Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 5

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

File Ref: 16/4718/63602.16

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

Authorised By: Simone Schwarz - Director, Service Delivery

SUMMARY

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

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the report be received and noted;

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objectives of the trials were to:

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

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

§ record compliance issues for future policy making purposes;

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

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

Community Engagement

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

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

§ Council Column notice;

§ media releases;

§ information on the Council website;

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

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

Evaluation of the trial included the following:

§ an evaluation survey on Your Say Marrickville;

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

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Overall level of response

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring

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

Laxton Reserve

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

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

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

Laxton Reserve - Evaluation

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

Laxton Reserve - Dog users

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

§ to rate the success of the trial;

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

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

§ how they travelled to the park; and

§ where else they exercised their dogs.

Feedback

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

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

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

- Johnson Park - 37

- Hoskins Park - 3

- Morton Park - 3

- Yeo Reserve - 1

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

§ Hawthorne Canal Reserve in Haberfield; and

§ on leash around local streets.

Other comments included:

§ has been positive for exercising dogs;

§ good to meet other dog owners and neighbours;

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

§ has increased the use of the park;

§ requires fencing;

§ issues with local residents;

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

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

§ majority of users are responsible.

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

Laxton Reserve - Non-dog users

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

§ to rate the success of the trial;

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

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

Feedback

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

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

§ suggestions for alternative off leash areas were as follows:

§ Johnson Park - 31 responses;

§ Yeo Reserve - 5 responses;

§ Cooks River - 3 responses;

§ Hoskins Park - 2 responses;

§ Marrickville Park - 2 responses; and

§ Tempe – 1 response.

Other comments included:

§ issues with children’s safety;

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

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

§ issues with close proximity to residences;

§ residents not feeling comfortable to walk through the park;

§ dog waste;

§ noise from barking;

§ has been divisive for the local community;

§ reduction in birthday parties in the park;

§ dog owners not adhering to time restrictions;

§ no being effectively monitored;

§ needs fencing; and

§ divided the community.

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

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

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

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

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

§ needs fencing;

§ proximity to residences;

§ dog waste; and

§ noise with barking.

Feedback through Merit

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

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

§ issues with dog waste;

§ excessive dog barking;

§ dogs entering private properties; and

§ dog owners not complying with time restrictions.

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

Laxton Reserve - Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Laxton Reserve - Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petersham Park

Petersham Park - Evaluation

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

§ supportive;

§ somewhat supportive;

§ neutral;

§ somewhat opposed; or

§ opposed.

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

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

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

- opposed 11

- somewhat Opposed 1

- neutral 1

- somewhat supportive 3

- supportive 5

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

- need for more enforcement / monitoring 9

- safety – inadequate control of dogs 6

- lack of fencing 6

- dogs adjacent to playground 5

- dog waste 5

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

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

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

Feedback through Merit

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

Petersham Park - Outcomes

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

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

Sydenham Green

Sydenham Green - Evaluation

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

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

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

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

- Opposed 7

- Somewhat opposed 2

- Supportive 6

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

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

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

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

Feedback through Merit

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

Sydenham Green – Outcomes

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

Internal Engagement

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

Comments from Environmental Services

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

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

Johnson Park

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

§ an increased predation risk by dogs; and

§ a decrease in foraging habitat.

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

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

Morton Park

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

Yeo Park (Ashfield)

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Extensive community engagement has been undertaken as follows:

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

§ Council Column;

§ Media releases;

§ Council website;

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

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

Evaluation of the trial was through the following:

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

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

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

§ Your Say Marrickville;

§ Council Column; and

§ Media release.

CONCLUSION

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Monitoring Report on Trial Off Leash Areas - September 2015 to March 2016
2.⇩	Laxton Reserve Dog Users Evaluation Responses
3.⇩	Laxton Reserve Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses
4.⇩	Petersham Park Dog Users Evaluation Responses
5.⇩	Petersham Park Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses
6.⇩	Sydenham Green Dog Users Evaluation Responses
7.⇩	Sydenham Green Non-dog Users Evaluation Responses

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 6

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

File Ref: 16/4718/73117.16

Prepared By: Philip North - Specialist Planner, Ashfield

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

1.0 Description of Proposal

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

2.0 Application Details

Applicant: Mr G Ali

Owner: Rahman Nominees

Value of work: $5,812,343

Lot/DP: LOT: 100 DP: 1124619

Date lodged: 29/12/2015

Building classification: 2

Application Type: Local

Construction Certificate: No

3.0 Site and Surrounding Development

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

The site consists of the following lot:

Street Address	Lot No.	Deposited Plan	Title System	Site Area
412-416 Liverpool Road	100	1124619	Torrens	1,208m²

4.0 Development History

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

No.	Determination Date	Proposal	Determination
10.2010.128.1	20.07.2010	24 hour operation for car wash facility	Refused
10.2007.273.1	26.11.2007	Consolidation of 3 lots into one	Approved
10.2006.310	12.06.2007	Car wash facility	Approved
16.06.2014	16.06.2014	Residential flat building	Refused

The following table shows the background to the current application:

Application Milestones
Date	Event	File no
16.06.2014	Application lodged as Development Application “As-is” without any amendments to address the issues raised.	10.2014.167.1
04.09.2014	Class 1 Appeal filed with the Land and Environment Court against a deemed refusal.	14.10701
28.10.2014	Development application refused by Council for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and is excessive in bulk and scale. 2. The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, in that no contamination report has been provided despite the use of the adjacent land as a petrol station and the industrial use of the subject site. 3. The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, as follows: a. cl. 30(2)(b), Design Quality Principles: The proposal does not comply with: i. Principle 2: Scale: The proposal is of an inappropriate scale, in particular: · The provision of a two storey element directly on the boundary with the adjacent property at 15 Wetherill Street; · A four storey built form in a location identified by Part C4 of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy for only 3 storey development. ii. Principle 3: Built form: The built form is overly dominating upon the adjacent property at 15 Wetherill Street and is inconsistent with the built form in a location identified by Part C4 of Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy which requires a 3m front setback with deep soil planting and a 3m deep soil planting zone on the southern boundary to provide a buffer with the low density residential zone. iii. Principle 6: Landscape: There is inadequate landscaping on the site in respect of: · deep soil planting along the street frontages; · Rear boundary deep soil zone; and · Communal open space. iv. Principle 7: Amenity: The units provide poor internal amenity due to: · Many bedrooms obtaining natural light and ventilation only by way of a narrow access corridor to a small balcony. · Bedrooms fronting directly onto Liverpool Road unable to open windows without direct exposure to noise and no noise amelioration strategy such as winter gardens. v. Principle 10: Aesthetics: · Inadequate facade detail has been provided to demonstrate that the aesthetic treatment proposed will be realised in the resultant building. · The materials and finishes are not low maintenance and include excessive use of painted finishes and aluminium panels at ground level. b. cl. 30(2)(c), Residential Flat Design Code: The proposal does not comply with: i. Part 1, Local Context – Building Separation: The set back of the proposal from the southern boundary is inadequate and fails to provide the recommended setback of 9m between habitable rooms and balconies to 15 Wetherill Street which results in unacceptable overshadowing and privacy impacts. ii. Part 2, Site Design - Open Space: The proposal only provides 13% of the site area as communal open space, whereas the RFDC nominates at least 25%. iii. Part 3, Facades: Inadequate facade detail has been provided to demonstrate that the aesthetic treatment proposed will be realised in the resultant building. iv. Part 3, Daylight Access: Numerous bedrooms obtain daylight only by way of a long narrow aperture and is inadequate. v. Part 3, Maintenance: The external materials, in particular those on the ground level, consist largely of painted finishes which are not durable, easily cleaned, and graffiti resistant. 4. The proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing), as follows: a. cl. 14(1)(c)(ii), Only 13% of the site is landscaped. b. cl. 14(1)(d)(i), Only 12% of the site is provided as deep soil. c. cl. 14(1)(d)(ii), Not all of the areas of deep soil have a minimum dimension of 3m. d. cl. 16A, the proposal is not compatible with the character of the local area, in particular the adjacent Wetherill Street Heritage Conservation Area. 5. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, as follows: a. cl. 4.3, Height of buildings: The proposal exceeds the maximum height of 13m on the northern part of the site; b. cl. 4.3(2A), Height of buildings: The proposal includes gross floor area within the top 3m of the height limits for the site; c. cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: the request regarding contravention of clause 4.3(2A) in respect of building height is not well founded and cannot be supported. d. cl. 4.6, Exceptions to development standards: no request regarding contravention of clause 4.3 in respect of building height has been submitted. 6. The proposed development does not comply with Ashfield Local Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013, as follows: a. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.1, Maximum Building Height: The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 3 storeys by one storey; b. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.2, The proposal does not maximise the separation from neighbouring houses; c. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.3, Building Locations: The proposal does not provide a 6m front setback to Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street; d. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.4, Building Scale Relationship with Neighbouring Residential Properties: The proposal does not reduce in scale and is inadequately set back from southern boundary. e. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 2.5, Northerly Solar Access for Adjoining Residential Properties: The proposal results in unacceptable overshadowing of the northern elevation of 15 Wetherill Street. f. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.1, Main road frontage and building structure setbacks for front gardens and trees: The proposal does not provide the required 3m deep soil zone along the front boundaries. g. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.2, Communal Open Space: The proposal does not provide the required minimum of 25% communal open space. h. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.3, Rear/Side Landscape Buffer Areas: The proposal does not provide a 3m deep soil zone along rear boundary for dense tree planting. i. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 3.6, Trees: The proposal does not provide for the required tree planting on site along the street frontages. j. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 4.3, Visibility to Street: The proposal does not provide residential lobbies min 5m wide. k. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 5.6, Landscaped Buffer Areas: The proposal does not provide the required 3m width of deep soil tree planting to southern boundary. l. Part C4, Ashfield West, cl. 8.1, Vehicle Access Points: The proposal does not provide the required driveway access from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street. m. Part C11, Parking, cl. 5.7, Ramp Gradients: The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted ramp gradient of 1:5. n. Part E4, Stormwater Management Policy, No Flood Certificate has been provided to enable adequate assessment of the stormwater design of the proposal. 7. The proposal proposes the removal of a healthy street tree on the Council verge in Wetherill Street. 8. The proposal is not in the public interest.	10.2014.167.1
28.04.2015	Appeal dismissed by Court.	14.10701
03.12.2015	Provisional Development Application lodged.	17.2015.354
10.12.2015	Letter sent to applicant raising following issues: 1. The proposed setback to Wetherill Street should be a minimum of 3m for all the floors whilst retaining the building facade articulation on the corner. 2. The elevational shadow diagrams should be presented at hourly intervals between noon and 3pm on June 21 and nominate the uses of the rooms on the northern elevation. Please provide elevational shadow diagram which clearly show the extent of overshadowing on the adjoining property at No 15 Wetherill Street. 3. The proposed upper level balconies facing south west would result in overlooking of the adjacent properties and should be reconfigured. 4. An arborist report should be provided in respect of the street tree removal and an advanced replacement tree of the same species is to be nominated on the plans in a suitable nearby location. 5. The planting shown on the architectural drawings (plans and elevations) is not representative of either existing or proposed planting and should either be corrected to be consistent with the landscape plan or removed from the drawing altogether. 6. The basement storage for each apartment should be provided in accordance with the SEPP 65. 7. All units must provide a bathroom visitable by people in a wheel chair in accordance with part C1 of AIDAP 2013. 8. Plans showing direct pipe connection to Sydney water canal along Liverpool Road are to be provided. 9. The location of the driveway access is inconsistent with Part C4 of Ashfield Interim development Assessment Policy 2013 which nominates that vehicular access should be provided at the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street. The proposal should be amended to comply. 10. The basement ramp grades do not comply with the relevant Australian Standards and should be amended to comply.	17.2015.354
29.12.2015	Development Application lodged.	10.2015.264.1

5.0 Zoning/Permissibility/Heritage

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

The property is located within the Ashfield West precinct.

The site is adjacent a heritage conservation area.

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

6.0 Section 79C Assessment

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

6.1 The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

6.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

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

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 Summary Compliance Table
Clause No.	Clause	Standard	Proposed	Complies
2.3	Zone objectives and land use table	Zone B4 Mixed Use	Residential flat building	Yes
4.1	Minimum subdivision lot size	N/A	No change	N/A
4.3	Height of buildings	13m	12.6m	Yes
4.3(2A)	Height of buildings	If a building is located on land in Zone B4 Mixed Use, any part of the building that is within 3 metres of the height limit set by sub-clause (2) must not include any area that forms part of the gross floor area of the building and must not be reasonably capable of modification to include such an area.	The top three metres does not include a habitable floor space	Yes
4.4	Floor space ratio	1.5:1	1.39:1	Yes
5.10	Heritage Conservation	Located adjacent: · Wetherill Street Conservation Area C88
5.10(5)	Heritage assessment	The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development: (a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or (b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or (c)on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.	The application is assessed as satisfactory by Council’s Heritage Advisor.	Yes

