137-143 herring road, macquarie park proposed residential … · 2017-04-05 · 137-143 herring...

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd ABN 84 060 735 104 / Sydney t +61 2 9956 6962 w jbaurban.com.au

Development ApplicationStatement of Environmental Effects

137-143 Herring Road, Macquarie ParkProposed Residential Development

Submitted to City of Ryde CouncilOn Behalf of China Overseas Sydney Pty Limited

March 2017 16128

Reproduction of this document or any part thereof is not permitted without prior written permission of JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd.

JBA operates under a Quality Management System. This report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with that system. If the report is not signed below, it is a preliminary draft.

This report has been prepared by:

Fadi Shakir and Kate Tudehope 22/03/2017

This report has been reviewed by:

Michael Rowe 22/03/2017

137-143 Herring Road, Macquarie Park Statement of Environmental Effects | March 2017

JBA 16128 1

1.0 Introduction 5

1.1 Background 5

2.0 Site Analysis 16

2.1 Site Location and Context 16 2.2 Site Description 16 2.3 Surrounding Development 21

3.0 Description of Proposed Development 23

3.1 Development and Urban Design Principles 23 3.2 Numerical Overview 24 3.3 Land Use and Floor Space by Level 25 3.4 Demolition and Site Preparation 25 3.5 Tree Retention and Tree Removal 25 3.6 External Materials and Finishes 26 3.7 Landscaping and Public Domain 26 3.8 Public Art 27 3.9 Vehicular Access and Parking 28 3.10 Water Cycle Management 29 3.11 Ecologically Sustainable Development 29 3.12 Infrastructure and Services 30

4.0 Assessment of Environmental Impacts 31

4.1 Compliance with Relevant Strategic and Statutory Plans and Policies 31

4.2 Built Form and Urban Design 34 4.3 Impacts on Adjoining Properties 39 4.4 Residential Amenity 41 4.5 Transport and Accessibility 44 4.6 Water Cycle Management 46 4.7 Waste Management 47 4.8 Geotechnical and Groundwater 47 4.9 Contamination 48 4.10 Tree Removal 48 4.11 Flora and Fauna 49 4.12 Wind Impact 53 4.13 Acoustic Impacts 53 4.14 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 56 4.15 Demolition and Construction Impacts 56 4.16 BCA, Accessibility and Fire Safety 57 4.17 Site Suitability and Public Interest 58

5.0 Conclusion 59

Figures

1 Context map 16 2 Aerial photograph of the site 17 3 The site is currently occupied by four separate three storey buildings

which are proposed to be demolished 17 4 Two of the four existing buildings which are proposed to be demolished 18 5 Access is provided from Herring Road at the north-western corner of the

site - existing buildings and structures are to be demolished. 19 6 An existing car park is situated at the rear of the site - existing buildings

and structures are to be demolished. 19 7 The site slopes towards the north-east - existing buildings and structures

are to be demolished. 20


2 JBA 16128

8 A residential development is under construction to the north-west of the site 21

9 View from the rear of the subject site towards the Ivanhoe Estate 22 10 Photomontages of the proposed development viewed from the north 23 11 Overall landscape plan 27 12 Public domain improvement plan 27 13 Indicative ‘Bioflow’ artwork 28 14 Relationship between the buildings and the public domain 36 15 Building A setback to Herring Road 37 16 Building B setback to Herring Road 37 17 Proposed setback to Epping Road and existing adjoining dwellings at

Ivanhoe Place 38 18 Extract of the shadow studies during mid-winter 40 19 View looking south along Herring Road 41 20 View looking east at Epping / Herring Road intersection 41 21 View looking north at Epping / Herring Road intersection 41 22 View looking north-west towards the site 41 23 Separation between Building A and Building B at Levels 1 – 9

demonstrating the orientation of apartments in order to mitigate cross-views 42

24 Separation between Building A and Building B at Levels 10 - 17 demonstrating the orientation of apartments in order to mitigate cross-views 43

25 Complying separation between Building A and Building B from Level 18 43 26 Lift traffic analysis results 44 27 Tree retention and removal plan 49 28 The location of the STIF within, and close to, the subject site 51 29 Ground level acoustic barrier 56

Tables

1 Council’s matters for consideration 6 2 UDRP’s matters for consideration 12 3 Key numerical information 24 4 Land use and floor space by level 25 5 Summary of consistency with key strategic and statutory planning

policies 31 6 Consistency with Ryde DCP 2014 33 7 Proposed parking provision 45 8 WSUD stormwater quality performance targets 46 9 Pre and post development flor calculated for DRAINS 47

Appendices

A Architectural Drawings

SJB

B Quantity Surveyor’s Statement

MBM Quantity Surveyors

C Pre DA Meeting Minutes


JBA 16128 3

City of Ryde Council

D Survey Plan

LTS Lockley

E Urban Design Report

SJB

F Geotechnical Investigation

Douglas Partners

G Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Tree iQ

H Landscape Plans, Public Domain Plan and Design Statement

Sturt Noble Associates

I Public Art Plan

Vertebrae

J Traffic and Parking Assessment

Parking and Traffic Consultants

K Civil Engineering Report

Taylor Thomson Whitting

L Sustainability Services and BASIX Compliance Report

Wood and Grieve Engineers

M Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination

Douglas Partners

N SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement and ADG Response Table

SJB

O Pedestrian Wind Environment Wind Tunnel Report

Windtech

P Acoustic Report


Q Waste Management Plan

Elephants Foot

R Lift Traffic Analysis


S Carshare Correspondence

GoGet

T Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan

China Overseas Sydney Pty Limited

U Flora and Fauna Assessment Report

Lesryk Environmental


4 JBA 16128

V CPTED Report

JBA

W Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

Taylor Thomson Whitting

X BCA Report

Philip Chun Building Compliance

Y Accessibility Review Report

ABE Consulting

Z Fire Engineering Review


AA Demolition Work Method Plan

Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd


JBA 16128 5

1.0 Introduction This Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) is submitted to City of Ryde Council in support of a Development Application (DA) for two residential apartment buildings at 137 – 143 Herring Road, Macquarie Park. The DA seeks approval for:

demolition of four (4) existing student accommodation buildings;

construction and use of two (2) residential apartment buildings, comprising 297 dwellings;

excavation and provision of a common four (4) level basement car park accessed from Herring Road, providing 275 spaces;

associated landscape works, fencing and tree removal; and

extension and augmentation of physical infrastructure and utilities as required.

The SEE has been prepared by JBA on behalf of China Overseas Sydney Pty Limited and is based on the Architectural Drawings provided by SJB (see Appendix A) and other supporting technical information appended to the report (see Table of Contents). This report describes the site, its environs, the proposed development, and provides an assessment of the environmental impacts.

1.1 Background

Consent Authority and Referrals

The proposed development is located within the City of Ryde Local Government Area, the application is therefore submitted to the City of Ryde Council for assessment. However, as the capital investment value (CIV) of the proposal is in excess of $20 million, the application will be determined by the Sydney North Planning Panel. The CIV of the proposed development is $109,908,316. A Quantity Surveyor’s Statement is included in Appendix B. As the proposal provides over 75 apartments and is within 90m of a classified road, the application will be referred to RMS in accordance with Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Pre DA Meetings

Several meetings have been held with Council regarding the proposed development, with early discussions focussing on tree removal and ecological impacts. A formal pre-DA meeting was held on 18 October 2016 to discuss the proposal. A follow-up meeting was held on 8 November 2016 to demonstrate how the original comments had been addressed. Table 1 outlines Council’s key matters for consideration, and where each matter has been addressed in this report and/or supporting technical studies. A copy of the pre-DA minutes is provided at Appendix C.

http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/PlanningPanels/SydneyNorthPlanningPanel/tabid/169/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/PlanningPanels/SydneyNorthPlanningPanel/tabid/169/language/en-US/Default.aspx


6 JBA 16128

Table 1 – Council’s matters for consideration

Council Matter for Consideration Response

Planning

The site is zoned B4 (Mixed Use). The zoning

objectives require a mixed use development on the site.

It is suggested that a more substantive commercial/

retail floor area be provided on the site to encourage

street activation along Herring Road frontage.

