Confidential Attachment 1.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

No consultation is required.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Section 55 of the Local Government Act allows Council to negotiate with the one software vendor given its extenuating circumstances.  Council has the ability to bulk purchase with Georges River and Cumberland Council to reduce the implementation costs.  Council has the support of the DPC in developing a standardised implementation and transition model that could be used by other councils.  TechnologyOne is a fully integrated system that will provide Council with an innovative technology solution for the future.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

To be tabled - Confidential

    

 



[1] All costs are GST inclusive