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

6.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

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

6.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of land

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

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

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development
Clause	Standard		Proposed		Complies
28	Determination of Development Applications
28(1)	After receipt of a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies (other than State significant development) and before it determines the application, the consent authority is to refer the application to the relevant design review panel (if any) for advice concerning the design quality of the development.		The application has been referred to Council’s SEPP 65 review officer for comment.		Yes
28(2)	In determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration): (a) the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and (b) the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and (c) the Apartment Design Guide.				Yes
28(2)(b)	The design quality principles
1.	Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood. Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.		The proposal responds appropriately to desired future character of the B4 zone in Liverpool Road. In addition, it provides a suitable transition to the R2 zone to the rear in Wetherill Street which is also a heritage conservation area.		Yes
2.	Principle 2: Built form and scale Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements. Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.		The scale is consistent with the LEP and DCP controls for the site and generally appropriate for the context.		Yes
3.	Principle 3: Density Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context. Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.		The density is consistent with the FSR nominated for the site by ALEP 2013.		Yes
4.	Principle 4: Sustainability Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.		The proposal has been accompanied by a BASIX certificate demonstrating compliance with fundamental sustainability requirements.		Yes
5.	Principle 5: Landscape Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks. Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.		The landscaping satisfactorily addresses the following: · Continuous landscaped buffer along Liverpool Road with canopy tree planting; · Suitably planted communal open space; · Deep soil planting to the rear of the site with canopy trees to allow for a landscaped buffer between the site and the R2 zone; and · Generous and well appointed areas of communal open space on the roof overlooking Liverpool Road.		Yes
6.	Principle 6: Amenity Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being. Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.		Residential amenity is adequate: · Suitable internal layouts; · Adequate solar access and cross ventilation; · Adequate visual and acoustic privacy; · Suitable site layout.		Yes
7.	Principle 7: Safety Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety. A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.		Safety and security is adequate due to good passive surveillance of internal circulation spaces.		Yes
8.	Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix. Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.		A suitable range of unit sizes is provided from studios to 2 bedrooms.		Yes
9.	Principle 9: Aesthetics Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. The visual appearance of a well designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.		The aesthetic resolution is satisfactory in the context of the site.		Yes
28(2)(c)	Apartment Design Guide
Part 3	Siting the development
3B	Orientation	On merit.		Orientation to the street is appropriate in the context.	Yes
3C	Public domain interface	On merit.		Appropriate in the context	Yes
3D-1	Communal open space	Communal open space: min. 25% site area: 302m²		34% (409m²)	Yes
		Solar access to communal open space		Excellent solar access to rooftop communal open space.	Yes
3D-3	Communal open space is designed to maximise safety	Safety		Ground level communal open space is well observed by surrounding units; Rooftop communal open space is open and well observed.	Yes
3E-1	Deep soil zones	7% min dimension 3m: 85m²		18% (222m²)	Yes
3F1	Building Separation (up to four storeys)	6 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and side boundaries		3m The purpose of this guideline is to ensure adequate privacy impacts and solar access. It is acceptable given that: · (subject to application of deferred commencement conditions) no habitable room windows or balconies will have any interface with adjacent properties; and · Solar access to adjacent properties is acceptable.	Acceptable
3F-2	Privacy			Communal open spaces adequately separated from private open spaces and windows.	Yes
3J-1	Car parking · 88m of railway or light rail station; or · In or within 400m of B3/B4 land	Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013		Refer to calculations under AIDAP 2013	Yes
Part 4	Designing the Building
4A-1(1)	Solar & daylight access	70% of living rooms and private open spaces: min. 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.		91%	Yes
4A-1(3)	Solar & daylight access	No direct sunlight at the above time: max. 15%		9%	Yes
4B-3(1)	Natural ventilation	Natural cross ventilation: min. 60% of apartments		77%	Yes
4B-3(2	Natural ventilation	Maximum depth of cross through apartments: 18m glass to glass		17m	Yes
4C-1	Ceiling heights	· Habitable rooms: 2.7m · Non-habitable: 2.4m · 2 storey: 2.4m 2^nd storey · Attics: 1.8m at edge of room with 30 degree slope · Commercial: 3.3m ground and first floor.		2.7m	Yes
4D-1(1)	Apartment size and layout	Minimum internal areas: · Studio: 35m² · 1 bed: 50m² · 2 bed: 70m² · 3 bed: 90m²		All units exceed the minimum areas.	Yes
4D-1(2)	Apartment size and layout	All habitable rooms to have window in external wall min. 10% floor area.		All units exceed the minimum areas.	Yes
4D-2	Apartment size and layout	Max. Habitable room depth: 8m		All units comply.	Yes
4D-3(1)	Apartment size and layout	Min areas: · Master bedroom: 10m² · Other bedrooms: 9m²		All units comply.	Yes
4D-3(2)	Apartment size and layout	Min. Bedroom dimension (excl. Robe): 3m		All units comply.	Yes
4D-3(3)	Apartment size and layout	Min. Living room dimension: · 1 Bed Unit: 3.6m · 2 Bed Unit: 4.0m		All units comply.	Yes
4E-1(1)	Private open space & balconies	Min. Balcony size/depth: · Studio: 4m²/- · 1 Bed: 8m²/2m · 2 Bed: 10m²/2m · 3 Bed: 12m²/2.4m		All units comply.	Yes
4E-1(2)	Private open space & balconies	Min. Courtyard size/depth: · 15m²/3m		Ground floor units are elevated due to flooding and as such have balconies rather than courtyards. They comply with the balcony areas.	Acceptable
4F-1(1)	Common circulation spaces	Max. apartments off a single core: 8		8	Yes
4F-1(2)	Common circulation spaces	Max. apartments sharing single lift: 40 (10 storeys and over)		22	Yes
4G-1(1)	Storage	Minimum storage: · Studio: 4m³ · 1 Bed: 6m³ · 2 Bed: 8m³ · 3 Bed: 10m³ 50% to be in apartment (not bedroom/kitchen)		All units comply.	Yes
4H-1	Acoustic privacy	Noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout.		Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.	Yes
4H-2	Acoustic privacy	Noise impacts are mitigated within apartments through layout and acoustic treatments.		Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.	Yes
4J-1	Noise and pollution	In noisy or hostile environments the impacts of external noise and pollution are minimised through the careful siting and layout of buildings.		Layout is considered appropriate to address acoustic privacy issues.	Yes
4J-2	Noise and pollution	Appropriate noise shielding or attenuation techniques for the building design, construction and choice of materials are used to mitigate noise transmission.		The acoustic report recommends suitable acoustic treatment which will be included as conditions of consent.	Yes
4K-1	Apartment mix	A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.		A variety of apartment types is provided.	Yes
4L-1	Ground floor apartments	Street frontage activity is maximised .		All ground floor apartments directly address the street.	Yes
4L-2	Ground floor apartments	Private courtyards elevated above the street by 1m-1.5m		All ground floor courtyards are elevated above street level by at least 1m.	Yes
4M-1	Facades	Building facades provide visual interest and respect character of local area.		The building façade provides a variety of materials and finishes which provides good articulation and a visual character suitable to the existing and evolving context of the locality.	Yes
4M-1	Facades	Building functions are expressed on the facade.		The building functions are suitably expressed on the façade.	Yes
4N-1	Roof design	Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street.		The roof is appropriate to the context.	Yes
4N-2	Roof design	Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised.		The roof has been utilised for a large area of communal open space which also includes landscaping, BBQ areas, eating areas, covered sitting areas and general open space.	Yes
4N-3	Roof design	Roof design incorporates sustainability features.		The roof includes planting and covered areas which reduce heat gain to the units below.	Yes
4O	Landscape design			The landscape design is considered appropriate in respect of its treatment of Liverpool Road and the southern setback. There is no detailed landscape plan and this will be a condition of any consent to determine suitable tree species for Liverpool Road.	Yes
4P-1	Planting on structures	Min. Soil depths: · 12-18m trees: 1.2m deep & 10m x 10m · 8-12m trees: 1.0m deep & 6m x 6m · 6-8m trees: 0.8m deep & 3.5m x 3.5m · Shrubs: 0.5m – 0.6m deep · Ground cover: 0.3m – 0.45m deep · Turf: 0.2m deep		Soil depths are generally 1m which is adequate for the type of planting proposed.	Yes
4Q-2	Universal design	Adaptable housing in accordance with Council policy.		Only 3 of the units are adaptable whereas Council’s policy requires all units to have visitable bathrooms. A condition of consent will be applied to ensure compliance.	No
4R-1	Adaptive reuse	New additions to existing buildings are contemporary and complementary and enhance an area’s identity and sense of place.		New construction - not applicable.	N/A
4S-2	Mixed use	Residential uses of the building are integrated within the development, and safety and amenity is maximised for residents.		Residential use only – not applicable.	N/A
4T-1	Awnings and signage	Awnings are well located and complement and integrate with the building design.		No awnings proposed – not applicable.	N/A
4T-2	Awnings and signage	Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.		No signage proposed – not applicable.	N/A
4U	Energy efficiency			A BASIX certificate has been submitted which demonstrates compliance with this provision.	Yes
4V	Water management			A BASIX certificate has been submitted which demonstrates compliance with this provision.	Yes
4W	Waste management			The garbage room is of adequate size to accommodate the number of bins required; and The waste management and collection arrangements would be satisfactory.	Yes
4X-3	Building maintenance	Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.		Although much of the proposal is painted render, durable low maintenance materials (i.e. dark coloured face brick) have been proposed at ground level and for fences and dwarf walls.	Yes

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Summary Compliance Table
Clause No.	Standard	Proposed	Complies
101	Development with frontage to classified road
101(2)	The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:
101(2)(a)	where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and	Vehicular access is proposed via Wetherill Street.	Yes
101(2)(b)	the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:
(i)	the design of the vehicular access to the land, or	Neither RMS nor Council’s engineer have raised concerns with the design of the access.	Yes
(ii)	the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or	No dust or smoke is likely to result from the development.	Yes
(iii)	the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and	It is noted that Council’s traffic engineer has recommended a deferred commencement condition requiring the relocation of the traffic island in Wetherill Street so that access is via the northern Liverpool Road and not from the southern low-density residential end. RMS has been advised that Council intends to impose this condition and has raised no objection to this or the proposal generally.	Yes
101(2)(c)	the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.	If the recommendations of the acoustic report are applied, the proposal will perform satisfactorily in this respect.	Condition

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

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to the site.

6.3 The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

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

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

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

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

Overshadowing:

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

Bulk and Scale:

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

Privacy:

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

6.6 The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

6.7.1 Summary of submissions

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

Submission

R. Barda

227 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

K. Bryson et al

5 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

A. Camatta

15 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

V. Carnovale

7 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Carnovale

7 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Clarke

6 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

P. & S. Coulton

233 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

R. Eggleton

PO Box A187, Enfield South NSW 2133

T. Robb

Evolution Planning Pty Ltd

PO Box 309, Frenchs Forest NSW 1640

On behalf of Caltex Australia (Petroleum) Pty Ltd

D. & G. Fernandes & V. Caradonna

5 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. Flanagan

14 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. Heinecke & A. Richardson

237 Norton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

B. & M. Hughes

2 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

Mr I. Jeremy & Ms E. McMullen

11 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

N. Krisco

8 Lion Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. N. S. & V. Latsinos

4 & 8 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. Leung

3 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

N. Lewis

2 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Mireless & M. Rutherford

8 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Nicholson

9 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

P. & V. Nube

13 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

H. & M. Pappas

1 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

K. Ruschen

9 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

M. Thomas

16 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

D. Trazerra

45 Carshalton Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. Tulloch

16 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

J. & S. Woodward

18 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

S. Woodward

18 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

Petitions

Petition of 132 names

Head petitioner:

K. Ruschen

9 Wetherill Street, Croydon NSW 2132

Submission Issue	Assessing Officer’s Comment
Vehicular access for the development via the southern part of Wetherill Street will unacceptably increase traffic in the local residential streets.	A deferred commencement condition has been recommended requiring the applicant to relocate the median in Wetherill Street so that vehicular access to the development is not via the low density southern part of Wetherill Street.
4 storeys instead of 2.	The proposal is for a 3 storey building which is consistent with Council’s planning controls for the site.
It is to be built to the boundaries in Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street.	The proposal provides for setbacks of at least 3 metres from both Liverpool Road and Wetherill Street.
Overshadowing of 15 Wetherill Street private open space.	The private open space of 15 Wetherill Street will receive more than the minimum amount of solar access required by the AIDAP 2013.
Overshadowing of 15 Wetherill Street north facing windows.	The north facing windows will receive between one and almost four hours solar access at mid-winter depending on the location of individual windows on the north façade. This is considered generally acceptable.
Location of driveway entry will be noisy for 15 Wetherill Street.	The driveway is located towards the street frontage and is enclosed within the building structure as it enters the site and is also separated from the boundary by screen planting.
Adverse privacy impacts on 15 Wetherill Street.	Agreed. The location of two balconies and various windows would enable overlooking of the private open space of 15 Wetherill Street. Conditions will be applied to address this issue.
Removal of covered balcony structures would increase solar access to the south.	The rooftop pergola structures are not a source of any overshadowing of adjacent properties.
Roof terrace will overlook adjacent low density residential properties and create a noise nuisance.	The communal roof terrace has been located to the front of the site and well away from the boundary with the low density residential zone. Due to the separation, it will not be possible for users of the roof terrace to obtain any view into adjacent properties to the south. The degree of separation should minimise the chances of noise issues arising.
Garbage should not be collected from the southern side of the median barrier in Wetherill Street.	The development will not be permitted to place its bins for collection in front of any other property. Consequently, rubbish collection would only be from Liverpool Road or the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.
Street tree should not be removed.	The street tree must be removed as there is no other realistic option available for the location of the driveway entry. A condition has been recommended requiring the applicant to provide substitute street tree planting using an advanced specimen of the same species in an adjacent location.
Development is on flood prone land.	The proposal has been designed to adequately take account of the flood hazard.
The proposed tree planting along Liverpool Road associated with the development would block view of the Caltex fuel price sign to passing motorists resulting in a contravention of the NSW Fair Trading Regulation 2012. Plantings along Liverpool Road within 10m of the common boundary should be limited to 1m in height or the applicant required to pay for the relocation of the sign.	It is noted that tree planting of any size and density can occur without development consent at any time. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that an appropriate urban design outcome would only be achieved with significantly sized canopy tree planting in the Liverpool Road setback and a condition will be imposed requiring the planting of advanced specimens of canopy trees which would grow to a mature height of at least 8.5m. Nevertheless, it will take some time for these specimens to reach a height which might obscure any signage.
The site plan suggests that the driveway exits into the northern end of Wetherill Street rather than the southern end as is proposed.	The site plan clearly shows the driveway entering into Wetherill Street on the southern side of the median. The misunderstanding may arise from a graphical difference between the location plan (which appears to show the street tree intact - although it notes that it is to be removed) and the ground floor plan which shows more clearly that the tree is to be removed and that access is proposed to the southern part of Wetherill Street. The site plan, on the other hand, appears to suggest that there is an opening leading to the northern part of Wetherill Street; in fact, this is not an opening but the median strip. This is simply a difference in the graphical standards used on the drawings. Notwithstanding this, the concern is clearly that the application proposes vehicular movements through the southern low density portion of Wetherill Street. To address this, conditions will be applied to ensure that all traffic exits the northern end of Wetherill Street and then into Liverpool Road without passing through the low density section of Wetherill Street under any circumstances.
Extension requested to period for submissions.	All submissions made up until the writing of this report have been considered.
Number of storeys and height is unclear.	The height of the building and number of storeys is clearly legible on the notification plans.
Location of trees to be removed is unclear.	This is clearly shown on the notations on the notification plans and is consistent with normal architectural graphic standards.
Location of bins not shown on notification plans.	The presentation point for garbage bins will be dictated by conditions of consent.
Traffic report is not accurate.	Council’s engineers have made their own independent assessment of the traffic impacts.
Notification plans appear to show a four storey building rather than a three storey building.	The “fourth storey” the objector refers to appears to be the lift and stair core which provides access to the roof as well as the rooftop pergola. It is noted that these elements are both permitted and encouraged under Council’s planning controls for the B4 zone.
Potential damage to adjacent properties from excavation.	This concern will be addressed by way of conditions of consent.
Site contamination concerns.	This will be addressed by conditions.
Lack of community consultation.	Community consultation is built into the development application process of which the notification process is a part.