Consideration was given to incorporating a small

quantity of non-residential floor space into the

proposal. However market analysis indicated that

retail and commercial uses are not likely to be viable

in this location. This view was supported by Council‟s

Urban Design Review Panel (refer to comments in

Table 2) and so the proposal does not incorporate

any non-residential uses. Notwithstanding this, the

proposal is considered to be consistent with the

objectives of the zone, as detailed at section 4.1

The Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP2014)

permits a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 4.5:1 and

a maximum height of 75m measured from existing

ground level. The submitted documents in relation to

the preferred option seem to show that the proposal is

non-compliant with both the height of building and the

FSR development standards.

The scheme is compliant with the height and FSR

controls contained in Ryde LEP 2014.

A preliminary site contamination report in accordance

with SEPP55 must accompany any DA with Council.

The report must demonstrate that the site is suitable for

the proposed residential use. The proponents are to be

aware that after demolition of the existing structures, a

full site contamination report must be prepared which

should include the measures to be undertaken to

remediate the site from the contamination.

A Phase 1 Contamination Assessment has been

prepared by Douglas Partners to support the

proposal. The Assessment confirms that the site can

be made suitable for the proposed residential use

(refer to Section 4.9).

The proponents are also advised to demonstrate full

compliance with the controls contained in the Ryde

Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP2014).

Compliance must be demonstrated particularly in

relation to the following parts of the RDCP2014:

Part 4.5 Macquarie Park Corridor

Part 7.2 Waste Minimisation and Management

Part 8.2 Stormwater Management

Part 9.2 Access for People with Disabilities

Part 9.3 Car Parking

Part 9.5 Tree Preservation

The proposal has been designed to be consistent with

the objectives of Ryde DCP 2014. Where compliance

with the controls is not feasible, detailed justification

has been provided (refer to Section 4.1).

It is noted that Council has acknowledged that the

reference to Part 9.3 of the DCP was erroneous, and

that the parking requirements from Part 4.5 of DCP

2014 are applicable to the proposed development.

Controls applicable to the provision of public art is

included under Part 4.5 of the DCP2014. Details will be

required as part of any future DA submission

A Public Art Plan has been prepared by Vertebrae to

address the requirements of the DCP, and is

discussed at Section 3.8.

The “preferred” massing option shows encroachment

onto the 5m setback requirement along Herring Road

as per Part 4.5 of the RDCP2014. The required street

setback along the Herring Road frontage is 5m (with

the need for ability to enable tree planting) and along

Epping Road frontage is 10m.

Noted. The proposed setbacks are a result of the

site‟s constraints and the need to balance tree

retention with a viable building form. The staggered

building form provides larger setbacks along certain

parts of the frontage which reduce the perceived

mass of the buildings. This approach results in a

better relationship between the buildings and the

street, and delivers an improved urban design

outcome. The proposed setbacks are discussed

further at Section 4.2.2.

The basement must not protrude above the existing

ground level along any side of the development. The

level of basement proposed above ground along the

rear will not be supported. Significant amendment and

redesign is required to ensure this requirement is

complied with.

The scheme has been redesigned to minimise any basement protrusion above ground. However, due to the topography of the site, complexities around tree retention and the need to accommodate parking, on-site loading and waste collection, there is a minor protrusion along the site‟s rear boundary with the Ivanhoe Estate, where the basement protrudes 1.3m above natural ground level for a distance of approximately 3m. All other areas have been incorporated below ground. Notwithstanding the minor protrusion, the proposed landscape design takes


JBA 16128 7


further steps to mitigate the visual impact, and the overall design continues to achieve the objectives of DCP 2014. Further discussion is provided at Section 4.2.3.

Adaptable apartments, continuous accessible path of

travel, and accessible parking spaces must be provided

in the development.

An Accessibility Review Report has been prepared by

ABE Consulting to support the proposal. The Report

confirms that the site meets the relevant requirements

for accessibility (refer to Section 4.16).

Further details must be provided relating to the “plaza”

space in between the two towers – in order to ensure

that the spaces would function to ensure the

sustainability of the commercial/retail tenancies and

support activation along this frontage. In addition the

composition of the commercial space on the site must

be increased to ensure its viability.

As noted above, and consistent with the comments

provided by the Urban Design Review Panel, the

proposal does not incorporate any non-residential

uses.

Notwithstanding this, the ground plane has been

redesigned to incorporate a raised lawn, which will be

activated with communal spaces, a play area and

residential lobby.

Council requires that all new development provide

affordable housing as follows: 2 % of dwellings in new residential and mixed use

developments be affordable housing; and

4 % of dwellings constructed on land to be rezoned to permit residential / mixed use development be affordable housing.

The proposal does not incorporate affordable housing.

We note that there is no requirement to provide

affordable housing in Council‟s LEP or DCP. Whilst

Council adopted an Affordable Housing Policy in

2016, the policy does not stipulate a 2% requirement.

Further, the Policy is not a matter for consideration

under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and the applicant

is under no obligation to provide affordable housing.

The “preferred scheme” submitted by the proponent

indicate the removal of significant number of trees that

are identified as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest

(STIF) and Blue Gum High Forest (endangered

ecological community) as per the OEH‟s mapping. It is

noted that significant ground work have been

established through Flora & Fauna constraints analysis

by Lesryk. Council has also reviewed the

Ecological/Flora & Fauna reports and the following

advice is provided:

7 part Test: No detailed assessments (7-part tests) have been undertaken. Any direct or indirect impact on the area needs to be assessed with reference to the criteria provided under Part 1, Section 5A of the EPA Act. This will be required with any future submission to Council.

Overall impact: The application must ensure that adequate consideration is given to the overall impact of the proposed development on the endangered ecological community, not just whether the removal of the trees are justified or not.

The Flora and Fauna Assessment Report prepared by

Lesryk incorporates a 7 Part Test. The Assessment

concludes that there are no ecological constraints to

the proposed development and that no Species

Impact Statement or Federal referral is required. Refer

to further assessment at Section 4.11.

It should also be noted that the STIF species along the

Epping Road boundary of Ivanhoe Estate will be

retained as per the Ivanhoe Estate Urban Design

Guide, which was endorsed by Council and Land and

Housing Corporation in August 2016.The majority of

existing trees on the subject site are located towards

the curtilage areas of the subject site, adjacent to the

common boundaries within the neighbouring allotments

or Council‟s road. As such, the trees are considered to

be well placed to enable a high level of retention on site

as part of any redevelopment. The trees on the

neighbouring land must be protected/ retained.

Noted. Tree retention has been maximised along the

site‟s Epping Road frontage.

The following advice is provided:

Tree A – Eucalyptus tereticornis: This is a healthy and prominent street tree on the Herring Road

Tree retention and removal has been given significant

consideration during the development of the scheme,

with every effort made to retain key trees, whilst


8 JBA 16128


reserve. This tree must be retained and protected.

Tree 65 – Angophora costata: This is a healthy and significant tree in good condition located 3m from the Herring Road boundary. Consideration should be given to modifications to the building and basement footprints to enable the retention of this tree. This may require further investigation by way of detailed root mapping to determine the location of existing tree roots and provide guidance regarding building setbacks and design modifications necessary to enable retention.

Trees 35, 36, 38 & 39 – Eucalyptus pilularis, Angophora costata & Eucalyptus microcorys: This is a group of large and significant trees on the Herring Road frontage which are highly visible and prominent from Epping Road and Herring Road and make a positive contribution to the landscape character and urban canopy of the subject site and local catchment. These may include remnant trees and should be retained. Further investigation by way of detailed root mapping to determine the location of existing tree roots and provide guidance regarding building setbacks and design modifications necessary to enable retention.

Trees AA, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG – E.pilularis, Allocasuarina littoralis: Given these are located on an adjoining allotment retention is considered to be a priority. Further assessment should be undertaken by the Project Arborist which takes into consideration the footprint of all basement levels so as to determine a more accurate level of impact. Should it be calculated that the level of impact is to significantly impact the health of these trees, design modifications should be carried out in consultation with the Project Arborist to ensure the level of impact is reduced to a sustainable level.

Trees K, L, P, Q, R, U, V, W, X, Z – E. pilularis, E. scoparia, E. saligna: Similar to the above, given these trees are located on an adjoining allotment retention must be considered to be a priority.

delivering a viable development outcome that is

consistent with the site‟s gateway location. Of the

trees identified by Council, only trees 39 and 65 are

proposed for removal.

As noted above, Lesryk has confirmed that the

proposed tree removal is acceptable from an

ecological perspective.

Structural it has also been recommended that further

detailed investigations in the form of root mapping be

carried out to more accurately determine the presence

of tree roots within associated Tree Protection Zones

(TPZ) and the viability of retaining such trees on site.

Root mapping has been carried out to inform the

Arboricultural Impact Assessment. The findings of the

Assessment (prepared by Tree iQ) are outlined at

Section 4.10.

The basement level must be setback from the Herring

Road boundary to allow at least 5m deep soil area for

tree planting. Additional setback may be required for

tree protection once tree root zones are mapped.

In order to maximise the retention of significant trees,

the scheme has been designed to pull the basement

back from the site‟s Epping Road frontage.

Subsequently, and in order to provide sufficient

parking, on-site loading and waste collection in an

economic way, the basement extends to the Herring

Road boundary.

Given the site‟s topography, sufficient soil depth is still

provided along Herring Road which is capable of

accommodating substantial trees.

Further, the development exceeds the DCP

requirement for deep soil planting, with 25% of the site

provided as a deep soil zone.

Traffic

Traffic and parking assessment report is required for

this DA. Council has recently developed a Traffic

Parking and Traffic Consultants have prepared a

Traffic and Parking Assessment in accordance with


JBA 16128 9


Impact Assessment Guidelines which is provided on

Council‟s website. The applicant is advised to follow the

process outlined in the Traffic Impact Assessment

Guidelines in preparing the Traffic Reports and details

required for the proposed development.

Council‟s requirements (refer to Section 4.5 for further

detail).

The site is located within Macquarie Park Precinct –

Location Type 2 with approximately 310 units + 700m2

commercial/retail area is proposed. The peak hour

traffic generation is likely to be in the order of 60-70

vehicles/hour using the Preferred Option 3.

Peak hour trip generation is addressed in the Traffic

and Parking Assessment prepared by Parking and

Traffic Consultants.

Intersection assessment at Epping Rd/Herring Rd,

Herring Rd/Ivanhoe Pl, Herring Rd/site access for AM &

PM peak hour is required. Council can provide

intersection counts at Epping Rd/Herring Rd and

Herring Rd/Ivanhoe Place.

The relevant intersections have been assessed in the

Traffic and Parking Assessment prepared by Parking

and Traffic Consultants.

All servicing requirements (i.e. delivery, removalist and

waste trucks) are to be provided on-site.

Noted. All servicing requirements are accommodated

on-site.

With the loading dock located at the eastern side (near

the vehicular access point), the applicant is required to

demonstrate how delivery / removalist trucks can

access the residential towers at the western end of the

site.

Delivery and removalist trucks will be managed by the

building manager.

Delivery of goods for residents and parking of delivery

vehicles will be contained entirely within the site‟s

secure loading dock area. Goods will be offloaded into

the holding zone within the loading dock before being

moved through the goods lift to Basement 1. From

here, residents will be able to access passenger lifts

for Buildings A and B. Generous circulation spaces on

Basement Level 1 and the loading dock area will allow

for ease of movement or temporary holding of goods.

The proposal does not include a commercial

component and commercial deliveries are not

expected.

With respect to the waste management from the site it

is required that the proposed be designed to be

serviced by a 11m long truck. This will require a 4.5m

height clearance and a turning area to be provided on

the site to allow entry and exit in a forward direction

without conflicting with other vehicle. A turning path will

also be required to demonstrate entry into the site.

Swept path diagram is required for the largest vehicle.

Noted. Swept path diagrams for an 11m vehicle are

provided as part of the Traffic and Parking

Assessment prepared by Parking and Traffic

Consultants (refer to Section 4.5).

Applicant to seek advice from RMS regarding the

setback required to accommodate the potential grade

separation at Epping Rd/Herring Rd intersection.

The proposed upgrade to the Epping and Herring

Road intersection does not propose grade separation.

Nearby proposed Lyonpark Road-Road 3 intersection

will also provide additional route choice for this site.

Council can provide further discussion in relation to this

matter should the applicant be willing to pursue the

path of a VPA.

The site is located some distance from Lyonpark

Road. The applicant will not pursue a VPA.

Due to left in, left out restricted access to/from the site,

estimated trip distribution for AM/PM should be

provided. Please note that traffic signals are proposed

at Herring Road-Ivanhoe Place. Hence U-turn

movements will not be permitted once the traffic signals

are in operation.

Trip distribution is addressed in the Traffic and

Parking Assessment prepared by Parking and Traffic

Consultants.

Applicant should liaise with Ivanhoe Estate with

potential vehicular link through Ivanhoe Estate site.

The design of the Ivanhoe Estate is yet to be

resolved, and so access arrangements have been

designed independent of that site.

Work zone will not be permitted on Herring Road and

Epping Road frontage.

A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan will

be prepared prior to the issue of a Construction

Certificate. The Traffic and Parking Assessment

includes preliminary details around Construction

Traffic Management , and notes that demolition,

excavation and construction activities will be


10 JBA 16128


contained within the site.

Stormwater

The applicant will need to formalise a drainage

easement over the downstream lot to the point of

discharge (Shrimpton‟s Creek). Whilst it appears there

is drainage infrastructure in place, the easements

covering these appear disjointed (the road lot appears

to divide the easement – seems to be discontinuous).

A stormwater easement benefitting the site from the

point of discharge to Ivanhoe Place exists. However,

as Council has indicated, the stormwater easement is

somehow „disjointed‟ where a legal stormwater

easement across / through Ivanhoe Place (roadway

lot) would be benefitting the proposed site.

The applicant is currently negotiating an easement

with the adjoining land owner. Correspondence

between lawyers for China Overseas Sydney Pty

Limited and the Land and Housing Corporation

(LAHC) indicate that the LAHC is willing to provide

delegated approval. Further detail is provided in the

Civil Engineering Report at Appendix K.

The site has sufficient drainage infrastructure in place in

order to drain to the point of discharge. Any

discontinuities over the downstream property will need

to be rectified as part of the proposed development

proposal.

Noted.

The applicant is required to demonstrate a legal right to

drain over the downstream property to the point of

discharge to Shrimpton‟s Creek. The information at

hand appears to show that the existing downstream

easements are disjointed (the roadway lot appears to

divide the easement) and further, the terms of these

separate easements downstream may exclude the

legal right for the subject site to drain over this property.

Accordingly the applicant will need to demonstrate that

there is a legal, continuous easement benefitting the

subject site, draining to Shrimpton‟s Creek.

Refer to response above.

The development will warrant implementation of OSD

and WSUD measures in accordance with the DCP Part

8.2 (Stormwater & Floodplain Management).

Noted. OSD and WSUD measures are incorporated

into the development. Refer to Section 4.6.2 for

further details. .

Given OSD design objectives of locating the

component prior to the point of discharge from the

property, it is envisaged that the future design will

locate this in the north eastern corner of the site. There

would appear to be potential for this to be located

between the north eastern side of the driveway ramp

and the outer wall of the basement level.

The OSD tank is located in the north eastern corner of

the site.

The OSD design is to be based on the Council's

detailed design procedure which requires the site

discharge be limited to the maximum 5year ARI post-

development discharge being set as the PSD for all

greater storm events. A check of the immediate

downstream infrastructure will be required to ensure

there is no risk to the downstream property and may

require the original nominated PSD rate to be reduced

further.

Noted. With the inclusion of OSD, the site discharge is

below the pre-development 5 year ARI flows.

WSUD measures could potentially be integrated in the

internal courtyard area by way of water features, swale

treatments, etc.

The design includes a number of WSUD features

including a bioswale, Stormwater360 Enviropods and

a gross pollutant trap (GPT). Further, a rainwater re-

use tank of 80kL is included within the basement car

park.

Vehicle Access, Truck Access, Driveway Width and Location

The nominated driveway crossover is excessively wide

and is a concern from pedestrian safety point of view.

You are advised to reduce the driveway width via an

amended scheme.

The width of the driveway crossover has been

minimised as far as possible, whilst retaining Tree A

and ensuring appropriate access for service vehicles.

Council requires that the street tree adjacent to the

proposed driveway be retained and protected. This will

Tree A is retained in the proposed scheme.


JBA 16128 11


further impact on the driveway design. The proposed

vehicular crossing must ensure protection of the tree

and reduce pedestrian exposure time (when crossing

the driveway) as well as to prevent vehicles entering

the property at speed and at an oblique angle to the

footpath.