6.8 The public interest

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

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 Part C1: Access, Adaptability and Mobility Summary Compliance Table (Design Checklist 2)
No.	Standard	Required	Proposed	Complies
Part C1	Access, Adaptability and Mobility
2.3(iii)	Universal Accessible Design	Residential flat building or shop top housing, 3 storeys or higher with lifts, which may or may not be part of a mixed development, must have all their apartments complying with universal accessible design principles as required by Design Checklist 2.	Residential flat building	Noted
2.4	Adaptable Housing	10%	14%	Yes
2.5	Variations to Universal Accessible Design Requirements	Site conditions	No variations proposed under this clause.	N/A
7.2	Universal Accessible Design	Residential flat buildings higher than 3 storeys with ground level commercial and lifts, shall be “accessible” as required in the Building Code of Australia and in addition have a universal accessible design for the interior design of the dwellings that meets the requirements of Section 7.	All apartments are accessible.	Yes
7.3	Construction	In order to achieve an “implementation principle”, that considers design issues at Development Application stage in sufficient detail to ensure that at construction certificate stage and during construction compliance is achieved	Adequate detail provided.	Yes
7.4	Access from street to dwelling entry	Access from the street into the lift lobby area, to lifts and to apartments entries requires: (a) A continuous path of accessible travel from the street to lift lobbies. (b) Lift shafts sizes minimum required to take a lift which is large enough to accommodate a person in a wheelchair. (c) The lift lobby shall have a minimum clear finished circulation width of 1500mm, and which takes into account wall finishes and building tolerances. (d) An intercom at the visitor parking level and external ground level entry point.	All dimensions are consistent with these requirements.	Yes
7.5	Interior dwelling design	The interior elements of all apartments shall be adequately sized to allow wheelchair circulation.	No apartments (except the adaptable units) are adequately sized to allow wheelchair access in respect of: · Corridor widths · Bathrooms · Kitchens and · Laundries	No but can be a condition of approval.
7.6	Access to private balcony	(a) Balcony dimensions shall accommodate a person in a wheelchair being able to turn on the balcony including allowing an area for a small table and have a minimum internal width of 2.0m and minimum length of 3m.	All private balcony areas are accessible.	Yes
7.7	Access to car parking	Access to and from the car parking area for people with a disability by lift.	Lift access with waiting area outside lift provided.	Yes
7.8	Access to communal garden space	Where there is communal open space on the site, it must be accessible from all dwellings required to have a universal accessible design, and by all visitors to the site.	All communal open space is readily accessible.	Yes
7.9	Access to Ground Level Commercial areas and circulation within Commercial Levels	Access must be compliant with the BCA.	Compliant access is provided to the ground level commercial.	Yes

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 Part C4: Ashfield West Summary Compliance Table
Clause No.	Standard	Required	Proposed	Complies
2	Building Height and Location
2.1	Maximum Building Height	3 storeys	3 storeys	Yes
2.2		Design to maximise separation with neighbouring houses.	3m rear setback	Yes
2.3	Building Locations	6m front setback Liverpool Road	6m front setback to face of building and 3m front setback to front of balconies. The dimensions provided will provide a suitable streetscape appearance with scope for landscaping on the street frontage to contribute to the streetscape and moderate noise impacts of traffic on the amenity of residents. The setbacks proposed are considered to provide an acceptable urban design outcome and will set a suitable precedent for adjacent future development.	Acceptable
2.4	Building Scale Relationship with Neighbouring Residential Properties	Building heights to reduce in scale on southern boundary to be sympathetic to building heights on adjacent properties.	Scale relationship on southern boundary satisfactory.	Yes
2.5	Maintaining northerly solar access for adjoining properties	Maintaining northerly solar access for adjoining properties	Proposal maintains adequate solar access to property to the south with the north facing windows progressively receiving full solar access between noon and 3pm.	Yes
3	Landscape
3.1	Main road frontage and building structure setbacks for front gardens and trees	3m deep soil zone along frontages.	3m	Yes
3.2	Communal Open Space	Must comply with SEPP 65 requirements: 25% - 30% of stie area	34% (409m²)	Yes
3.3	Rear/Side Landscape Buffer Areas	3m deep soil zone along rear boundary for dense tree planting.	3m deep soil zone provided (expect for small intrusion for driveway).	Yes
3.6	Trees	Trees to be planted along the frontage of the site: · Min. 1.8m high · Approved species · Regular intervals	Planting of 6 canopy trees is proposed along the Liverpool Road frontage.	Yes
4	Pedestrian Amenity and Safety
4.1	Active Street Frontages	Active street frontages to both street frontages.	Lobby entrances and unit entries provided.	Yes
4.2		Upper levels must provide surveillance of the public domain.	All units overlook the street with windows and balconies.	Yes
4.3	Visibility to Street	Residential lobbies to be min 5m wide.	3.6m wide – this is considered acceptable.	Acceptable
4.4	Location of Parking	Any at grade parking to be located behind any active street frontage.	All parking in basement.	N/A
4.5	Street Awnings	Street awnings for weather protection to be provided where 0m setbacks are required.	No 0m setbacks required on this site.	N/A
4.7	Security	Residential development facing rear lanes must have windows along that frontage to ensure passive surveillance.	No rear lane associated with subject site.	N/A
4.8		Minimum requirements for security devices.	To be a condition..	Condition
5	Residential Amenity
5.1	Acceptable noise levels	Maximum noise levels in apartments not to exceed: · 40dBA for living areas · 35dBA for bedrooms	Achievable if recommendations of supplied acoustic report implemented by condition of consent.	Condition
5.2	North side of Liverpool Road	N/A	N/A	N/A
5.3	South side of Liverpool Road	Living rooms should be cross-through in design to allow access to the quieter southern side.	Windows to living rooms must comply with requirements of acoustic report.	Acceptable
5.6	Landscaped Buffer Areas	3m width of deep soil tree planting to southern boundary.	Buffer provided.	Yes
7	Social Considerations and Residential Development
7.1	Smaller apartments	A minimum of 20% of the dwellings should be 1 bedroom or studio apartments.	18%	Acceptable
8	Development Servicing
8.1	Vehicle Access Points	Driveway access must be provided from the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.	Access provided via the southern end of Wetherill Street. Deferred commencement conditions will be applied requiring the applicant to relocate the traffic island so that vehicular access is via the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street.	No
8.2	Driveways to underground parking	Must be designed to minimise noise impact on adjacent residential rooms.	Driveway ramp is completely enclosed.	Yes
8.4	Loading Areas	Adequate provision for loading/unloading.	No commercial component.	N/A
8.5	Service Areas	Garbage areas to be located out of public view ideally in basement with adequate access.	Garbage room located in basement with suitable access.	Yes
8.7	Service doors	Must be adequately screened from frontage.	No significant service area doors in this proposal.	N/A
8.8	Mail Boxes	Located adjacent main entrance in accessible location and integrated properly into design of building.	Yes	Yes

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 Part C11: Parking Summary Compliance Table
No.	Standard	Required	Proposed	Complies
3.3	Parking Credits	Do not apply if more than 50% of the building is being demolished.	100% of the existing buildings are to be demolished and as such no parking credits are applicable.	N/A
4.1	Car Parking for People with Disabilities	5% of required parking spaces to be accessible. TOTAL = 2.5 spaces	3 spaces	Yes
4.2	Bicycle and Motor Cycle Parking	Bicycle spaces: · 1 space per 10 units = 5 Motor cycle spaces: · 1 space per 25 spaces = 2.56	Bicycle spaces: · 1 space per 10 units = 16 Motor cycle spaces: · 1 space per 25 spaces = 3	Yes
4.3	Parking Rates for Specific Land Uses	Residential spaces: · 1 space per unit = 22 Visitor spaces: · 1 space per 4 units = 6 Car wash bay: · 1 space = 1	Residential spaces: · 1 space per unit = 24 (incl. 3 disabled spaces) Visitor spaces: · 1 space per 4 units = 6 Car wash bay: 1 space = 1 (to be nominated by condition)	Yes
5.0	Design Requirements	Compliance with relevant Australian Standards and detailed requirements of the Part.	Satisfactory or capable of compliance.	Yes

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013

Part C12: Public Notification

Summary Compliance Table

No.

Standard

Required

Proposed

Complies

Section 2

Notification Process

The application was notified in accordance with this part.

Yes

Ashfield Interim Development Assessment Policy 2013 PartD1: Planning for Less Waste Summary Compliance Table
No.	Standard	Required	Proposed	Complies
	Bin Numbers	Residential (50 dwellings): · 1 x 240L garbage bin/2 dwellings=11 bins · 1 x 240L recycling bin/2 dwellings=11 bins · TOTAL: 22 bins	Residential: · 22 x 240L garbage bins · 25 x 240L recycling bins TOTAL: space for 19 bins	No but can be enlarged to a suitable size. Condition recomm-ended
	Bin Presentation		Adequately resolved.	Yes

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

8.0 Referrals

Internal Referrals
Officer	Comments	Support
Building Surveyor	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes
Traffic Engineer	Supported subject to conditions including the relocation of the Wetherill Street median strip to ensure access to the development is only via the Liverpool Road end of Wetherill Street. Note that Roads and Maritime Services was advised of the intention to apply this condition and did not raise any objection.	Yes
Drainage Engineer	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes
Heritage Advisor	Since this matter was in the Court, the proposal has been greatly improved in its contextual response, and it would appear that the main heritage concern which now remains is the manner and relationship of vehicle entry to Wetherill Street. The amenity and cohesion of the HCA will be adversely affected if the vehicle traffic generated by this development can only arrive and leave through the conservation area. The development opposite across Wetherill Street will be similar in impact and in my opinion, Council’s road closure to the conservation area must remain. A redesign of the closure incorporating simple bollards and revised tree planting should be possible and should accommodate both this and the opposing development – when that occurs. Vehicle access to both (access and egress) should be only from Liverpool Road.	Yes
Environmental Health Officer	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes
SEPP 65 Advisor	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes
Waste Management	Supported.	Yes

External Referrals
Referral Body	Comments	Support
Roads and Maritime Services	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes
NSW Police	Supported subject to conditions.	Yes

7.0 Building Code of Australia (BCA)

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

See 7.0

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

See 6.7

CONCLUSION

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Plans
2.⇩	Locality Map
3.⇩	Heritage Advice
4.⇩	RMS Comments
5.⇩	Traffic Engineer's Comments
6.⇩	Conditions
7.⇩	Submissions

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 7

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

File Ref: 16/4718/73236.16

Prepared By: Haroula Michael - Development Assessment Officer, Ashfield

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

· Installation of a roof cowl; and

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

This modification application involves a former Ashfield Council project.

RECOMMENDATION

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

BACKGROUND

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

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

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 1.

2.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant : Mr B Inwood

Address : PO Box 442 PETERSHAM NSW 2049

Owner : Ashfield Council

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

Date lodged : 20/04/2016

Date of last amendment : 30 May 2016

Building classification : 9B

Application Type : Local

Construction Certificate : No

3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

· Two mini soccer fields;

· Children playground area;

· Cricket area; and

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

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

Refer to Attachment 2 for a locality map.

4.0 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

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

· Demolition of the existing amenities building;

· Erection of new amenities building including:-

o improved toilet facilities;

o improved male & female change rooms;

o accessible bathroom,

o two storerooms;

o improved canteen; and

o a new meeting room;

· Attached verandah;

· New sports field lighting; and

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

5.0 ISSUES

5.1 Impact on existing pedestrian path

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

5.2 Use of the canteen area

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

5.3 Reason for relocation of the amenities building

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

5.4 Heritage

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

6.0 ZONING/PERMISSIBILITY/HERITAGE

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

· The property is a heritage item.

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

The proposed works are permissible with Council consent.

7.0 SECTION 96(1A) ASSESSMENT

"Is the proposed modification of minimal environmental impact."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to part 8.7.1 of this report for details.

SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT

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

7.1 The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

7.1.1 Local Environmental Plans

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 Summary Compliance Table
Clause No.	Clause	Standard	Proposed	Compliance
2.2	Zoning	Zone RE1 Public Recreation	Section 96 amendment to DA 10.2014.94.1	Yes
4.1	Minimum subdivision lot size	No standard applicable	3.363 Hectares (or 33630square metres). The proposal does not seeks to subdivide the land	N/A
4.3	Height of buildings	No standard applicable.	Amenities building – 5.1m at highest point Sporting Light poles – 20m or 23m as noted on plans. (no alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application) Wire open mesh style fence (No alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application)	N/A
4.4	Floor space ratio	No standard applicable	0.01:1 (No alterations sought as part of this Section 96 application)	N/A
5.10	Heritage Conservation	The subject site is a Heritage Item (413) Located in the vicinity of: · Lang Street Conservation Area (C33); · Bridges Avenue Conservation Area (C27); · Birriga Road Conservation Area (C26); · Rathgael Estate Conservation Area (C35); · 93 Church Street, Croydon (371); and · 95 Church Street, Croydon (372).
5.10(4)	Effect of proposed development on heritage significance	The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or the area concerned. This sub-clause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under sub-clause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under sub-clause (6).	Council's Heritage Advisor has not raised any objections to the proposed modifications and the proposal is not expected to detract from the character or significance of heritage items or the conservation areas within the vicinity of the subject site.	Yes
5.10(5)	Heritage Assessment	The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development: (a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or (b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or (c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.	Considered as part of the heritage assessment of the proposed modification.	Yes

The proposal does not alter compliance with the LEP.

7.1.2 Regional Environmental Plans

Not applicable.

7.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

The proposal does not alter compliance with relevant SEPPs.

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

Not applicable.

7.3 The provisions of any Development Control Plan.

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

7.6 The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

7.7.1 Summary of submissions

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

Submissions

Guy Redden

91 Church Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

Leon Civitella

121 Church Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

Rene Holmes

3 Church Street

ASHFIELD NSW 2131

*Abraham Tannous

75 Lang Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

Nick Murdocca

101 Church Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

*Craig Bevins

69 Lang Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

*George Romiz

28 Queen Street

CROYDON NSW 2132

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

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

Fencing:

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Parking/Traffic:

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

Officer’s comment:

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

Re-location of amenities building/pedestrian pathway:

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

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

Church Street footpath

There is not provision for a footpath along Church Street.

Officer’s comment:

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

Breezeway

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Meeting room

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Commercial cooking/Café/intensification/hours

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

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Sprinkler system/Fire safety measures

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Additional bathroom facilities:

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

Officer’s Comment:

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

Flood lights:

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

Officer’s comment:

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

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

Grease trap:

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

Officer’s comment:

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

Wheelchair parking and access:

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

Officer’s comment:

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

Issues not taken into account during consideration of the original application

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

7.8 The public interest

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

8.0 REFERRALS

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

Building: No objections raised to the proposed modifications.

Engineering: No objections raised to the proposed modifications

Health: No objections raised, subject to conditions.