The driveway will need to cater for 11m long vehicle

(service and waste trucks) and therefore the driveway

width, grade, basement height clearance etc must be

clearly demonstrated to comply with AS2890.2. As

advised in the meeting with Council Officers, the

minimum clearance required for Council‟s waste

collection vehicle is 4.5m.

Noted. Swept path diagrams for an 11m vehicle are

provided as part of the Traffic and Parking


Consultants (refer to Section 4.5).

Vehicle swept path analysis will be required to show

vehicles turning into the site from Herring Road and

manoeuvring into and out of the basement as well.

Noted. Swept path diagrams are provided as part of

the Traffic and Parking Assessment prepared by

Parking and Traffic Consultants (refer to Section 4.5).

To clarify height clearance requirements, both internally

for standard vehicles and at the entry for service

vehicles, a driveway profile must be submitted as well.

The driveway, basement and basement entry have

been designed to accommodate service vehicles as

outlined in the Traffic and Parking Assessment

prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants (refer to

Section 4.5).

Car parking layout and spaces must be dimensioned. Noted.

Car Parking

The proposed parking appear incomplete in terms of

parking allocation, with the development providing only

6 visitor spaces for the 315 units proposed. The parking

configuration must conform to the parking requirements

stipulated in the DCP Part 9.3 (Parking), Part 4.3

(Macquarie Park Corridor) and the LEP.

The development now proposes 297 apartments.

Parking has been provided in accordance with Part

4.5 (Macquarie Park Corridor) of DCP 2014. Parking

provision is detailed in the Traffic and Parking


Consultants, as detailed at Section 4.5.

The maximum parking rates are provided in the

DCP2014 Part 4.3 (Macquarie Park Corridor).

Noted.

Waste Disposal

Collection arrangement: Waste collection from the site

will have to occur from the basement within the site.

The basement height clearance of 4.5m and turning

path for 11m truck must be shown on the architectural

plans and waste management plan to demonstrate that

Council operated garbage collection truck can service

the site.

The waste collection has been designed to comply

with Council‟s requirements.

Number of bins: Adequate storage area is to be

provided within the basement level. In this regard the

development will require at least 12 X 1100L waste

storage bins and at least 21 X 660L recycling bins.

A Waste Management Plan has been prepared by

Elephants Foot to support the proposal. The Plan

confirms that the waste storage areas are capable of

accommodating the required number of rubbish bins.

Details of the Plan are provided at Section 4.7.

Bulky waste storage area: A separate room or

undercover caged area of a minimum 20 square

metres with sufficient height clearance, with instructive

signage must be provided for the storage of bulky

discarded items such as furniture and white goods,

awaiting Council pickup, to prevent illegal dumping in

the public domain. Bulky items storage areas should be

located adjacent to waste storage areas.

A bulky waste storage room is provided at Basement

Level 01.

Waste chute: Where garbage chutes are proposed,

service rooms/compartments for accessing the garbage

chutes must be provided on each residential floor. All

garbage chutes and service rooms/compartments must

be designed and constructed in accordance with

Schedule 4: S4.3 Garbage Chutes and S4.4. Service

Rooms (or Compartments) of Part 7.2 of Council‟s

DCP2014.

Waste service rooms are provided on each residential

floor. The spaces have been designed in accordance

with the requirements of DCP 2014.

Waste storage for commercial tenancies: The garbage No commercial or retail tenancies are proposed.


12 JBA 16128


and recycling systems installed in commercial

developments will vary according the types and

quantities of waste and recyclables generated.

Schedule 1 Commercial Waste/ Recycling Generation

Rates provides some indicative commercial waste

generation rates.

A Waste Management Plan should accompany any

development application lodged with Council.

A Waste Management Plan has been prepared by

Elephants Foot to support the proposal. Details of the

Plan are provided at Section 4.7.

Public Domain

Public Domain Improvement Plan must accompany any

Development Application lodged with Council. The

works would include upgrading of footpath along both

of the street frontages to the requirements contained in

the DCP Part 4.5 -Macquarie park and the Macquarie

Park Public Domain Technical Manual (available on

Council‟s website). Smart Poles (MFPs), footpath

paving and tree planting are to be incorporated along

the street and within the site as per requirement.

Noted. The proposed Landscape Plans address the

interface with Herring Road.

New trees: Tress are to be planted along both

frontages within the subject property (1.5m inside the

property – see DCP requirement).

Noted. New tree plantings are shown on the

Landscape Plans prepared by Sturt Noble Associates.

Refer to Section 4.10 for further details.

Multi-function Poles: MFP will be required on both

frontages. It is estimated that approximately 6 poles will

be required with metered switchboard. Appropriate

conditions of consent will be imposed in relation these

matters.

Noted.

Urban Design Review Panel

The scheme was presented to Council’s Urban Design Review Panel (UDRP) on 18 October 2016. Table 2 outlines the matters for consideration raised by the UDRP, and indicates where each matter has been addressed in this DA. Table 2 – UDRP’s matters for consideration


Context and Neighbourhood Character

Every effort must be made to retain the viable trees

along the site boundaries and particularly to the

streetscapes.

Noted. The applicant recognises the importance of the

site‟s trees from both an ecological and streetscape

perspective, and has sought to retain as many of the

trees as possible

Basements and the loading area should not

compromise the existing landscape or the ability to

provide substantial landscaped communal open space

at grade, and excavation levels and both above ground

and basement setbacks should be established and

maximised where required to ensure trees are retained

and high quality open space is created. As discussed

at more length under “landscape” below, the panel

believes a multi-level parking basement will be

required to achieve these goals.

The basement has been subject to a rigorous design

process. The multi-level basement design seeks to

balance complexities around topography and tree

retention with the need to accommodate parking, on-

site loading and waste collection.

The proposed design is considered appropriate from

an ecological perspective, and is capable of

accommodating a high quality landscape outcome.

The panel notes that this corner site does mark the

entry into the Herring Rd precinct, a significant new

urban centre, and it is therefore appropriate that tower

forms should define the corner setback behind the

existing landscape.

Noted. The proposal seeks to respond to the site‟s

gateway location.

The proposal seems to include exposed basement car

parking and loading which presents to the long side

boundary with the adjacent site. This is not supported

as it results in a negative impact to the adjacent land.

The panel considers that any portion of the basement

The scheme has been redesigned to minimise any basement protrusion above ground. However, due to the topography of the site, complexities around tree retention and the need to accommodate parking, on-site loading and waste collection, there is a minor basement protrusion along the site‟s rear boundary


JBA 16128 13


should not sit more than 1.2m above the natural

ground level on the site.

with the Ivanhoe Estate, where there is a protrusion of 1.3m above natural ground line for a distance of approximately 3m long. All other areas have been incorporated below ground. Furthermore, the proposed landscape design takes steps to mitigate the visual impact associated with this minor protrusion, which will ensure that there are no negative impacts on the adjoining land.

The panel also notes that the vehicle entry impacts on

the streetscape to Herring Road and the loss of a

major tree. The panel considers that the width of the

driveways should be minimised, splitting either side of

the major tree to ensure its retention.




Built Form and Scale

The panel is concerned that the stepping in

combination with the angled orientation results in

significant bulk presenting to the streetscapes from

various angles and in the views provided.

The angle, in combination with the narrow separation

between the towers (even if offset) „blends‟ the tower

forms together visually and exacerbates their bulk.

This impact in combination with the consistent height

of the two tower “cores” and all the wings is creating a

combined bulk that is not considered acceptable.

In response to the UDRP‟s concerns, the massing of

the towers has been reviewed to prevent the

perception of „blended‟ tower forms. At the upper

levels (from Level 9, and again from Level 17) the

towers have been stepped back to improve separation

between the buildings, reduce the perceived massing

and provide opportunities for sky views.

The applicant would need to increase the separation at

its narrowest point by shaping the towers at their ends

to increase the perceived separation between the

forms and should vary the height of the different wings

of each tower as well as potentially the two tower

“cores” to reduce the visual mass of the scheme.

Refer to response above.

The panel understands that the applicant wishes to

maximise the FSR, however this should not be at the

expense of achieving an appropriate bulk and scale.

Noted. The scheme has been amended to address the

UDRP‟s concerns. The development achieves a FSR

of 4.49:1, with a more modulated building form which

provides for an appropriate bulk and scale.

The panel notes that the applicant is investigating non-

compliant height options and that to achieve an

appropriate massing some height variation may be

needed. The panel would consider some relaxation of

height but only if fully and comprehensively justified by

a height context study that demonstrates that other

sites in corner locations such as this (including the

corner opposite) have breached the height plane to

create appropriate architectural or urban design

emphasis and that to do so results in a significant

urban design benefit. Any increased overshadowing

impacts on the site to the south resulting from taller

elements should be compensated for by lesser

impacts from other lower elements. The panel would

not contemplate a height breach simply to relocate

massing to reach the maximum FSR.

Noted. Notwithstanding the UDRP‟s comments, the

proposed scheme is compliant with the LEP height

controls.

The use of the same tower floor plate configuration for

both towers does not acknowledge the fact that each

tower has a different immediate context. The west

tower, at the street corner, in particular, has the

potential to respond to its situation more clearly. This

approach would reflect, albeit in a different manner, the

massing and form strategy of the development

opposite (on the north-east corner of the road

intersection) and would produce more overall variety

and interest, qualities which the panel believes are not

adequately delivered in the current scheme.

In response to the UDRP‟s comments, the floor plates

of the two buildings have been further modulated. In

the south-western corner of the site, the southernmost

„finger‟ has been reduced in length and pulled back

from the corner of Epping and Herring Roads. The

revised design results in an improved tree retention

outcome, as well as better responding to this corner

location. At the upper levels, the buildings have been

stepped back to improve separation between the

buildings, reduce the perceived massing and provide

opportunities for sky views.

The panel also notes that the height of the large The lobbies have been redesigned to address the


14 JBA 16128


lobbies at the ground level is exacerbating the height of

the form. A reduction in this floor to floor height would

potentially facilitate an additional floor which would

allow relocation of some massing without loss of floor

space for the scheme.

UDRP‟s comments.

The panel also does not support the proposed above

ground portion of the loading arrangement due to its

exposure to the neighbouring site and the proximity to

the boundary. For such a large development, loading

should be within the building footprint or preferably

within the basement.

The scheme has been redesigned to improve loading

arrangements. The loading dock is provided at Ground

Level, however is contained within the building

envelope. The topography of the site, particularly in the

north-eastern corner of the site, has precluded the

loading dock from being located below ground.

The proposed ground plane for the preferred option

offers a hardscape urban outcome.

The ground plane has been redesigned to incorporate

a raised lawn, which will be activated with a play area

and residential lobby.

The panel questions the viability of a significant

proportion of commercial or retail on this site due to its

distance from the rail station and other commercial and

centre uses.

In response to the UDRP‟s comments, the applicant

has removed all non-residential floor space from the

proposed development.

The panel considers that residential uses are more

appropriate for the ground level so long as reasonable

amenity is achieved.

The ground level apartments will continue to achieve a

high level of amenity and privacy.

Density

The proposed density is compliant but at present is

resulting in loss of significant vegetation and massing

issues. The panel appreciates the applicants desire to

maximize the FSR, however the panel can only

support the FSR if an appropriate massing and scale

relationship is achieved.

The scheme has been amended to address the

Panel‟s concerns, with greater articulation reducing the

perceived mass of the buildings. Tree retention has

also been maximised, and achieves an appropriate

ecological outcome as detailed in the Flora and Fauna

Assessment Report prepared by Lesryk (refer to

Section 4.11).

Sustainability

Sustainability measures were not discussed.

Compliance with the sustainability measures in the

ADG Guidelines and BASIX will ensure a reasonable

outcome.

Noted.

The panel notes that option 3 has the potential to

achieve strong outcomes in relation to solar orientation

and cross ventilation due to the angled tripartite floor

plan. The panel considers that the floor plate form has

the capacity to deliver good amenity and sustainability

outcomes.

Noted. The proposal achieves solar access and cross

ventilation in accordance with the ADG.

Landscape

The panel considers a multiple basement should be

adopted.

A four (4) level basement has been provided to

accommodate 275 car spaces, on-site loading and

waste collection.

Further to this the panel considers that the ground

plane should build on the landscape character of the

site and that a softscape landscape solution should be

developed around each building rather than the urban

plaza currently proposed with clear address provided

to generous, (but not excessive) entry foyers for each

building from the street.

The ground plane has been redesigned to incorporate

a raised lawn, which will be activated with a play area

and residential lobby. The soft lawn will complement

the heavily treed area at the corner of Epping and

Herring Roads. The lobby / entry foyers have also

been rationalised, and positioned to provide a better

street address.

Community uses within the ground floor are

appropriate if desired.

A communal room and play area are provided at the

ground plane.

Amenity

Option 3 has the potential to offer a high level of

amenity within the buildings as the majority of units are

corner units and have excellent exposure to external

facades with minimal if any overlooking.

Noted. The proposal achieves a high level of amenity,

and is consistent with the ADG requirements for solar

access and cross ventilation.

The panel suggest relocation of some balconies onto

the exposed corners of the staggered elements to

maximize enjoyment of outlook and views as well as

The balconies have been positioned to maximise

views, outlook and solar access.


JBA 16128 15


sunlight.

The panel also notes that some of the units appear to

have internalized studies that have no access to light

our outlook. These studies should be deleted or

relocated within the apartments.

The „internalised‟ studies have windows onto the

naturally ventilated breezeways to ensure access to

daylight and natural ventilation.

Safety

The suggested ground level plan presents some safety

concerns. The colocation of the loading entry, car entry

and access to the resident mail area could lead to

pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.

The ground plane has been redesigned, and the mail

room is now provided within the main lobby area.

The width of the vehicle access driveways is also

considered excessive and impacts adversely on the

streetscape and building presentation.




The „front door‟ of the west tower is deeply recessed

behind the retail and commercial suites and does not

offer a clear address for residents or visitor on

approach from either Herring or Epping Roads.

The ground plane has been redesigned to remove the

retail and commercial uses. The lobby of Building A

now has a more prominent location, and a clearer

address.

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The panel notes that based on the original plan set

issued prior to the meeting the mix of units included 1

bed units through to 3 beds but that the dominant

portion of the mix was 2 beds with 2 baths. The panel

would encourage the applicant to consider some

smaller studio apartments in addition to the current mix

given the proximity of the university and to encourage

affordable housing options for single students who do

not desire a shared household.

The proposed mix comprises:

88 x 1 bedroom

202 x 2 bedroom

7 x 3 bedroom

The mix is based on market analysis, and is considered appropriate to the site‟s context. The diversity will ensure that housing is provided for a range of household types.

Aesthetics

The panel appreciates that the architecture of the

scheme is in its infancy. However, the architectural

imagery and elevations shown currently lack identity or

strong architectural interest with each building element

and each tower very repetitive. This exacerbates the

perceived bulk of the development.

Since the presentation to the UDRP, the façade design

has progressed significantly. The scheme incorporates

the following design principles:

The neutral colour pallet provides a backdrop for the rich, green vegetation to be read against.

Subtle gold panels have been incorporated to add interest to the façade, with each building having a different pattern to ensure the buildings are unique.

The buildings have been articulated to reduce the perceived bulk of the buildings. The dominant white bands are interrupted by different tones of grey and gold to break up the mass of the buildings.

Darker blades seek to further articulate the verticality of the buildings.

Glass balustrades have been used to reduce the bulk and mass of the building.

The panel encourages the applicant to be more

adventurous in the architectural expression of the

development with significantly more variety in facade

expression (which would help to reduce the perceived

scale of the project) and moderate colour influences.

As noted above, the façade design has progressed

significantly since the presentation to the UDRP. The

building is designed to respond to both the emerging

character of the area and the existing surrounding

features of the local context. As noted above, a

number of design mechanisms have been adopted to

reduce the perceived mass of the buildings.