9.0 BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA)

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

10.0 CONCLUSION

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

A General Conditions

(1) Approved plans stamped by Council

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

DA01A 30 May 2016

DA02C 27 June 2016

DA03A 03 May 2016

DA04A 03 May 2016

DA05A 03 May 2016

D1 Issue A 30 May 2016

D2 Issue A 30 May 2016

D3 Issue A 30 May 2016

D4 Issue B 30 May 2016

E1 Issue A 30 May 2016

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

The following conditions shall be added:-

(3) Grease Trap-Installation

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

(4) Roof Cowl

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

(5) Pathway

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

E Conditions that must be complied with during construction or demolition

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

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

(18) Inspection of premises – health standards

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

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

(2) Grease Trap Room

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

(3) Pathway installation

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

H Conditions that are ongoing requirements of development consents

(5) Use of Canteen

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

(6) Odour Control Operation

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

(7) Odour Control Maintenance

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

(8) Plan of Management

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Plans of Proposal
2.⇩	Locality Map
3.⇩	Submissions
4.⇩	Heritage Advice

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 9

Subject: Development Application - 30 Llewellyn Street, Marrickville

File Ref: DA201600053/10/67866.16

Prepared By: Albert Madrigal - Development Assessment Officer, Marrickville

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

PART A - PARTICULARS

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

Image 1: Location Map

D/A No: 201600053

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

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

Applicant: Demetrios Stavropoulos

Estimated Cost: $220,000

Zoning: B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

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

Image 2: The Site

Current Use: Mixed-use

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

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

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

PART C - REQUIREMENTS

1. Zoning

Is the proposal permissible under zoning provisions? Yes

2. Development Standards (Statutory Requirements):

Type Required Proposed

Height of Buildings (max) 9.5 metres 7.44 metres

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

3. Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type Required Proposed

Bicycle Parking 2 Nil

Private Open Space 8sqm 7.37sqm

4. Community Consultation:

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

Submissions: 2 submissions from the same property

5. Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation: 20- 25 ANEF

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

PART D - ASSESSMENT

1. The Site and Surrounds

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

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

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

2. The Proposal

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

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

Image 3: Site Plan

Image 4: Existing Ground Floor Plan

Image 5: First Floor Plan

Image 6: Roof Plan

Image 7: West/Juliett Street Elevation

Image 8: East Elevation

Image 9: South Elevation

Image 10: Photomontage of apartment, Juliett Street Perspective

Image 11: Photomontage Llewellyn Street Perspective

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

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

4. Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

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

(ii) Demolition (Clause 2.7)

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

(iii) Height (Clause 4.3)

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

(iv) Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

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

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

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

(v) Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vi) Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii) Acid Sulfate Soils (Clause 6.1)

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

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

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

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

5. Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

PART 2 - GENERIC PROVISIONS

(i) Urban Design (Part 2.1)

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

(ii) Site and Context Analysis (Part 2.3)

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

(iii) Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

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

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

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

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

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

(iv) Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

Overshadowing

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

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

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

Solar Access

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

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

(v) Community Safety (Part 2.9)

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

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

(vi) Parking (Part 2.10)

Car and Bicycle Parking Spaces

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

Component	Control	Required	Proposed	Complies?
Car Parking
Residential Car Parking	0.25 car parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit	1 x 1 bed unit = 0.25 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
Residential Car Parking	0.5 car parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit	3 x 2 bed units = 1.5 spaces	2 spaces	Yes
	TOTAL:	2 spaces
Bicycle Parking
Resident Bicycle Parking	1 bicycle parking space per 2 units	4 units = 2 spaces	Nil	No

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii) Energy Efficiency (Part 2.16)

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

(viii) Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

Private and common open space

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

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

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

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

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

2.21.3 Public utilities

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

2.21.4 Mail boxes

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

2.21.5 Building identification numbers

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

2.21.7 Recycling and Waste Management Plan

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

2.21.11 Residential Waste

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

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

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

PART 5 - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

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

General Commercial and Mixed Use Development Controls

(i) Massing and Setbacks (Part 5.1.3.3)

Front Massing

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

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

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

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

Rear Massing

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

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

(ii) Building Depth (Part 5.1.3.4)

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

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

(iii) Building Separation (Part 5.1.3.5)

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

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

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

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

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

(v) Building Detail (Part 5.1.4)

(a) Building Frontages (Part 5.1.4.1)

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

The development satisfies the building frontage controls in that:

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

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

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

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

(vi) Building Use (Part 5.1.5)

(a) Mixed use development (Part 5.1.5.1)

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

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

(vii) Ceiling heights (Part 5.1.5.3)

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

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

PART 9 - STRATEGIC CONTEXT

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

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

6. Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

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

7. Community Consultation

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

(i) Parking;

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

(iii) Streetscape.

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

8. Conclusion

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

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

PART E – RECOMMENDATION

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

GENERAL

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

Plan, Revision and Issue No.	Plan Name	Date Issued	Prepared by	Date Submitted
Job No. 1113 A-00	Site Plan/Erosion & Sediment Control	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-02	First Floor Plan	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-03	Roof Plan	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-04	Elevations	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-05	Elevations	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-06	Sections	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
Job No. 1113 A-12	External Finishes	15/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016
A240400	BASIX Certificate	10/02/2016	Design Delta Architects	18/02/2016

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

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

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

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

(b) any relevant requirements of this consent,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

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

Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

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

Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

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

12. No work must commence until:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. All demolition work must:

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

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

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

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

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. All street trees adjacent to the site must be protected at all times during demolition and construction, in accordance with Part 2.20 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 - Tree Management. Details of the methods of protection of such trees must be submitted to and be approved by Council before commencing works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i) around or under the tree canopy; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Upon installation of the required tree protection measures, an inspection of the site by the Principal Certifying Authority must verify that tree protection measures comply with all relevant conditions.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction phase.

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

Reason: To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

BEFORE THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

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

b) Before the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Council must be paid a monetary contribution of $20,000.00 indexed in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (“CP”).

The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 21 June 2016.

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

The indexation of the contribution rates occurs in the first week of the months of February, May, August and November each year, following the release of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

(CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT REFERENCE NO. DC001506)

c) The contribution payable has been calculated in accordance with the CP and relates to the following public amenities and/or services and in the following amounts:

· Community Facilities: $2,260.94

· Plan Administration: $392.16

· Recreation Facilities: $17,104.04

· Traffic Facilities: $242.86

d) A copy of the CP can be inspected at Council’s offices at 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham or online at http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au.

e) The contribution must be paid either in cash, by unendorsed bank cheque (from an Australian Bank only), via EFTPOS (Debit only) or credit card*.

*NB A 1% credit card transaction fee applies to all credit card transactions.

Reason: To ensure provision is made for the increase in demand for public amenities and services required as a consequence of the development being carried out.

28. Evidence of payment of the building and construction industry Long Service Leave Scheme must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate. (The required payment can be made at the Council Offices).

NOTE: The required payment is based on the estimated cost of building and construction works and the long service levy rate, set by the Long Service Payments Corporation. The rate set by the Long Service Payments Corporation is currently of 0.35% of the cost of the building and construction work.

For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

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

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

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

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

or telephone 13 20 92.

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

Reason: To ensure compliance with Sydney Water requirements.

30. All plumbing and ductwork including stormwater downpipes must be concealed within the outer walls of the building so they are not visible. Plans and elevations detailing the method of concealment must be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of a Construction Certificate. Any variation to this requirement requires Council approval.

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

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

Reason: To ensure adequate mail collection facilities are provided.

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

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

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

33. Noise attenuation measures being incorporated into the development complying with Australian Standard 2021-2000 in relation to interior design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction), in accordance with details must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

Reason: To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft.

34. Before the issue of a Construction Certificate the owner or builder must sign a written undertaking that they are responsible for the full cost of repairs to footpath, kerb and gutter, or other Council property damaged as a result of construction of the development. Council may utilise part or all of any Building Security Deposit (B.S.D.) or recover in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs to Council for such repairs.

Reason: To ensure that all damages arising from the building works are repaired at no cost to Council.

SITE WORKS

35. All excavation, demolition, construction, and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of the development, must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above no work being carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason: To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

36. The area surrounding the building work must be reinstated to Council's satisfaction upon completion of the work.

Reason: To ensure that the area surrounding the building work is satisfactorily reinstated.

37. The placing of any materials on Council’s footpath or roadway is prohibited, without the consent of Council. The placement of waste storage containers in a public place requires Council approval and must comply with Council’s Policy - ‘Placement of Waste Storage Containers in a Public Place’.

Reason: To ensure the public ways are not obstructed and the placement of waste storage containers in a public place are not dangerous to the public.

38. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

a) compliance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2601 'The demolition of structures' with specific reference to health and safety of the public, health and safety of the site personnel, protection of adjoining buildings and protection of the immediate environment;

b) all works involving the demolition, removal, transport and disposal of asbestos cement must be carried out in accordance with the 'Worksafe Code of Practice for Removal of Asbestos' and the requirements of the WorkCover Authority of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

c) all building materials arising from the demolition must be disposed of in an approved manner in accordance with Part 2.21 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 – Site Facilities and Waste Management and any applicable requirements of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water;

d) sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, water, electricity and telecommunications must be disconnected in accordance with the requirements of the responsible authorities;

e) the generation of dust and noise on the site must be controlled;

f) the site must be secured to prohibit unauthorised entry;

g) suitable provision must be made to clean the wheels and bodies of all vehicles leaving the site to prevent the tracking of debris and soil onto the public way;

h) all trucks and vehicles associated with the demolition, including those delivering to or removing material from the site, must only have access to the site during work hours nominated by Council and all loads must be covered;

i) all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

j) no waste collection skips, spoil, excavation or demolition material from the site must be deposited on the public road, footpath, public place or Council owned property without the approval of Council; and

k) the person acting on this consent must ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors associated with the demolition are fully aware of these requirements.

Reason: To ensure that the demolition work is carried out safely and impacts on the surrounding area are minimised.

39. The works are required to be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority. The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA. The critical stages of construction are:

a) At the commencement of the building work;

b) For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c) Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d) After the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued in relation to the building.

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

Reason: To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

40. All roof and surface stormwater from the site any catchment external to the site that presently drains to it, must be collected in a system of pits and pipelines/channels and major storm event surface flow paths and must be discharged to a Council controlled stormwater drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Marrickville Council Stormwater and On Site Detention Code.

Reason: To provide for adequate site drainage.

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

41. You must obtain an Occupation Certificate from your PCA before you occupy or use the building. The PCA must notify the Council of the determination of the Occupation Certificate and forward the following documents to Council within 2 days of the date of the Certificate being determined:

a) A copy of the determination;

b) Copies of any documents that were lodged with the Occupation Certificate application;

c) A copy of Occupation Certificate, if it was issued;

d) A copy of the record of all critical stage inspections and any other inspection required by the PCA;

e) A copy of any missed inspections; and

f) A copy of any compliance certificate and any other documentary evidence relied upon in issuing the Occupation Certificate.

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

42. Occupation of the building must not be permitted until such time as:

a) All preconditions to the issue of an Occupation Certificate specified in this development consent have been met;

b) The building owner obtains a Final Fire Safety Certificate certifying that the fire safety measures have been installed in the building and perform to the performance standards listed in the Fire Safety Schedule; and

c) An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

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

43. The owner of the premises, as soon as practicable after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued, must:

a) Forward a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and the current Fire Safety Schedule to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the Council; and

b) Display a copy of the Final Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule in a prominent position in the building (i.e. adjacent the entry or any fire indicator panel).

Every 12 months after the Final Fire Safety Certificate is issued the owner must obtain an Annual Fire Safety Certificate for each of the Fire Safety Measures listed in the Schedule. The Annual Fire Safety Certificate shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and the Council and displayed in a prominent position in the building.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

44. The Certifying Authority must be satisfied that each of the commitments listed in BASIX Certificate referred to in this Determination have been fulfilled before the issue of an Occupation Certificate (whether an interim or final Occupation Certificate).

Reason: To ensure that all of the BASIX commitments have been fulfilled and to comply with the requirements under Section 154B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

45. The Certifying Authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX Completion Receipt within 2 days of the issue of a final Occupation Certificate. Completion Receipts can be applied for at www.basix.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements under Section 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

46. a) Upon completion of the required noise attenuation measures referred to in the “Before the Issue of a Construction Certificate” Section of this Determination, and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a report must be prepared and submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction by an accredited Acoustics Consultant certifying that the final construction meets AS2021-2000 as set down in the subject condition of this consent. Such report must include external and internal noise levels to ensure that the external noise levels during the test are representative of the typical maximum levels that may occur at this development; and

b) Where it is found that internal noise levels are greater than the required dB(A) rating due to faulty workmanship or the like, necessary corrective measures must be carried out and a further certificate being prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with the requirements as set down in Part a) of this condition.

Reason: To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft and to ensure that the noise attenuation measures incorporated into the development satisfactorily comply with the relevant sections of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

47. Before the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a street number and identifier of separate occupancies (if applicable) must be clearly displayed in a readily visible location (numbers having a height of not less than 75mm). If any new street numbers or change to street numbers (this includes unit and shop numbers) are required they must have the prior approval of council before being displayed.

Reason: To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

48. All works required to be carried out in connection with drainage, crossings, alterations to kerb and guttering, footpaths and roads resulting from the development must be completed before the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Works must be in accordance with Council’s Standard crossing and footpath specifications and AUS-SPEC#2-“Roadworks Specifications”.

Reason: To ensure that the person acting on this consent completes all required work.

ADVISORY NOTES

· A complete assessment of the application under the provisions of the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia) has not been carried out.

· Contact “Dial Before You Dig” before commencing any building activity on the site.

· Useful Contacts

BASIX Information

( 1300 650 908 weekdays 2:00pm - 5:00pm

www.basix.nsw.gov.au

Department of Fair Trading

( 13 32 20

www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to Owner Builder Permits and Home Warranty Insurance.

Dial Before You Dig

( 1100

www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au

Landcom

( 9841 8660

To purchase copies of Volume One of “Soils and Construction”

Long Service Payments Corporation

( 131441

www.lspc.nsw.gov.au

NSW Food Authority

( 1300 552 406

www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

NSW Government

www.nsw.gov.au/fibro

www.diysafe.nsw.gov.au

Information on asbestos and safe work practices.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

( 131 555

www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Sydney Water

( 13 20 92

www.sydneywater.com.au

Waste Service - SITA Environmental Solutions

( 1300 651 116

www.wasteservice.nsw.gov.au

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS)

www.waterrating.gov.au

WorkCover Authority of NSW

( 13 10 50

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

Enquiries relating to work safety and asbestos removal and disposal.

B. THAT the persons who lodged a submission in respect to the proposal be advised of the Council's determination of the application.

C.THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standards:

Premises: 30 Llewellyn Street, Marrickville

Applicant: Demetrios Stavropoulos

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

Determination: Approval subject to conditions

DA No: 201600053

Lot and DP: Lot A in DP385696

Category of Development: 9: Mixed

Environmental Planning Instrument: Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land: B1 - Neighbourhood Centre

Development Standard(s) varied: Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation: Strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unnecessary; The development provides a better urban design outcome than a compliant development; The additional FSR does not contribute to additional adverse amenity impacts on adjacent development; The development is compatible with the bulk/scale and overall character of the area.

Extent of variation: 29.5%

Concurring Authority: Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 10

Subject: Development Application - 575 King Street, Newtown

File Ref: DA201500750/10/70897.16

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

Authorised By: Phil Sarin - Director, Planning and Environment

SUMMARY

This report concerns an application to demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking. The application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification Policy and 2 submissions were received.

The development results in a departure of 126m² (22%) from the FSR development standard prescribed by Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011. The application was accompanied by a written request under Clause 4.6 of MLEP 2011 in relation to the variation which is supported for the reasons outlined in this report. The extent of the proposed non-compliances is not considered to result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining development and/or the streetscape.

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

PART A - PARTICULARS

Location: Western side of King Street, Newtown between Dickson Street and Wells Street.

Image 1: Location Map

D/A No: 201500750

Application Date: 23 December 2015. Additional information submitted on 1 April 2016 and 29 April 2016.

Proposal: To demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking.

Applicant: Jitendra Singh

Reshmi Rita Singh

Estimated Cost: $2,971 587

Zoning: B2 - Local Centre

PART B - THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

Improvements: One part two storey brick building

Image 2: The Site

Image 3: The Site as viewed from King Lane

Current Use: Ground floor retail premises (fruit shop) & first floor used for storage purposes.

Prior Determinations: Determination No.16801, dated 2 December 1996, approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to an existing part 2 storey commercial building including the addition of a dwelling at first and second floor level and continued use of the ground floor as a shop and studio for a gold gilding business.

Determination No.200100117, dated 21 May 2001, approved an application to carry out alterations to the premises and use the ground floor shop for the sale of groceries and fruit and vegetables.

Environment: Mixed use development along King Street

PART C - REQUIREMENTS

1. Zoning

Is the proposal permissible under zoning provisions? Yes

2. Development Standards (Statutory Requirements):

Type Required Proposed

Height of Buildings (max) 14 metres 12.3 metres

Floor Space Ratio (max) 1.5:1 1.83:1

3. Departures from Development Control Plan:

Type Required Proposed

Car parking 6 4

Rear building envelope Refer to comments in body of report

Dwelling mix Refer to comments in body of report

4. Community Consultation:

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

Submissions: 2 submissions

5. Other Requirements:

ANEF 2033 Affectation: 20-25 ANEF

Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 $74,938.20

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

PART D - ASSESSMENT

1. The Site and Surrounds

The site address is 575-577 King Street, Newtown. The property is located on the western side of King Street near the intersection with Wells Street, approximately 250 metres north of St Peters Railway Station. The legal property address is Lot 3 in DP 204608. The site has a frontage to King Street of 12.975 metres and a frontage to King Lane of 14.29 metres and has an area of 376.3m². A one part two storey brick building with a metal roof is located on site. The existing building is occupied by ‘One Stop Fruit Shop’. Parking located at the rear of the building accessed from King Lane.