16 JBA 16128

2.0 Site Analysis

2.1 Site Location and Context The site is located at 137-143 Herring Road, Macquarie Park within the Ryde Local Government Area. The site is situated on the southern side of Herring Road, with Epping Road along its western boundary. Epping Road is a main arterial road which provides access along the southern boundary of the wider Macquarie Park from Epping through to the M2 Motorway, and further access into the Sydney CBD. Epping Road has seen a slight decrease in daily average eastbound traffic movements since 2008, dropping from 18,286 to 16,640 vehicles per day (noted at the traffic counter located 50m north of Yarwood Street, 1.3km north of the site). The site’s locational context is shown at Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Context map Source: Google Maps and JBA

2.2 Site Description Currently, the site is legally described as Lots 1 – 24 in SP60143. The land is owned by China Overseas Sydney Pty Ltd. The owner is currently in the process of terminating the Strata Plan. The site’s has an area of 5,022m2 with a 119m frontage to Herring Road and a 43m frontage to Epping Road. A Survey Plan prepared by LTS Lockley is located at Appendix D. An aerial photo of the site is provided at Figure 2.


JBA 16128 17

Figure 2 – Aerial photograph of the site Source: Nearmap and JBA

2.2.1 Existing Development The site currently accommodates four (4) separate student accommodation blocks comprising a total of 24 units, as shown in Figure 3 - 7.

Figure 3 – The site is currently occupied by four separate three storey buildings which are proposed to be demolished Source: JBA


18 JBA 16128

Figure 4 – Two of the four existing buildings which are proposed to be demolished Source: JBA

Topography The site generally falls at a grade of 1:17 (6%) from RL 73.02 at the south-western corner to an RL of 65.20 at the north-eastern corner, adjacent to the Ivanhoe Estate. Further detail can be found in the Survey Plan provided at Appendix D.

Vegetation Existing vegetation on the site predominantly comprises garden planting as well as one hundred and three (103) trees which are shown on the Survey Plan at Appendix D. The trees consist of a mix of locally indigenous species, Australian native and exotic species. As a result of the investigations carried out, a total of 48 native and exotic plant species have been recorded. One (1) species is listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Heritage and Archaeology

The site is not affected by any known heritage or archaeology constraints.

Access Vehicular access is provided in the north-western corner of the site, with a left-in, left-out arrangement off Herring Road. The cross over provides access to a driveway which runs along the site’s north-eastern boundary. A photo of the driveway access throughout the site is shown at Figure 5.

Public Transport

There is a bus stop directly out the front of the site on Herring Road, which is serviced by nine bus routes which provide access between Epping and Erskine Street/Circular Quay, Epping to North Sydney via Macquarie University, Epping to Manly via Macquarie University, Macquarie Centre to Ryde Secondary College and North Epping and Macquarie University to Circular Quay via Putney.


JBA 16128 19

Macquarie Park Train Station is located approximately 1.7km south east of the site and Macquarie University Train Station is located 550m north of the subject site, at the intersection of Herring Road and Waterloo Road.

Figure 5 – Access is provided from Herring Road at the north-western corner of the site - existing buildings and structures are to be demolished. Source: JBA

Figure 6 – An existing car park is situated at the rear of the site - existing buildings and structures are to be demolished. Source: JBA


20 JBA 16128

Figure 7 – The site slopes towards the north-east - existing buildings and structures are to be demolished. Source: JBA


JBA 16128 21

2.3 Surrounding Development The site is adjoined by the Ivanhoe Estate to the north-east and south-east, Herring Road to the north-west and Epping Road to the south. Development surrounding the site is shown in Figure 8 and 9. The surrounding area is transitioning from a low-medium density residential area, to a high density mixed-use precinct. This is exemplified by new and planned development in the locality. To the north-east and south-east, the Ivanhoe Estate is currently subject to a tender process to redevelop the site for over 2,000 new dwellings. To the north-west of the site, on the opposite side of Herring Road, sits a range of existing and new residential developments, some of which are currently under construction. Further to the north of the site is the Macquarie University campus, including its colleges. The Macquarie Shopping Centre is situated opposite the University and contains approximately 317 shops and has a gross leasable floor area of approximately 140,000m2. The Centre is one of the main shopping destinations within the Sydney metropolitan area. The entry portals to the Macquarie University Railway Station are located approximately 550m north of the site, near to the University campus and Macquarie Shopping Centre. To the south, on the opposite side of Epping Road, lies low density residential development. The Ranch Hotel is located on the south-western corner of the Epping and Herring Road intersection.

Figure 8 – A residential development is under construction to the north-west of the site Source: JBA


22 JBA 16128

Figure 9 – View from the rear of the subject site towards the Ivanhoe Estate Source: JBA


JBA 16128 23

3.0 Description of Proposed Development

This application seeks approval for the following development:






Architectural Drawings illustrating the proposed development are included at Appendix A. A photomontage of the proposed development is shown at Figure 10. For clarity, Building A is located adjacent to Epping Road.

Figure 10 – Photomontages of the proposed development viewed from the north Source: SJB

3.1 Development and Urban Design Principles The planning and design principles adopted for the proposed development, including a detailed analysis of the opportunities and constraints that apply to the site are detailed in the Urban Design Report prepared by SJB at Appendix E. The key principles which informed the design are as follows:

The building siting and footprints must respond to the existing vegetation on the site to enable the retention of as many high priority trees as possible.

Provision of two separate buildings, instead of one single form, in order to minimise the length of the building and the bulk of the building form.

Orientate and stagger the floorplate to maximise solar access and cross ventilation, maximise privacy, capitalise on excellent view opportunities to


24 JBA 16128

Sydney CBD and the Blue Mountains and provide a varied and interesting built form.

Set back and stagger the building mass as the building’s height increases, to deliver improved building separation and enhanced amenity.

3.2 Numerical Overview The key numeric development information is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 – Key numerical information

Component Proposal

Site area 5,022m²

GFA 22,558m²

FSR 4.49:1

Maximum Height 73.55m

Boundary Setbacks (Ground Level)

South – Epping Road (Building A)

North-West – Herring Road

North-East – Ivanhoe Estate

North

>10m

2.6m – 11.4m

7.4m – 10m

4.8m – 5m

Building Separation

Level 1 – 9

Level 10 – 17

Level 18 – 22

14.6m

16.4m

31m

Apartments 297

Apartment Mix

1 bedroom

1 bedroom + study

2 bedroom

3 bedroom

0

88

202

7

Car Parking

Residential

Accessible parking

Visitor

Resident and Visitor Sub-Total

Car wash bay

Car share

TOTAL Parking Provision

215

30

30

275

1

2

278

Bicycle Parking

Class 1 Bicycle provision (resident)

Class 2 Bicycle provision (visitor)

Class 3 Bicycle provision (visitor)

298 storage cages provide class 1 storage facilities

21 spaces

9 Spaces

Landscaped Area (communal open space introduced landscaping)

1,350m² (26%)

Deep Soil Area 1,260m² (25%)


JBA 16128 25

3.3 Land Use and Floor Space by Level Table 4 below details the distribution of the proposed uses within the building. Based on market advice, and as acknowledged by the URDP, non-residential uses are considered unviable and undesirable in this location. The proposal therefore seeks approval for residential uses only.

Table 4 – Land use and floor space by level

Level Use

Shared Basement

Basement Level 1 12 residential parking spaces;

30 visitor parking spaces;

2 car share spaces;

8 residential adaptable + shared adjacent space; and

1 bike rack (7 spaces/rack).


8 residential adaptable + shared adjacent space; and



7 residential Adaptable + Shared Adjacent Space; and


Basement Level 4 71 residential parking spaces; and

7 residential adaptable + shared adjacent space.

Building A Building B

Level 1 – 16 1 bike rack at Level 1 (9 spaces/rack)

24 x 1 bedroom + St

79 x 2 bedroom units

Adaptable: A106, A206, A306, A405, A506, A606, A706, A806

44 x 1 bedroom t + St


Adaptable: B207, B307, B407, B507, B607, B707, B807, B907, B1007, B1107, B1207, B1307, B1407, B1507

Level 17 – 23 7 x 1 bedroom + St


5 x 3 bedroom units

13 x 1 bedroom + St


2 x 3 bedroom units

Adaptable:B1706, B1806, B1906, B2005

3.4 Demolition and Site Preparation To enable the construction of the proposed development, the existing buildings and hardstand driveway area on the site are to be demolished. A demolition plan has been prepared for the proposed development and is included with the Architectural Drawings at Appendix A. Excavation to facilitate the proposed four (4) level basement car park will also be undertaken. A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared by Douglas Partners and is provided at Appendix F.