The site is located within the King Street retail strip. The locality is characterised by 2 storey Victorian and Federation era shops, generally with high front parapets and continuous awnings. The exception to the historic development pattern is the subject site, which detracts from the overall character of the precinct. The site is within the King Street and Enmore Road Heritage Conservation Area (C2).

The development to the south west beyond King Lane and along Wells and Dickson Streets, is predominately residential, comprising a mix of single and 2 storey terraces and semi-detached dwellings from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. St Peters Railway Station is located approximately 250 metres to the south of the site. King Street is serviced by a number of bus routes that provide access to the city along with surrounding suburbs.

2. The Proposal

Approval is sought to demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking. The development is further summarised as follows:

§ Ground Floor: commercial tenancy and separate entry to the residential lobby fronting King Street, commercial and residential car parking and bin storage areas at the rear facing King Lane.

§ Level 1: 4 x 1 bedroom apartments, central communal courtyard, lift and fire stairs.

§ Level 2: 2 x studios and 1x 2 bed apartments, void, fire stairs.

The application was amended during the assessment process to address concerns raised by Council with respect to apartment layout, quality of external materials and finishes, building composition and appearance from the public domain and visual privacy. Additionally, further information was requested to address land contamination.

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

Image 4: Site Plan

Image 5: Ground Floor Plan

Image 6: First Floor Plan

Image 7: Second Floor Plan

Image 8: Roof Plan

Image 9: Front Elevation

Image 10: Rear Elevation

Image 11: Section A

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) and Part 2.24 of MDCP 2011 provides planning guidelines for remediation of contaminated land. SEPP 55 requires that remediation works must be carried out in accordance with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as approved by the consent authority and any guidelines enforced under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

The Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) submitted with the application concluded that:

§ The assessment did find information on historical activities that could have resulted in contamination, however the noted industrial uses predate 1962, with the main contaminants of concern being related to petroleum hydrocarbons. If impact to the surface soils did occur, there would have been more than 50 years for this organic impact to naturally attenuate such that it no longer posed a risk to human health and the environment. Hence the risk posed from the main contaminant of concern (petroleum hydrocarbons) is considered low;

§ Use of a portion of the site by a panel beater and car paint sprayer between circa 1951 – 1961 would have been done inside a building and over a hardstand. Hence potential migration of associated chemicals into underlying soil/groundwater would likely have been blocked by the slab;

§ Some potential filling of the site may have occurred during development of the site however the likelihood of significant contamination being present in soil is considered low;

§ It is likely that based upon the age of the building, ACM or other hazardous materials may be present within the structure. The risk posed by any such hazardous materials is currently considered HIGH and must be appropriately managed, if not already done so, using a site HAZMAT register; and

§ No further Stage 2 detailed assessment would be required and contamination would not pose unacceptable risk to current or future human users of the site and the environment. Hence contamination risk should not preclude proposed redevelopment.

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Services Section who raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which have been incorporated into the recommendation. Subject to compliance with those conditions, the application satisfies the requirements of SEPP 55.

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

The development is subject to the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

A statement from a qualified Architect was submitted with the application verifying that they designed/directed the design of the development. The statement also provides an explanation that verifies how the design quality principles are achieved within the development and demonstrates, in terms of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), how the objectives in Parts 3 and 4 of the guide have been achieved.

The development is generally acceptable having regard to the 9 design quality principles.

Apartment Design Guide

The ADG contains objectives, design criteria and design guidelines for residential apartment development. In accordance with Clause 6A of the SEPP the requirements contained within MDCP 2011 in relation to visual privacy, solar and daylight access, common circulation and spaces, apartment sizes and layout, ceiling heights, private open space and balconies, natural ventilation and storage have no effect. In this regard, objectives, design criteria and design guidelines set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG prevail.

The development has been assessed against the relevant design criteria within Part 3 and 4 of the ADG and is generally considered to be acceptable. The following summary points are noted:

· The size of all proposed apartments achieve the minimum internal areas for apartments within Part 4D of the ADG;

· Due to the site restrictions resulting in apartments facing east and west, the three apartments at the front facing slightly north of east will receive good direct sunlight for more than 3 hours in midwinter between 9am and 3pm; the northern second floor rear apartment will receive some direct sunlight via the central open space. All the apartments facing King Lane will receive direct sunlight in the late afternoon up to 3pm for approximately 1.5 hours and also beyond 3pm. All the apartments are well served by daylight;

· Despite the relatively small size of the development, a functional and well-designed communal area (courtyard) is provided in the centre of the site;

· The development does not provide the required deep soil zones required by the ADG. However, this is considered to be acceptable within a highly urbanised commercial centre and is characterised of surrounding mixed use development within the B2 – Local Centre zone;

· All of the apartments are naturally cross ventilated due to the inclusion of the central courtyard, complying with the ADG minimum of 60%;

· The development provides minimum 2.7 metre floor to ceiling heights for the residential component. A 4.3 metre floor to ceiling height is provided for the ground floor commercial tenancy which is considered to be acceptable and would enable flexibility for a range of future uses;

· Storage facilities are provided for each apartment in accordance with the ADG requirements; and

· All balconies with the development meet the minimum area/depth requirements outlined in the ADG.

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

6. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The site has a frontage to King Street which is a classified road.

Vehicular access to the property is provided from King Lane and as such is provided by a road other than the classified road. The development would not affect the safety, efficiency and on going operation of the classified road.

The development is a type of development that is sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions. The application was accompanied by an acoustic report which includes recommendations to ameliorate road noise impacts.

7. Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

The property is zoned B2 - Local Centre under the provisions of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (MLEP 2011). Shop top housing is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land. The development is considered acceptable having regard to the objectives of the B2 - Local Centre zone.

(ii) Demolition (Clause 2.7)

(iii) Height (Clause 4.3)

A maximum building height of 14 metres applies to the property under MLEP 2011. The development has a maximum building height of 12.3 metres which complies with the height development standard.

(iv) Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4) and Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6)

A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.5:1 applies to the land under MLEP 2011.

The development has a gross floor area (GFA) of 691.87m² which equates to a FSR of 1.83:1 on the 376.97m² site which does not comply with the FSR development standard. This represents a breach of 126.35m² or 22%.

A written request, in relation to the development’s non-compliance with the FSR development standards in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of MLEP 2011 was submitted by the applicant. The applicant considers the FSR breach to be acceptable for the following reasons:

§ The proposed development is wholly consistent with objectives 1(a)(b)(c) and (d) of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of MLEP 2011;

§ The development meets the other applicable standards under MLEP 2011 – height and land use;

§ The residential component above the rear garage is consistent with the applicable objectives, principles and controls of MDCP 2011 as demonstrated in the statement of environmental effects accompanying the application;

§ The non-conformity with the 1.5:1 FSR standard is 22% over (including the internal courtyard and bicycle parking) and less when excluding the internal courtyard and bicycle parking. Therefore it is not of a significant magnitude, given the compliance of the proposed development with all the envelope controls of MLEP 2011 and MDCP 2011;

§ The design of the addition is consistent with the two story shop and high parapet building typology of the conservation area in King Street;

§ The proposed built form is a sensitive infill design in a heritage context replacing an intrusive element that created a gap tooth effect in the streetscape;

§ The proposed development does not create any adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring development; and

§ Whether the central courtyard and bicycle parking area are included in the FSR calculation or not has no impact on the overall bulk or scale of the proposed development.

Further to the applicant’s justification above, the following comments are made:

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

§ Council has through numerous decisions accepted variations to the FSR development standard prescribed under MLEP 2011 where the proposed development satisfied the maximum height development standard. Council has acknowledged that there is a disconnect between the height of buildings and FSR development standards that apply under the provisions of MLEP 2011 and as a consequence, a breach of the FSR development standard is common and in some cases such as this proposal, is considered appropriate. Given the variations that have been accepted by Council in the past and the diminished importance of compliance being achieved with the numerical component of the standard, compliance with the standard is considered to be unnecessary and unreasonable in this circumstance;

§ The proposed built form is consistent with the anticipated outcomes for adjoining sites given that the development is generally within the prescribed building envelope (i.e. – front and rear massing and the building height); and

§ The contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State and regional environmental planning, and there is no public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the standard.

(v) Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

The site fronts onto King Street and backs onto King Lane. It has a site area of 376.3sqm and contains a two storey commercial building built in the 1960s. In accordance with the Marrickville Contributory and Period Building Assessment and Mapping Project, the site is not identified as a heritage item nor a period building or contributory building. However, the site falls within the MLEP/MDCP 2011 King Street and Enmore Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA 2). The site is surrounded by remarkably intact two‐storey commercial buildings dating from the late 19^th and early 20th centuries, which are characterized by narrow shopfronts, vertically proportioned fenestration, well detailed parapets, suspended awnings, etc.

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor who raised various concerns with the proposal relating to apartment layout, quality of external materials and finishes, building composition and the appearance of the development from the public domain. Amended plans were submitted by the applicant who satisfactorily addressed the concerns that were raised subject to some further and relatively minor design amendments. Conditions requiring these changes have been incorporated into the recommendation.

(vi) Acid Sulfate Soils (Clause 6.1)

The site is not identified as land being affected by acid sulfate soils on the MLEP 2011 Acid Sulfate Soils Map.

(vii) Earthworks (Clause 6.2)

The development does not involve any extensive excavation works.

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

The land is located within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (2033) Contour.

The development is likely to be affected by aircraft noise.

The carrying out of the development would result in an increase in the number of people affected by aircraft noise.

The development would need to be noise attenuated in accordance with AS2021:2000. An Acoustic Report was submitted with the application which details that the development could be noise attenuated from aircraft noise to meet the indoor design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS2021:2000. Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the requirements recommended within the acoustic Report are incorporated into the development.

8. Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011

PART 2 - GENERIC PROVISIONS

(i) Urban Design (Part 2.1)

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

(ii) Site and Context Analysis (Part 2.3)

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

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

Part 2.5 of MDCP 2011 specifies the minimum access requirements in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards for mixed use developments.

Residential Component

The development provides 2 adaptable dwellings, accessible entry and continuous path of travel within the development in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011. The matter of accessible car spaces is discussed below in this section of the report under the heading ‘Parking (Part 2.10)’.

Commercial Component

§ Appropriate access is provided for all persons through the principal entrance to each tenancy in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011;

§ A Continuous Accessible Path of Travel (CAPT) to and within the premises is provided which allows a person with a disability to gain access to all areas within the building in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011; and

§ Accessible sanitary facilities are provided for the ground floor tenancies in accordance with the requirements of MDCP 2011.

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

(iv) Acoustic and Visual Privacy (Part 2.6)

The development would maintain an acceptable level of acoustic and visual privacy for the surrounding properties and ensure a high level of acoustic and visual privacy for future occupants of the development itself. The following points are noted:

§ Concern was raised with the rear balcony provided for Unit 21 and its potential to cause overlooking impacts towards the private open space at the rear of No.1 Wells Street. The applicant amended the plans in response to this matter and made the following comments:

“Visual privacy was raised as a concern during the assessment process, specifically in

relation to the rear balcony provided for Unit 21. Consideration was given to Council’s

recommendation to provide a privacy screen; however, an alternative solution has been devised involving the installation of a permanent planter box. The planter box proposed is 500mm wide, providing separation between the balustrade and anyone using the balcony. This will prevent people from being able to get close to the balustrade, thereby reducing overlooking. In addition, the planter box will provide the opportunity to plant shrubs which may extend beyond the balustrade thereby improving the privacy.”

The modifications made in the amended plans are considered to be sufficient.

§ Balconies provided on the King Street elevation would generally overlook the street;

§ Reciprocal privacy impacts between apartments within the development have generally been minimised; and

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

(v) Solar Access and Overshadowing (Part 2.7)

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application illustrate the extent of overshadowing on adjacent properties. The development would not result in the unreasonable loss of sunlight to main internal living areas and/or private open space areas of surrounding residential properties as the additional overshadowing would predominately fall across the roofs of nearby development and the public road.

Solar Access

The SEPP 65 requirements prevail over the requirements prescribed by MDCP 2011.

(vi) Community Safety (Part 2.9)

Part 2.9 of MDCP 2011 contains objectives and controls relating to community safety. The proposal provides clear visible entrances to the building from King Street and King Lane, secure parking, separate entrances to the residential component and design features which would allow for casual surveillance of along both street frontages.

To minimise opportunities for vandalism and anti-social behaviour a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the rear elevation to be treated with anti-graffiti treatment. Also to ensure safety and security a condition is included in the recommendation requiring the provision of lighting within the entry areas.

(vii) Parking (Part 2.10)

Car Parking

The property is located in Parking Area 1 under Part 2.10 of MDCP 2011. The following summarises the car parking requirements for the development:

Non-adaptable resident car parking required = 2 spaces

Non-adaptable visitor car parking required = Nil

Adaptable resident car parking required = 2 spaces

Adaptable visitor car parking required = Nil

Retail = 2 spaces

TOTAL = 6 spaces

The development provides a total of 4 car parking spaces, being 2 commercial parking spaces and 2 residential parking spaces, 1 of which is designed as an accessible space. As such the proposal presents a shortfall of 2 car parking spaces, one of which is required to be accessible.

Notwithstanding this, the site is well linked by public transport facilities (both train and bus) and is within the B2 – Local Centre wherein one of the MLEP 2011 zone objectives is “To constrain parking and reduce car use”. The development also provides bicycle storage facilities and a condition has been incorporated into the recommendation stating that owners and occupants of the proposed building shall not be eligible to obtain parking permits under any existing or future resident parking scheme for the area.

On the basis of the above, the shortfall in car parking spaces is supported.

(viii) Energy Efficiency (Part 2.16)

Part 2.16 of MDCP 2011 contains the objectives and controls relating to energy efficiency.

As stated earlier in this report, a BASIX Certificate was submitted for the development that indicates that the proposed new dwellings would comply with the minimum water, thermal comfort and energy efficient targets of the BASIX scheme.

Council’s standard conditions are included in the recommendation relating to the provision of energy and water efficient fixtures and fittings for the commercial component of the development.

(ix) Landscaping and Open Spaces (Part 2.18)

Landscaped/Open Space Area

In accordance with Part 2.18 of MDCP 2011, landscaped/open space area for mixed use developments is determined on merit and depends on the overall streetscape and the desired future character of the area/precinct. The development does not include any landscaping/open space on the ground floor which is characteristic of most other commercial sites in the surrounding context and is therefore acceptable.

Private Open Space

The development provides balconies for each dwelling in accordance with SEPP 65 requirements, which prevail over the requirements prescribed by MDCP 2011.

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

2.21.2.1 Recycling and Waste Management

A Recycling and Waste Management Plan (RWMP) was submitted with the application and is considered to be adequate.

2.21.2.5 Residential Waste

Residential waste facilities have been provided on the ground floor level which can accommodate the required waste/recycling bins under Part 2.21.2.5.

2.21.2.6 Commercial Waste

Commercial waste facilities have been provided on the ground floor level which can accommodate the required waste/recycling bins under Part 2.21.2.6.

2.21.3.1 Clothes drying facilities

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

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

2.21.3.2 Public utilities

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

2.21.3.3 Mail Boxes

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

2.21.3.4 Building identification numbers

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

2.21.3.5 Telecommunication facilities

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

PART 5 - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

(i) Building form (Part 5.1.3)

(a) Massing and Setbacks (Part 5.1.3.3)

Front massing

For new infill developments, where the Height Of Building standard is set as 14 metres or greater, the street front portion of the building mass in the front 6 metres must have a maximum height (measured from footpath level up to highest point on the front portion of the building) of 12 metres and contain a maximum 3 storeys.

The proposed development complies with this requirement and the proposed form is considered to be sympathetic to the streetscape which contains buildings of a comparable scale.

Rear massing

The rear building envelope must be contained within the combination of the rear boundary plane and a 45 degree sloping plane from a point 7.5 metres vertically above the lane ground level, measured at the rear boundary, and contain a maximum of 2 storeys on the rear most building plane.

There is a proposed breach of the rear building envelope that is generally limited to the balustrades on the upper most level and a portion of the sunhood(s) above the rear balconies.

The non-compliance is not considered to add any significant visual bulk to the building and would not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for adjoining properties. The proposed breach is considered to have design merit in that the sunhoods over the upper floor balconies would provide weather protection, thereby increasing the amenity of the unit for future occupants. Compliance with the rear building envelope control in MDCP 2011 is unlikely to offer any appreciable benefit for the streetscape or adjoining properties. The existing building contains large, expansive blank walls presenting onto King Lane (see Image 3). The proposal would provide for a better outcome, replacing the existing bulky building. As such, the development is considered to satisfy Objective O9 within Part 5.1.3.3 of MDCP 2011 and is supported.

(b) Building Depth (Part 5.1.3.4)

All of the units proposed would comply with the maximum building depth (22 metres) and internal plan depth (18 metres) specified in Part 5.1.3.4 of MDCP 2011.

(ii) Building Detail (Part 5.1.4)

(a) Building Frontages (Part 5.1.4.1)

Whilst the site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area, the existing street façade is not required to be retained. The proposed King Street façade is considered to be of high quality contemporary architecture and will complement the future redevelopment of the adjoining properties. The application is considered acceptable in this regard.

(b) Active street frontage uses and shopfront design (Part 5.1.4.2)

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and controls of Part 5.1.4.2 of MDCP 2011, as summarised below:

· The ground floor commercial tenancy is proposed to be built to the street alignment, contains shopfront glazing and a clearly identifiable entry door;

· A separate residential entry is provided adjacent to the northern boundary which is visible, of sufficient size and contains mail collection facilities; and

· A condition has been included in the recommendation for the provision of a pedestrian awning on the King Street frontage to ensure streetscape continuity.

(iii) Building Use (Part 5.1.5)

(a) Mixed use development (Part 5.1.5.1)

The ground floor of the development provides a commercial component, therefore satisfying with requirements of MDCP 2011.

(b) Dwelling mix (Part 5.1.5.2)

Part 5.1.5.2 of MDCP 2011 prescribes the following dwelling mix requirements for mixed use developments containing 6 or more dwellings:

“C54 New developments with six or more dwellings must provide the following mix of dwelling types:

i. Studio 5% - 20%

ii. 1 bedroom 10% - 40%

iii. 2 bedroom 40% - 75%; and

iv. 3 bedroom or bigger 10% - 45%.”

The development contains 7 dwellings and the above control is therefore relevant to the proposal.

The residential component of the development includes 2 x studio apartments (28% of the development), 4 x 1 bedroom apartments (57% of the development) and 1 x 2 bedroom dwellings (14% of the development). The development does not comply with the unit mix requirements.

It is difficult to achieve compliance with the dwelling mix ratios in a small development such as that proposed. The development contains a spread of dwelling types which is considered to be suitable to meet the demand for the local demographics.

(vi) Vehicle access, parking, loading and unloading (Part 5.1.6)

The proposal is considered to achieve the objectives within Part 5.1.6 of MDCP 2011. In particular, vehicle access is provided from the rear lane.

Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation requiring that all loading and unloading in connection with the development must be carried out from the street or the commercial car parking spaces at the rear of the site during the approved hours of operation of the commercial tenancy in such a manner as not to cause inconvenience to the public.

PART 9 - STRATEGIC CONTEXT

The property is located in the King Street and Enmore Road Planning Precinct (Precinct 37) under MDCP 2011. The development is considered to be consistent with the desired future character statements listed within Part 9.37.2 of MDCP 2011 as the proposal replaces an existing unsympathetic building with a contemporary designed building with adequate proportions and of a style and scale which compliments the locality.

9. Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014

The carrying out of the development would result in an increased demand for public amenities and public services within the area. A contribution of $74,938.20 would be required for the development under Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014. A condition requiring that contribution to be paid is included in the recommendation.

10. Community Consultation

The application was advertised, an on-site notice displayed on the property and residents/property owners in the vicinity of the property were notified of the development in accordance with Council's policy. 2 submissions were received raising the following concerns which have already been discussed throughout the main body of this report:

(i) Privacy;

(ii) FSR breach;

(iii) Number of storeys; and

(iv) Streetscape.

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

(i) Failure of the application to provide information and inaccuracies in the applicant’s claims

Comment:

The application contains sufficient information to enable a thorough assessment of the proposal against the requirements of Section 79C.

(ii) Structural damage to adjoining buildings

Comment:

Suitable conditions of consent have been incorporated into the recommendation addressing this concern.

The amended plans submitted were not required to be re-notified in accordance with MDCP 2011 because the proposal would result in similar or reduced impacts for surrounding properties and/or the streetscape. All relevant matters raised in the submissions able to be considered under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act have been discussed in the report.

11. Conclusion

The application seeks consent to demolish existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above with associated car parking.

The heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as are of relevance to the application, have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application.

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives contained in Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 with the exception of the floor space ratio development standard. A Clause 4.6 submission accompanied the application addressing the FSR departure and is considered to be well founded. The proposed FSR non-compliance would not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape.

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

PART E - RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the development application to demolish existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above, with associated car parking be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

GENERAL

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

Plan, Revision and Issue No.	Plan Name	Date Issued	Prepared by	Date Submitted
DA002, Rev B	Site Plan	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA010, Rev B	Ground Floor Plan	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA011, Rev B	First Floor Plan	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA012, Rev B	Second Floor Plan	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA013, Rev B	Roof Plan	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA020, Rev B	Section A	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA021, Rev B	Section B	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA022, Rev B	Sections C & D	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA030, Rev B	Elevations	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA040, Rev B	Finishes Schedule	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
DA041, Rev B	Finishes Schedule – Internal Facades	01.04.16	CCG Architects	1 April 2016
Certificate Number 682345M	BASIX Certificate	10 December 2015	Efficient Living	23 December 2015
Report 150478R1	Road Traffic & Aircraft Noise Assessment	16 December 2015	Rodney Stevens Acoustics	23 December 2015
116036	Preliminary Site Investigation	27 April 2016	Environmental Earth Sciences	29 April 2016

and details submitted to Council on 23 December 2015, 1 April 2016 and 29 April 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. In order to ensure the architectural and urban design excellence of the development is retained:

i) The design architect is to have direct involvement in the design documentation, contract documentation and construction strategies of the project;

ii) The design architect is to have full access to the site and is to be authorised by the applicant to respond directly to the consent authority where information or clarification is required in the resolution of design issues throughout the life of the project;

iii) Evidence of the design architect’s commission is to be provided to the Council prior to the release of the construction certificate.

iv) The design architect of the project is not to be changed without prior notice and approval of the Council.

Reason: To ensure design excellence is maintained.

4. 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.DA040 and DA041, dated 1 April 2016, prepared by CCG 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.

5. 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.

6. Separate Development Consent or Complying Development Certificate must be obtained for the use of the ground floor shops/commercial suites prior to the occupation of that part of the premises.

Reason: To advise the applicant of the necessity of obtaining Council approval for the use of the shops/commercial suites prior to their occupation.

7. The ongoing use of the ground floor commercial tenancy complying with the following requirements at all times:

a) The areas to be used as a shop must be restricted to the ground floor commercial tenancy;

b) The shop window display areas 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 from King Street or the commercial car parking spaces 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 shop 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.

8. Each dwelling must be used exclusively as a single dwelling and not be adapted for use as backpackers’ accommodation, serviced apartments or a boarding house and not be used for any industrial or commercial purpose.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed dwellings are used exclusively as single dwellings.

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.

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

10. 4 off-street car parking space 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. 2 of the car parking spaces are to be allocated to the commercial tenancy.

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

11. 1 car parking space, 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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;

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

15. 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 their operation does not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

16. Separate Development Consent or Complying Development Certificate must be obtained prior to the erection of any advertisements or advertising structures. The shop windows 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.

17. 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.

18. All trade waste must be stored within the site boundaries and contained in such a manner so as not to cause a nuisance.

Reason: To provide for correct storage of wastes.

19. 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).

20. The proposed awning shall be of cantilever type and be set back at least 600mm from the kerb line. The proposed awning shall be a light weight structure and designed so as to be easily removed if required to in future. The owner shall maintain, modify or remove the structure at any time if given notification by Council or the RTA to do so. All works shall be at no cost to Council.

Reason: To ensure the awning complies with Council requirements.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Should any undertaken remediation strategy result in residual contamination to remain on the site, a covenant must be registered with the title of the land binding site owners and future owners to be responsible for the compliance at all times with the requirements and responsibilities of any approved Environmental Management Plans developed.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Environmental Management Plan and to prevent the future occurrence of a health hazard and the spread of contamination.

BEFORE COMMENCING DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND/OR BUILDING WORK

26. A Hazardous Materials Survey (HAZMAT) shall be conducted and submitted to the satisfaction of Council before commencing works. This should address potential sources of contamination of existing site structures as per the recommendations in the Preliminary Site Investigation, Reference No. 116036, prepared by Environmental Earth Sciences NSW, dated 27 April 2016. Any recommendations of this assessment shall be acted upon.

Reason: To ensure hazardous materials are managed appropriately.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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 573 and 579 King Street, Newtown 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.

38. 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.

39. If new street numbers or a change to street numbers (this includes unit and shop numbers) are required, a separate application must be made to and approved by council prior to those street numbers being displayed.

Reason: To ensure that the building is easily identifiable.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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.

44. 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.

Section 94 Contribution

45. 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 $74,938.20 indexed in accordance with Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (“CP”).

The above contribution is the contribution applicable as at 26 May 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).

(CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT REFERENCE NO. DC001478)

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 $8,952.95

Plan Administration $1,469.36

Recreation Facilities $65,987.43

Traffic Facilities $-1,471.55

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.

46. Amended plans shall be submitted to Council’s satisfaction prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate reflecting the following design changes:

i. The height of the fixed glazing panels (below the transom windows) of the commercial/retail tenancy shall be increased from 2.1 metres to 2.4 metres; and

ii. The charcoal split face facebrick wall proposed along the Front (King Street) Elevation shall be 100mm high x 400mm long.

Reason: To ensure that the design is reflective of traditional shop fronts along King Street and to create a more prominent entry to the retail tenancy.

47. 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).

For more information on how to calculate the amount payable and where payments can be made contact the Long Services Payments Corporation.

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au.

Reason: To ensure that the required levy is paid in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. Adequate outdoor clothes drying areas/facilities 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. Where such areas/facilities are provided on street facing balconies, the areas/facilities must be appropriately screened from view from the street.

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

52. 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.

53. 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.

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

54. 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.

55. Noise attenuation measures being incorporated into the development complying with Australian Standard 2021-2000 in relation to interior design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction), in accordance with details must be submitted to the Certifying Authority’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate together with certification by a suitably qualified acoustical engineer that the proposed noise attenuation measures satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard 2021-2000.

Reason: To reduce noise levels within the development from aircraft.

56. Details of an anti graffiti treatment to the rear elevation 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.

57. 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.

58. The person acting on this consent shall provide to Council a bond in the amount of $14,112.60 and pay the related Section 138 (Roads Act) inspection fee of $217.80 (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.

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. Alignment levels shall be submitted to and approved by Council before the issue of the Construction Certificate. Alignment levels must be provided at the boundary at a minimum distance of every 5m and at all pedestrian and vehicular access locations. Alignment levels shall match the existing back of footpath levels at the boundary along the King Street frontage. Along King Lane the alignment levels at the boundary shall match the invert level of the adjacent gutter plus 150mm.

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.

SITE WORKS

62. All excavation, demolition, construction, and deliveries to the site necessary for the carrying out of the development, must be restricted to between 7.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Public Holidays. Notwithstanding the above no work being carried out on any Saturday that falls adjacent to a Public Holiday.

Reason: To minimise the effect of the development during the construction period on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

63. During any construction works and activities, 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 construction of the development does not affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following:

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;

i) all vehicles taking materials from the site must be loaded wholly within the property unless otherwise permitted by Council;

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.

67. The works are required to be inspected at critical stages of construction, by the PCA or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority. The last inspection can only be carried out by the PCA. The critical stages of construction are:

a) At the commencement of the building work;

b) For Class 2, 3 and 4 buildings, prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas (a minimum of 10% of wet areas within a building);

c) Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building; and

d) After the building work has been completed and prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued in relation to the building.

You are advised to liaise with your PCA to establish if any additional inspections are required.

Reason: To ensure the building work is carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and the National Construction Code (Building Code of Australia).

68. 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:

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 is to include complete details of the work; and

b) That 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 is to 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.

69. 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.

70. 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.

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. Fixtures for bathroom and kitchen taps, showerheads, dishwashers, toilet cisterns and urinals must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating for the commercial premises.

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.

74. New or replacement toilets must have a minimum 3 Star WELS rating and being 6/3 litre dual flush or more efficient for the commercial premises.

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.

75. 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.

76. The site stormwater drainage shall be constructed generally in accordance with Stormwater Management Plan 9010/H1 dated November 2015.

Reason: To provide for adequate site drainage.

77. Any disposed soil from the site shall be classified in accordance with the NSW Environmental

Protection Authority’s Waste Classification Guidelines 2014 and being carried out in

accordance with the requirements of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority.

Reason: To provide for correct disposal of wastes.

78. 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 remediation is required in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 2011. Any unexpected occurrences and management plans to address these shall be reported to and approved by Council. Note that Council may request that a NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor review any proposed remedial or management plans.

Reason: To ensure compliance with SEPP 55.

79. Upon the completion of any remediation works stated in the RAP (if required), the person acting on this consent shall submit to Council a Validation and Monitoring Report demonstrating evidence that the site has been remediated and is suitable for the proposed development. Should any undertaken remediation strategy result in residual contamination to remain on the site, an Environmental Management Plan, must be provided to the satisfaction of Council that outlines measures to ensure people and the environment are protected from any contamination. All reports are to be prepared in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 2011. Note that Council may request the applicant to engage a NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor to provide a Site Audit Statement to certify site suitability.

Reason: To ensure any contamination risks are managed.

80. Any water (including water from excavations) shall be discharged to sewer, with the appropriate licence to be obtained; or disposed off-site to a suitably licensed facility. Alternatively, any water to be discharged to Council’s stormwater system shall comply with the ANZECC Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Quality for Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (95% protection level for marine ecosystems).

Reason: To ensure the protection of the environment from contaminated groundwater.

BEFORE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING

81. 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.

82. 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;

c) An Occupation Certificate has been issued.

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

83. 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).

Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations and Building Legislation Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act.

84. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. 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.

88. 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

89. 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.

90. 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.

91. 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

92. 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.

93. 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.

94. Under awning lighting to match the existing whiteway lighting scheme in the area must be installed before the issue of the Occupation Certificate. All works required to install and connect the system (including the need to install a "special small service") to the mains power supply shall be at no cost to Council.

Reason: To ensure adequate lighting is provided for pedestrians adjacent to the site.

95. 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.

96. 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.

97. The existing damaged or otherwise defective kerb and gutter, footpath and/or road pavement adjacent to the site shall 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 the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

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.

98. The footpaths and vehicular crossings adjacent to the site in King Street and King Lane shall be reconstructed in accordance with 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.

99. Before occupation of the site written verification from a suitably qualified professional civil engineer, stating that all stormwater drainage and related work has been and constructed in accordance with the approved plans being 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.

100. 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

· 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 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 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.

· The property lies within the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) Contour (2033), as advised by the Commonwealth Department of Aviation, and it would be advisable to noise attenuate the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2021 'Acoustics - Aircraft noise intrusion - Building siting and construction'.

· 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 a submission in respect to the proposal be advised of the Council's determination of the application.

C. THAT the Department of Planning and Environment be advised, as part of the quarterly review of the monitoring of Clause 4.6 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Exceptions to Development Standards, that Council has agreed to the variation of the following development standard:

Premises: 575 King Street, Newtown

Applicant: Jitendra Singh

Reshmi Rita Singh

Proposal: To demolish existing structures and construct a 3 storey mixed use development comprising a retail tenancy on the ground floor and 7 dwellings above, with associated car parking

Determination: Consent subject to conditions

DA No: 201500750

Lot and DP: Lot 3 DP 204608

Category of Development: 9 - Mixed

Environmental Planning Instrument: Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011

Zoning of Land: B2 - Local Centre

Development Standard(s) varied: Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

Justification of variation: The proposal satisfies the objectives of the building envelope controls; provides high residential amenity; results in no unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties in the site circumstances; is consistent with the objectives of the development standards and respective zone; and is appropriate in the context.

Extent of variation: 126.35m² (22%)

Concurring Authority: Council under assumed concurrence of the Secretary Department of Planning and Environment

Date of Determination:

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Extraordinary Council Meeting

5 July 2016

Item No: C0716 Item 11

Subject: Draft Operational Plan and Budget 2016-17

File Ref: 16/4718/74274.16

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

Authorised By: Matthew Phillips - Director, Corporate Services and Nellette Kettle - Director, Innovation and Strategy

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to:

1. report on submissions received to date in relation to the Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 as prepared to combine the draft operational plans 2016/17 of the former councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville, including budget and fees and charges.

2. formally adopt the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17.

3. make and levy the Rates for 2016/17 for the former Local Government Areas of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Administrator:

1. adopts the exhibition copy of the Inner West Council Draft Operational Plan 2016/17, as its adopted Operational Plan 2016/17, subject to the minor amendments detailed in this report;

2. makes and levy the Rates for 2016/17 as contained in this report for each former Local Government Area, having given public notice of its Draft Operational Plan in accordance with section 405 of the Local Government Act 1993;

3. adopts the Business Rate - Airport lands as the basis for determining equivalent rate payments (for the former Marrickville LGA);

4. adopts the rate of 8% as the interest rate to apply on outstanding rates, in accordance with section 566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993; and

5. adopts the Schedule of Fees and Charges, annexed to the Operational Plan 2016/17 as amended in terms of this report, as Council’s Fees and Charges for 2016/2017 for each of the former Council areas of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 issued on 12 May 2016 states that a new council must have an Operational Plan by 1 August 2016 (s.22 (1)).

The NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) issued guidance on the preparation of the Operational Plan for the new council (Managing Change: Guidance for key staff, May 2016) along with additional, specific guidelines regarding the responsibilities of the Interim General Manager.

Key points raised in the Guidelines included:

§ Within the first 30 days the new council is required to prepare and commence exhibition of a draft operational plan, budget and fees and charges for 2016/17

§ The day by which a new council must have an Operational Plan is 1 August 2016

§ The Operational Plan 2016/17 and associated budget, revenue policy and fees and charges should be based primarily on the direction provided in the delivery programs and long term financial plans of the former councils. i.e. the operational plan of the new council will be, as far as practicable, a composite of the existing draft plans of the former councils

§ The proclamation requires new councils to apply the rating structure, rating categories and sub-categories that applied in each former council area for 2015-16 in 2016/17

§ New councils are required to publicly exhibit a draft operational plan for a minimum of 28 days

§ When planning the adoption of the operational plan 2016/17, new councils should give consideration to the time required to serve the first rate notice

§ A new council may hold a meeting for the purposes of approving expenditure and voting money for the period from 1 July 2016 until the adoption by the council of the first operational plan for the council.

At a minimum, new councils were required to prepare an Operational Plan in the name of the new council, which (inter alia) physically combines the draft operational plans 2016/17 of the former councils, including budget and fees and charges, but not integrate the content.

The Inner West Council prepared and publically exhibited the Inner West Council Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 (Draft Plan) from Friday 3 June to Thursday, 30 June 2016 (inclusive), which satisfied the statutory exhibition period of 28 days.

This report outlines the public consultation program, the submissions received during the public exhibition period and recommends adoption of the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

2016-17 Budget

The Inner West Council is committed to remaining financially sustainable, maintaining existing services and funding all currently scheduled major projects from the three former Councils of Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville.

The Council is committed to ensuring assets are adequately maintained and renewed without deferring costs to future residents and ratepayers and maintain service delivery levels provided for the community.

The combined Draft Budget 2016/17 delivers on these commitments.

In 2016/17, Council’s estimated operating revenue is $281.1 million, with operating expenses of $238.9 million resulting in a net operating result of $42.2 million.

Our overall 2016/17 Operating Statement is:

	2016/17 Budget $'000
Income from Continuing Operations
Rates and Charges	147,789
User Fees & Charges	40,387
Interest	4,942
Other Income	21,826
Grants - Operating	24,461
Grants - Capital	41,284
Net Gain on Capital Sales	494
Total Income from Continuing Operations	281,183
Expenditure
Employee Costs	117,385
Materials and Contracts	67,992
Borrowing Costs	1,944
Other Expenses	25,120
Depreciation	26,487
Total Expenditure from Continuing Operations	238,928
Net Operating Result from Continuing Operations	42,255

The major components of Council’s operating revenue and expenditures are summarised in the two graphs below:

The 2016/17 Budget includes any changes endorsed by three former Council's.

Major Projects Plan 2016/17

Provides a detailed overview of its Major Projects for 2016/17. This information is provided to increase transparency of the Council’s activities by providing a comprehensive listing of property, infrastructure and community projects that are funded from Reserves and Section 94 Developer Contributions.

Other Staff Acknowledgment

The Director Corporate Services, Director Innovation and Strategy, Chief Financial Officers, Corporate Strategy/Corporate Planning and Communications staff have contributed to the development of this report.

Public Consultation

Each of the three former Council prior to amalgamation had individually commenced public exhibition of their respective Operational Plan 2016/17 prior to the 12 May 2016.

Therefore submissions received during such time have also been reported as part of this report along with submissions received as part of the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17.

For ease of reference the submissions received are summarised in two parts being:

1. Public exhibition by Inner West Council

2. Public exhibition by former local government areas (i.e. Ashfield, Leichhardt & Marrickville Councils)

Part 1 : Public Exhibition by Inner West Council

Inner West Council publicly exhibited the Draft Operational Plan for 2016/17 from 3 June to 30 June 2016.

The draft plan was exhibited online at Council’s online engagement hub Your Say Inner West, and in hard copy at Council’s Ashfield, Leichhardt & Petersham Service Centres and libraries.

Community feedback was invited by a submission form online or via a submission box located at the service centres and libraries, or in writing, by email or by phone to Council.

The public exhibition was promoted via:

· Presentation of the Operational Plan 2016/17 to the newly established Local Representation Advisory Committees in June 2016.

· A dedicated webpage 'Your Say Inner West' http://www.yoursayinnerwest.com.au//inner-west-council-draft-operational-plans

· Placement of advertisements in the Inner West Courier on the 14 June 2016 and 21 June 2016

· Exhibition of the Draft Plan, rating maps, supporting information and submission boxes to all three service centres (i.e. Ashfield, Leichhardt & Petersham)

· Exhibition of the Draft Plan at all libraries across the newly formed local government area

· Council noticeboards

· Council's website (including the use of an online feedback form via the Inner West Council - Have Your Say webpage, sliders and news items on the home page of Council’s website

· Social Media including Facebook, Twitter and eNews

§ Advice to management and members of staff.

Responses

Local Representation Advisory Committees

The Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 was also presented to the newly established Local Representation Advisory Committees in June 2016.

Feedback from the LRAC’s is provided in the table below.

LRAC	Precis of recommendation
Ashfield (14 June)	That the Administrator gives consideration to waive the fees for outdoor dining until the new Council is appointed.
Leichhardt (15 June)	That a quarterly budget review be reported to the LRACs.
Leichhardt (15 June)	That a quarterly review of progress on major infrastructure projects be reported to the LRACS.
Marrickville (23 June)	That the Council report on the Operational Plan and Budget considers the impact of not proceeding with the $25 increase in the Domestic Waste Management Charge for the former Marrickville LGA for 2016-17 financial year.

In response to the waiving of the fees for outdoor dining, as recommended by the Ashfield LRAC, the Administrator has asked the Interim General Manager to prepare a report in relation to such.

In response to the impact of not proceeding with the $25 increase in the Domestic Waste Management Charges as recommended by the Marrickville LRAC, the following comment is provided:

In accordance with the Local Government Act Domestic Waste Management Charges are set to recover the costs of delivering the service.

If the DWM charge is not increased by the recommended 5% to cover the costs of delivering the service, Council will need to review and most likely reduce service levels.

Your Say Inner West

During the exhibition period, 602 visitors were aware (i.e. viewed the project page), 409 visitors were informed (i.e. performed an action such as downloading a document) and 15 were engaged (i.e. made a submission).

Submission	Précis of Submission
Submission 1	The submission requests that Council update resident parking strategies when large scale residential developments are approved.
Submission 2	The submission notes that no elected official involved and requests an immediate election.
Submission 3	The submission asks when will the community get to vote on whether we want the amalgamated council or not and also for our own local councillor
Submission 4	The submission opposes the $6/day increase in childcare fees for the Annandale Child Care Centre due to its shorter hours and Christmas shutdown in comparison with similar centres.
Submission 5	No comments were made.
Submission 6	The submission requests early return of democracy and local representation; and opposition to WestConnex to be included in the plan. Additionally it requests the publication of the amalgamation plan and budget, and information on how the public is to be included in the DA planning process.
Submission 7	The submission requests an election and a referendum on amalgamation.
Submission 8	The submission requests alternative sites for the Darley Road netball courts due to the merger, and makes three suggestions for sites; and notes the cost of the replacement of green space and trees.
Submission 9	No comments were made.
Submission 10	No comments were made.
Submission 11	The submission is approving of the inclusion of long-standing celebrations, the upgrade of significant public space e.g. pool and Marrickville Park, services for the aged community and improved community consultation. The submission requests the (Marrickville) verge garden program be rolled out across the new LGA, and that new street trees and planted and additional street tree maintenance is carried out, particularly in the former Ashfield area. The submission also requests less overdevelopment of the Inner West and more collaboration between local and state governments around infrastructure preceding development.
Submission 12	The submission requests decisions on development be suspended until the LGA has democratic representation and comments on the legitimacy of the amalgamation process.
Submission 13	The submission opposes the Darley Road netball courts and asks whether Shields Park is an appropriate space for a sportsground based on safety issues to children, and use of the space by the community.
Submission 14	The submission refers to an email sent by the submitter on 30/06/16 – see individual submissions below.
Submission 15	The submission opposes the Darley Road netball courts on the basis that the merger has made the construction unnecessary and that the proposal contravenes 15 of Council’s stated future objectives (outlined in detail in the submission).
Submission 16	The submission opposes the Darley Road netball courts on the grounds of safety, lack of parking, amount of courts available in the new LGA, nearby development, preference for green space and expenditure.

Two further email submissions were received and are summarised below:

Submission	Precis of submission
Submission 17	The submission opposed the for the Darley Road Netball courts, amenities block and road drainage works as proposed.
Submission 18	The submission opposed the plans for the Darley Road area just around the light rail station specifically in relation to the clearing it for sports facilities.

The Your Say Inner West – full submission responses, and the additional two emails received as mentioned above are provided as Attachment 2.

Other submissions

There were three individual submissions made to the Inner West Council – Ashfield, Leichhardt or Marrickville Service Centres by phone, letter or email in relation to the composite Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17.

Submission	Precis of submission
Submission 1	The submission requests that Inner West Council should NOT fully fund the reconstruction of the former diving pool at the Ashfield Aquatic Centre and that it should only proceed after a commitment has been received for a substantial funding commitment from the water polo group that has lobbied the former Ashfield Council for that part of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre Redevelopment.
Submission 2	The submission highlights the absence of the interim staff restructure for the Inner West Council Operational Plan and details in relation to such, nor cost for officers voluntary redundancies and request that information be made available to residents. The submission also seeks clarification and information including where the following items will be funded from: · Inner West Council IHAP(s) · additional mergers costs for the new Council relating to information technology, branding, social media, signage, banners, advertisements · Strategic studies to develop a context for all actions and capital works such as recreation and open space, traffic and transport, economic development, housing, community facilities, LEP and DCP, s94 plan and VPA policies.
Submission 3	This submission outlined strong and widespread community opposition to the installation of netball courts at Shields Park, as well as the recent Council mergers and recommends that in the public interest Council reconsiders this budget proposal when the new Council is elected in September 2017.

Part 2:

Public exhibition by former local government areas (i.e. Ashfield, Leichhardt & Marrickville Councils)

Given the new Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/7 as prepared is a composite of the former Operational Plans 2016/17 submissions received have also been included in this report for consideration by the Administrator.

Details of the public exhibition by former local government areas is provided below.

Public Exhibition by former Ashfield Council

The former Ashfield Council publicly exhibited the Draft Annual Plan and Council Plan from 12 May to 9 June 2016.

The draft plans were exhibited online via Council’s website, social media including facebook, twitter, and in hard copy at Council’s Customer Service Centre and Council libraries.

Community feedback was invited by a submission form online, or in writing to Council or via a submission box.

No submissions were received during the exhibition period by the former Ashfield Council.

Public Exhibition by former Leichhardt Council

The former Leichhardt Council publicly exhibited the Draft Delivery Program 2014-2018 (year 3), Operational Plan 2016/17, Resourcing Strategy, Budget, and Fees and Charges, from 6 May to 7 June 2016.

The draft plans were exhibited online via Council’s website, social media including facebook, twitter, and in hard copy at Council’s Customer Service Centre and Leichhardt and Balmain Libraries.

Community feedback was invited by a submission form online, or in writing to Council or via a submission box.

A total of twenty (20) submissions were received during the exhibition period of the former Leichhardt Council Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 and these are tabled for consideration by the Administrator with this report.

Details of the person making the submission have been excluded and redacted from the report under the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998.