3.5 Tree Retention and Tree Removal Tree retention and removal has been the subject of ongoing discussions with Council staff. The proposal seeks to retain as many of the site’s significant trees as possible, whilst delivering a viable development outcome. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been prepared by Tree iQ (Appendix G) to determine the impact of the proposed development on the existing trees on the site. The site contains a total of 103 trees. The proposal requires the removal of 54 trees from the site, with 45 trees to be retained and protected. An assessment of the proposed tree removal is provided in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment at Appendix G and Section 4.12 of this report.


26 JBA 16128

3.6 External Materials and Finishes As identified in the Architectural Drawings at Appendix A, the design incorporates high quality materials and finishes in natural tones intended to complement the surrounding landscape, including:

Masonry bands with patterned relief;

Semi frameless glass balustrades;

Light weight cladding;

Aluminium framed glass windows; and

Fencing.

3.7 Landscaping and Public Domain Landscape Plans, a Public Domain Plan and a Landscape Design Statement have been prepared by Sturt Noble Associates and are included at Appendix H.

3.7.1 Landscaping The key features of the landscape design are shown in Figure 11 and include a publicly accessible walking and seating area, private courtyard terraces, a central lawn and BBQ space and a children’s play area. The landscape and public domain design seeks to:

Create new areas of public open space that offer opportunities for active and passive recreation;

Introduce a publicly accessible park in the southern part of the site among existing mature trees, which will create a dynamic social hub adjacent to the development in the form of a planted public walk with seating;

Establish a structure of pedestrian friendly access ways that provide generous footpaths and outdoor areas activating the open space;

Provide a generously planted and detailed private community courtyard through the centre of the site, incorporating a range of different seating and small group areas via the sculptural layout of furniture, seating walls and garden retaining walls;

Provide a sheltered children’s play area in the undercroft of Building A;

Introduce wide planted paths and informal avenue tree plantings to create green links that provide visual and physical connections across the open spaces; and

Provide a sheltered centre space allowing for generous lawn areas and facilities which give opportunities for outdoor recreation in all seasons.

In addition, the development provides the opportunity to introduce a large number of trees and plants to what is currently a largely cleared area. A range of both native and exotic species will be introduced, with special attention paid to including Sydney Ironbark and Turpentine community species where conditions allow vigorous growth.


JBA 16128 27

Figure 11 – Overall landscape plan Source: Sturt Noble Associates

3.7.2 Public Domain The key features of the public domain design are shown in Figure 12 and include smart poles, street tree planting and reconstruction of the existing footpath in accordance with Council’s Public Dom ain Design Manual. The details of the public domain treatment will be finalised in consultation with Council during detailed design.

Figure 12 – Public domain improvement plan Source: Sturt Noble Associates

3.8 Public Art In accordance with Ryde DCP 2014, developments in the Macquarie Park Corridor with more than 10,000m2 of new floor space are required to provide and implement an Arts Plan. In response to this requirement, a Public Art Plan has been prepared by Vertebrae (refer to Appendix I). The Plan establishes the themes, aesthetic form, scale and potential locations for public art within the site. The proposed concept artwork, ‘Bioflow’, is based on two of the suggested themes arising from the history of the Macquarie Park Corridor, being market gardening and the natural environment. ‘Bioflow’ seeks to connect to the site’s ecological history through:


28 JBA 16128

Indigenous ecology of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest;

Market gardening and orchards;

Plant species names given to the former student accommodation buildings on the site; and

Plant species used in the landscape plan for the proposed development.

‘Bioflow’ interprets the colour palette and patterns found in the structure of plants and trees, and explores the macro and micro structure of cells, stamens, anthers, roots, trunks and branches. It is anticipated that the artwork will be integrated into the awning of Building B, working with the height of the awning to deliver an artwork that has a significant scale (refer to Figure 13). ‘Bioflow’ will incorporate vibrant colours which express the intensity of plants and scroll ‘offshoots’ which are reflective of a branch and root system. The above principles will be further developed during detailed design, with the final art work to be determined prior to the issue of the relevant Construction Certificate.

Figure 13 – Indicative ‘Bioflow’ artwork Source: Vertebrae

3.9 Vehicular Access and Parking Vehicle access and parking arrangements are detailed in the Architectural Drawings (Appendix A) and the Traffic and Parking Assessment prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants (Appendix J) and are summarised below.

Vehicle Access

An access driveway will be constructed off Herring Road at the north-western end of the site, providing left-in / left-out access for vehicles. The driveway will enable vehicles to access the basement car park and enter and exit the site in a forward direction at all times.

Pedestrian Access

Primary pedestrian access to the site will be from Herring Road, through the main paved walkways to the two buildings and open space area at ground level. The proposed development provides good pedestrian access and permeability to the corner of the site and communal open spaces including landscaped areas.


JBA 16128 29

Servicing Access

Due to the site’s topography, the proposed development provides a loading dock at ground level with a turntable which will allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The loading dock area is capable of accommodating Council’s waste collection vehicles and other trucks up to 11m in length. The loading dock is contained within the building envelope, with a roller door on the northern side to conceal the space.

Vehicle Parking

The shared basement car park will accommodate 275 vehicle parking spaces over four split levels. It is intended that 30 car spaces on Basement 1 (B1) will be dedicated to visitors, with the remaining spaces allocated for residents. In addition, the proposal also includes two (2) car share spaces and one (1) car wash bay.

Bicycle Parking

Visitor bicycle parking is provided for 30 bicycles within the shared basement and in front of Building A. Resident bicycle parking for each apartment is provided in storage cages.

3.10 Water Cycle Management A Stormwater Plan has been prepared by TTW and is provided at Appendix K. The Plan details measures for addressing overland flow, stormwater harvesting, site discharge and improving water quality. The stormwater management strategy incorporates an on-site detention (OSD) tank with a volume of 120m3 and a rainwater reuse tank of 80kL. The proposal also includes water sensitive urban design features including a bioswale, Stormwater360 Enviropods and a gross pollutant trap. Due to the fall to the north-eastern corner of the site and the location of the OSD tank, post development landscaping areas along the northern boundaries have been allowed to bypass. The bypass consists of a total area of 181m2 and has been compensated for by enlarging the OSD tank volume. Currently, the site drains via a pit and pipe system to a kerb inlet located at the north-eastern corner of the site. The proposal intends to utilise the same point of discharge. A stormwater easement exists which benefits the site from the point of discharge to Ivanhoe Place. However, the easement is ‘disjointed’ and the applicant is currently in discussions with the owner of Ivanhoe Place to grant the proposed site a legal stormwater easement within the roadway lot. Correspondence between lawyers for China Overseas Sydney Pty Limited and the Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) indicate that the LAHC is willing to provide delegated approval. An assessment of the proposed stormwater management system is provided at Section 4.6.

3.11 Ecologically Sustainable Development The proposed development has been designed taking into account ecologically sustainable development principles (ESD). A BASIX Certificate has been prepared by Wood and Grieve Engineers and is located at Appendix L. It sets out the various ESD initiatives that are being incorporated into the development and confirms that the proposed development meets the relevant energy and water reduction targets as well as thermal comfort level.


30 JBA 16128

The proposed development has been designed to ensure that 80% of the apartments are cross ventilated and maximises direct sun exposure to the apartments whilst utilising adequate shading devices to control heat gain in summer. The development also incorporates energy efficient lighting, appliances and water efficient fixtures.

3.12 Infrastructure and Services All services (i.e. sewer, water, electricity and telecommunications) are available to the site and will be connected in accordance with the requirements of the relevant service providers. Where relevant, conditions are anticipated to be included as part of the development consent to ensure that adequate service infrastructure is provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development. On site drainage details have also been provided as part of the Civil Engineering Report at Appendix K.


JBA 16128 31

4.0 Assessment of Environmental Impacts

This Section considers the planning issues relevant to the proposed development. It contains our assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and identifies the steps to be taken to prevent or mitigate the potential impacts on the environment.

4.1 Compliance with Relevant Strategic and Statutory Plans and Policies

The DA’s consistency and compliance with the relevant statutory plans and policies is located in Tables 5 and 6 below. Variations to, and non-compliance with, the key standards and guidelines highlighted in the table are discussed in the following sections of this environmental assessment.

Table 5 – Summary of consistency with key strategic and statutory planning policies

Plan Comments

Strategic Plans Instruments

Metropolitan Strategy: A Plan for Growing Sydney

The Metropolitan Strategy supersedes the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2031. The proposed development is consistent with the goals of the Strategy as it will:

Support the efficient use of land in Macquarie Park by realising the site‟s development potential.