A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, are provided in the table below:

Submission	Précis of Submission
Submission 1	The submission requests increased budget allocation for open green space and planting of more trees.
Submission 2	The submission from the APIA Leichhardt Tigers requests that Council assists with full funding or part funding of the following projects in Lambert Park totalling $590,000 which includes: · Electronic Video Screen / Scoreboard - $94,700 · Separation Field Safety Netting - $66K · CCTV Camera Security System - $59.9K · Replace western end entry secondary gates - $14K · Equipment Storage Facility - $58K · Security Shutters to Main Grandstand - $9K · Returf Training Facility and Install Irrigation - $25K · Install concrete slab ramp to training/warm up (grass) area - $27K · Upgrade existing public toilets - $44K · Install 12 Park Benches - $36K · Install Security Light Poles and Safety Lights - $8.5K · Install retaining wall - $32K · Paint Marion Street Grandstand and surrounding concrete block fencing - $31K · Greening Lambert Park - $15K · Shade Sail - $4.9K.
Submission 3	The submission encourages Council to extend the library services, especially the extension of the Interlibrary Loan system and applauds the emphasis on community, environment, heritage preservation, bikeways, and generally to make the inner west human friendly as opposed to giving over to ugly development and highways.
Submissions4 to 18	These submissions consider that Water Polo as an Olympic Sport, and in an Olympic year should be provided recreational funding priority. It is understood that Dawn Fraser Baths should receive $120,000 on restoration annually from 2016/17 to 2019/20 plus the additional budgeted $213,187, and is seeking for such to be confirmed? Further the submissions raise that the highest priorities for spend at Dawn Fraser Baths is the improvement of lighting (safety) and the inclusion of a secure club room for BWPC (security) and welcomes the opportunity to meet with Council to outline multiple other areas which require improvement.
Submission 19	The submission requests Council’s commitment that the funds committed to the Dawn Fraser Baths to ensure particularly the lighting and security is of such a standard as to make the pool compliant with the requirements of the National Water Polo League.
Submission 20	The submission by the Bicycle Network assesses bicycle expenditure by local councils across Australia. The ‘BiXE’ (Bicycle Expenditure Index) rating – a figure which shows the amount of bicycle related spending per resident, the BiXE for Leichhardt’s draft 2016-2017 budget as $6.81 per person, which is above the threshold of $5 per person per year. Bicycle Network commends your commitment to cycling, with special mention of the Hawthorne Canal Cycleway.

Copies of the submissions received are provided as ATTACHMENT 3.

Public Exhibition by the former Marrickville Council

The former Marrickville Council publicly exhibited the Draft Delivery Program 2013-17 (year 4), Operational Plan 2016/17, Resourcing Strategy, Budget, and Fees and Charges, from 21 April – 19 May 2016.

The draft plans were exhibited online at Council’s online engagement hub Your Say Marrickville, and in hard copy at Council’s Administration Centre and Marrickville Library.

Community feedback was invited by a submission form online, or in writing to Council or via a submission box.

Your Say Marrickville

During the exhibition period, 98 visitors were aware (i.e. viewed the project page), 36 visitors were informed (i.e. performed an action such as downloading a document) and one was engaged (i.e. made a submission).

The submission was from Sydney Airports as follows:

Submission	Précis of Submission
Submission 1	The submission objects to the proposed Rating Category and rate in the dollar for a parcel of land at Swamp Road Tempe, on the basis that the Category and rate are inconsistent with comparable property. The submission requests that Council apply a Category and rate in the dollar consistent with other lands classed as open space. The submission contains more detail and is attached to this report.

Individual invitations to attend the meeting will be forwarded to all persons who have made a submission on the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17 and/or former Council plans, advising that all submissions will be considered at Council’s Extraordinary Meeting on 5 July 2016.

Amendments to Operational Plan

The following minor amendments will be incorporated into the final version of the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17.

Former LGA

Amendment

Leichhardt

Former Leichhardt Council at its Extraordinary Council Meeting on the 3 May 2016 resolved (C220/16E) in relation to the Draft - Budget, Delivery Program 2014- 2018 & Operational Plan 2016/17 and Resourcing Strategy 2014 -2018 (Year 3) resolved in part:

5. Amend the draft budget to include $60,000 for public art funded from reserves and Council officers provide a report on options regarding commissioning for this public art.

6. In line with the adopted Callan Park Masterplan, that Council fund in the 2016/17 budget

a. Management and implementation plans for each Callan Park Master Plan bush care and regeneration area

b. A Callan Park site wide tree and habitat survey to inform on going management implementation

c. A Callan Park terrestrial and aquatic habitat assessment

This requires additional funding of $20,000 to be sourced from either Reserves or the Parks and Assets budget for 2016/17.

That the Community Events Grants Program increase from the current $37,250 to $45,000 and the Community Grants Program increase from $28,000 to $35,000 be funded from Council Reserves.

Marrickville

An additional $300,000 was included in the former Marrickville Council’s capital budget as a result of a resolution of the May 2016 Council meeting to upgrade the Waterplay facility at Steel Park funded by Developer Contributions.

Rate in the dollar

The rate in the dollar has changed marginally from the draft Operational Plan. In the period since the draft Operational Plan was adopted for the purpose of public exhibition, several monthly valuation updates from the Valuer General have been received and processed. As the rates are based on land values, these updates have resulted in minor changes to the rate in the dollar.

I.e. That Council make and levy the Rates for 2016/17, as:

Former Ashfield LGA

Council's rating valuation register has been finalised with any new land values being added since the meeting to place the Operational Plan 2016/17 documents on exhibition on 3 June 2016. This has resulted in some minor changes to the exhibited rates in the dollar and base rate amounts. The following rates will now apply.

1. That, in accordance with Sections 534, 535 and 538 of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council makes the following rates and charges for every parcel of rateable land within the Inner West Council - Ashfield LGA for the year commencing 1 July 2016.

(i) A Residential Ordinary Rate of 0.153131 cents in the dollar and a Base Amount of five hundred and eighty seven dollars and eighty cents ($587.80) per assessment in accordance with section 537 of the Local Government Act 1993 levied on the land value of all rateable land within the Inner West Council - Ashfield LGA. This Rate be named RESIDENTIAL.

Further that the percentage of the base amount, pursuant to Section 500 of the Local Government Act 1993 is 49.5% of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate.

(ii) A Business Ordinary Rate of 0.638551 cents in the dollar levied on the land value of all rateable land within the Inner West Council - Ashfield LGA categorised as business in accordance with Section 518 of the Local Government Act, 1993, subject to a minimum amount of six hundred and thirty seven dollars only ($637.00). This rate be named BUSINESS.

(iii) An Environmental Levy Special Rate of 0.001648 cents in the dollar be levied on the value of all rateable land within the Inner West Council - Ashfield LGA subject to a base amount of $6.70, which will levy 49.58% of the total amount raised within this rate. This rate be named ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY.

(iv) That, in accordance with Section 496 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993, the charge for the Domestic Waste Management Service for each rateable residential property, be now made for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 be set as follows.

a. $350.40 per annum for Category A Domestic Waste Collection Service (includes a 120- litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and a 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

b. $350.40 per annum for Category B Domestic Waste Collection Service - Strata (includes a 120- litre or shared 240-litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

c. $350.40 per annum for Category C Domestic Waste Collection Service – Non Strata (includes a 120- litre mobile garbage bin or shared 240 – litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and a 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

d. $700.80 per annum for Category D Domestic Waste Collection Service (includes a 240- litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

e. $350.40 per annum for Additional Garbage Bin (120 – litre mobile garbage bin)

(v) That, in accordance with Section 501 of the Local Government Act 1993, the following Business Waste Service charges be made for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.

a. $545.30 for Category A Business Waste Collection Service (includes a 120- litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and a 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

b. $849.80 for Category B Business Waste Collection Service (includes a 240-litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly and 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

c. $82.60 for a Garden Organics Collection Service (240-litre mobile collection bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent).

d. $187.80 for Category A Recycling Service (includes an additional 240- litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent. Only available to existing Business Waste Services customers).

e. $206.50 for Category B Recycling Services (includes a 240-litre mobile recycling bin collected fortnightly, or equivalent. Available to customers not utilising Council’s waste service).

(vi) That in accordance with Section 496A of the Local Government Act 1993, the Stormwater Management Service Charge be levied for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, at the following rates:

a. Strata titled residential home units $12.50 per unit

b. Other residential property $25.00 per rateable property

c. Business rateable properties $25.00 per 350 sq metres of land area

d. Business rateable Strata Properties $12.50 per unit

(vii) That an interest rate of 8.0% p.a., accruing daily on rates and charges that remain unpaid after they become due and payable, be now set for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, in accordance with Section 566 of the Local Government Act 1993.

(viii) That aggregation of parcels of land, subject to a minimum or base amount, be permitted in accordance with Section 548A of the Local Government Act 1993.

Former Leichhardt LGA

Residential                  0.18804 cents in $1
Business                      0.8470 cents in $1
Minimum Rate            $628.00

Former Marrickville LGA

RATE TABLE – Former Marrickville LGA
Rate Charge Description	No. of Properties	Land Values*	Rate in $	Yield
Residential - Ad Valorem	20867	16,211,614,488	0.00132155	$21,424,459.13
Residential - Minimum	10307	1,673,586,726	649.00	$6,689,243.00
Business - General	1964	1,815,778,381	0.00461667	$8,382,849.58
Business - Industrial Marrickville	926	721,496,548	0.00835790	$6,030,196.00
Business - Industrial St Peters	167	271,044,400	0.00835790	$2,265,361.99
Business – Industrial St Peters Nth	91	93,133,300	0.00835790	$778,398.81
Business - Industrial Camperdown	83	47,337,420	0.00835790	$395,641.42
Business - Marrickville Metro	1	29,000,000	0.01427605	$414,005.45
Business - Airport	2	3,949,000	0.01548320	$61,143.16
Subtotal	34408	20,866,940,263		$46,441,298.53

Newtown Urban Centre	323	326,626,593	0.00022160	$72,380.45
Marrickville Urban Centre	241	211,416,052	0.00029490	$62,346.59
Petersham Urban Centre	74	49,490,832	0.00026811	$13,268.99
Dulwich Hill Urban Centre	116	94,358,070	0.00034121	$32,195.92
Subtotal	754	681,891,547		$180,191.95

Total				$46,621,490.48

Plus Property Growth Allowance	295		649.00	191,455.00

Grand Total				$46,812,945.48

* Land Values are based on a valuation as at 1 July 2015.

Minor amendment to 2016/17 Fees and Charges

A few minor fees and charges errors identified by staff during the exhibition period have been corrected:

Former Ashfield 2016/17

There were errors in the Companion animal Registration Fees listed in the Ashfield Fees & Charges. Fees & Charges require amendment to reflect the following:

COMPANION ANIMAL REGISTRATION FEES - *
For desexed animal not owned by an eligible pensioner * G N       $53.00
For desexed animal owned by an eligible pensioner * G N $22.00
For an animal that is not desexed and is kept by a recognised breeder for breeding
purposes. * G N                  $53.00
For an animal that is not desexed (except an animal kept by a recognised breeder for
breeding purposes.) * G N            $195.00
For a greyhound formerly registered under the Greyhound Racing Authority Act 1985 * G

N $0.00
For an animal kept for research purposes * G N $0.00
Dangerous/Restricted Dog Certificate * G N $150.00

Former Leichhardt

There were several typographical errors in the fees for Leichardt Park Aquatic Centre:

· At Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre, a 50% reduction is provided for the children of Leichhardt Council staff and Councillors in the LTS program. This was incorrectly detailed in several sections of the fees and charges to be a 10% discount. This has now been corrected.

· The direct debit transaction fee and the direct debit failed payment fee were incorrectly listed as $2.10 and $16.60 respectively. These should have remained at the previous level of $2.00 and $16.00 respectively. This has now been corrected.

Former Marrickville

Noting that a proposed increase to Child Care Fees from 1 January 2017 was published in the draft Fees and Charges schedule (former Marrickville Council) placed on public exhibition. This increase was an administrative error and has been deleted from Fees and Charges Schedule.

Formatting and Typographical Errors

Formatting of charts and tables to ensure consistency has been undertaken and minor typographical errors identified during the exhibition period. These have not altered the intent of the document in any way.

Following consideration of the submissions received by Council any proposed amendments will be incorporated into the final version of the suite of documents.

A copy of the final version of the Operational Plan 2016/17 will be circulated to the Administrator and Senior Staff and made available on Council's website following adoption by the Administrator.

Summary/Conclusion

The Inner West Council placed its Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 was placed on public exhibition from 3 June 2016 to the 30 June 2016 in accordance with the Department of Premier and Cabinet Guidelines.

A total of nineteen (19) submissions were received as a result of the public exhibition of the Draft Plan. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions are provided in this report.

There are no amendments to the Inner West Council Operational Plan 2016/17 recommended in response to the submissions received.

Following consideration of the submissions received a final version of the suite of documents shall be published.

It is therefore recommended that Administrator adopts the exhibition version of Draft Operational Plan 2016/17 (including the Budget and Rating Structure), subject to the minor amendments outlined in this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Submissions by LRAC Committee Members
2.⇩	Your Say Inner West - full submission reponses
3.⇩	Submissions received by former Leichhardt Council
4.⇩	Submissions received by former Marrickville Council

Richard Pearson	Administrator
Vanessa Chan	Interim General Manager
Josephine Bennett	A/Director Community Services, Marrickville
Cathy Edwards-Davis	Director Works & Infrastructure Services, Ashfield
Peter Gainsford	Director of Infrastructure and Service Delivery, Leichhardt
Clare Harley	Director Environment and Community Management, Leichhardt
Nellette Kettle	Director Corporate & Community Services, Ashfield
Steve Kludass	Director Corporate Service, Marrickville
Tim Moore	Director Planning & Environmental Services, Marrickville
Matthew Phillips	Director Corporate and Information Services, Leichhardt
Gabrielle Rennard	A/Director Corporate & Community Services, Ashfield
Phil Sarin	Director Planning & Environment, Ashfield
Simone Schwarz	Director of Community Services, Marrickville
Neil Strickland	Director Infrastructure Services, Marrickville
Popy Mourgelas	Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield
Ian Naylor	Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt
Erla Ronan	Group Manager Community and Cultural Services, Leichhardt
Tanya Whitmarsh	Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville
Katerina Maros	Governance Officer, Leichhardt
Rad Miladinovic	Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

Richard Pearson	Administrator
Vanessa Chan	Interim General Manager
Matthew Phillips	Director Corporate Services
Popy Mourgelas	Manager Corporate Governance, Ashfield
Ian Naylor	Manager Governance and Administration, Leichhardt
Tanya Whitmarsh	Manager Governance and Risk, Marrickville
Rad Miladinovic	Coordinator Governance and Administration, Marrickville (Minute Taker)

Date - Time 6.30pm	Meeting	Location
26 July 2016	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
23 August 2016	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
27 September 2016	Ordinary Council	260 Liverpool Road Ashfield
25 October 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt
22 November 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt
13 December 2016	Ordinary Council	7-15 Wetherill Street Leichhardt

1.⇩	Minutes of 14 June 2016 Ashfield Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting
2.⇩	Minutes of 15 June 2016 Leichhardt Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting
3.⇩	Minutes of 23 June 2016 Marrickville Local Representation Advisory Committee Meeting

1.⇩	Section 377 Local Government Act 1993
2.⇩	Instrument of Delegation from Administrator to IGM

1.	Mainstreet outside the Village Church (Attachment 1) - Confidential
2.	Mainstreet outside the Village Church (Attachment 2) - Confidential
3.	Mainstreet outside the Village Church (Attachment 3) - Confidential