Facilitate the delivery of new housing in an area identified as being appropriate for accelerated infill development as part of the Macquarie University Station (Herring Road) Priority Precinct process.

Enable the urban renewal of a site in close proximity to transport links, retail and other services.

Provide housing within walking distance of the existing Macquarie University train station.

Draft North District Plan The Draft North District Plan places great importance on Macquarie Park, which is now Sydney‟s third largest centre for employment behind Sydney City and Greater Parramatta. The proposal supports the Draft North District Plan by:

Helping to create a sense of place within the Macquarie Park by preserving the site‟s unique bushland character and providing residential uses which, together with education, health and commercial uses in the Corridor will assist in diversifying the uses in Macquarie Park.

Supporting the delivery of up to 5,800 new homes in the Macquarie University Station (Herring Road) Priority Precinct by 2031.

Providing new homes in a location where people can readily access important day to day services and jobs accommodate large concentrations of jobs.

State Planning Instruments and Controls

SEPP 55 (Remediation of Land)

Due to the historic use of the site for residential purposes, it is considered acceptable that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Refer to the Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination Report prepared by Douglas Partners at Appendix M and Section 4.9.

SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development)

A Design Verification Statement has been prepared by SJB which addresses the principles of SEPP 65. The SEPP 65 Design Statement and Design Verification Statement is included at Appendix N.

SEPP (BASIX) A BASIX Certificate is located at Appendix L.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

As the proposal provides over 75 apartments and is within 90m of a classified road, the application will be referred to RMS in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Infrastructure SEPP.

SEPP (State and Regional Development)

As the proposal is a class of development described in Schedule 4A of the EP&A Act, being a development that has a capital investment value of more


32 JBA 16128

Plan Comments

than $20 million, Part 4 of the of the State and Regional Development SEPP applies to the DA.

Under Part 4 of the SEPP the Council‟s consent function is exercised by the Sydney North Planning Panel.

Local Planning Instruments and Controls

Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014

Clause 1.2 – Aims of Plan The proposal supports the aims of the LEP through:

Provide housing that is consistent with surrounding developments and the existing environmental character of the locality which will accommodate the needs of the existing and future residents of Ryde;

Fostering the environmental, economic, social and physical development of Ryde by creating an integrated, balanced and sustainable City ;

Being in close proximity to the City therefore minimising vehicle kilometres travelled, maximising the use of public transport, encouraging walking and cycling; and

Preserving the existing vegetated character of the site and enhancing the environmental quality of the site by incorporating principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Clause 2.1 – Zone The site lies within the B4 Mixed Use Zone. The proposed development is defined as a residential flat building and is permissible with consent in the B4 Mixed Use Zone.

Consideration was given to incorporating a small quantity of non-residential floor space into the proposal. However market analysis indicated that retail and commercial uses are not likely to be viable in this location. This view was supported by Council‟s Urban Design Review Panel (refer to comments in Table 2) who were of the view that having empty shopfronts in this location could detract from the streetscape, and so the proposal does not incorporate any non-residential uses.

Whilst the proposal does not provide a „mix of uses‟, the zone is intended to enable a mix of uses and does not mandate that individual sites provide a mix of uses, which is evident in residential flat buildings being a nominated permissible use rather than being limited to „shop top housing‟.

The proposal achieves the zone objectives, as follows:

The residential uses are compatible with the existing surrounding land uses which are also predominantly residential.

The development provides high density residential uses in an accessible location to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

Clause 2.7 – Demolition requires development consent

The proposal seeks consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site with the demolition of the existing student accommodation buildings.

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

The proposal is compliant with the maximum building height of 75m, with a maximum building height of 73.55m


JBA 16128 33

Plan Comments

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal is compliant with the maximum floor space ratio of 4.5:1, with a FSR of 4.49:1.

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Every effort has been made to retain the site‟s significant trees, however the development proposes the removal of 54 trees. The trees to be removed are detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Appendix G) and in Section 4.10. The trees are proposed to be removed due to poor health and the need to accommodate the proposed development and landscaping scheme.

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The site is not identified as a heritage item nor is it in close proximity to a heritage item. The proposed development will not result in any loss of heritage significance within the locality.

Clause 6.4 – Stormwater Management

A Stormwater Plan has been prepared by TTW in accordance with the requirements of Ryde LEP (refer to Appendix K and Section 4.6). The Plan details measures for addressing overland flow, stormwater harvesting, site discharge and improving water quality. The stormwater management strategy incorporates an on-site detention (OSD) tank with a volume of 120m3 and a rainwater reuse tank of 80kL. The proposal also includes water sensitive urban design features including a bioswale, Stormwater360 Enviropods and a gross pollutant trap.

Clause 6.6 – Environmental Sustainability

As detailed in the Sustainability Services and BASIX Compliance Report prepared by Wood and Grieve Engineers at Appendix L, the proposal incorporates a range of sustainable design features which seeks to improve the environmental performance of the development.

Table 6 – Consistency with Ryde DCP 2014

Ryde DCP 2014 Comments

Part 4.5 Macquarie Park Corridor

7.1 Site Planning and Staging The proposed development will not have any adverse effects on the proposed new public streets in accordance with Figure 4.1.1 Access Network

7.3 Active Frontages The subject site is not located within the Primary Active Frontage Area in accordance with Figure 7.3.2 Active Frontage and Setback Control Drawing

7.4 Setbacks and Build-to-lines

The proposal is consistent with the objectives for setbacks and build-to lines set out in the Macquarie Park DCP. In order to retain as many of the site‟s significant trees as possible, the proposed underground car park extends to the site‟s Herring Road boundary and the buildings sit forward of the 5m setback control in isolated locations. This is discussed further at Section 4.2.2.

7.6 Rear and Side Setbacks The proposal is generally compliant with the rear and side setback requirements. There are minor encroachments into the setbacks to the side and rear boundaries adjoining the Ivanhoe Place site, however the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the setback controls. This is further discussed at Section 4.2.1.

7.7 Building Separation The proposal is generally compliant with the building separation requirements. The variation between Levels 5-17 is mitigated through building design and orientation, and is further discussed further at Section 4.4.1.

7.8 Building Bulk and Design The proposed floor plate does not exceed 2,000m².

8.1 Site Planning and Staging The proposal does not require the construction of a new road and does not affect the alignment of any existing roads.

8.2 Site Coverage, Deep Soil Areas and Private Open

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the DCP controls and exceeds the numerical requirements set out in this section, with 25% of the site provided


34 JBA 16128

Ryde DCP 2014 Comments

Space as deep soil planting (5% above the DCP control).

8.4 Topography and Building Interface

The proposal meets the objectives and achieves the controls set out at this section of the DCP. Access to and throughout the site is discussed in Section 4.5.

8.5 Site Facilities The proposed development includes access from Herring Road, in the north-western corner of the site.

8.6 Vehicular Access Vehicular access has been provided at the north-western corner of the site, off Herring Road.

8.7 Onsite Parking A four (4) level basement car park, accessed from Herring Road, is proposed. Car parking has been provided in accordance with Council‟s rates. A Traffic and Parking Assessment is attached at Appendix J and is discussed further at Section 4.5.

9.1 Wind Impact A Pedestrian Wind Environment Statement has been prepared by Windtech and is attached at Appendix O. The wind assessment addresses the likely wind conditions affecting the various trafficable outdoor areas within and surrounding the subject development. Further assessment is provided at Section 4.12.

9.2 Noise and Vibration An Acoustic Report has been prepared by Wood & Grieve Engineers and provided at Appendix P. This report demonstrates that the proposed development complies with the relevant acoustic requirements with some recommendations. Further assessment is provided at Section 4.13.

9.3 Bushfire Management The subject site is not located within the Bushfire Prone Land in accordance with Figure 9.3.1 of the Macquarie Park Corridor DCP

Part 7.2 Waste Minimisation and Management

The proposed development provides onsite space for the sorting and storage of waste. Further detailed discussion of the waste requirements of the development has been provided within the Waste Management Plan at Appendix Q and Section 4.7.

Part 8.2 Stormwater Management

A Stormwater Plan has been provided at Appendix K which discusses the proposed stormwater measures which will be implemented to manage stormwater quality and quantity. Further assessment is provided at Section 4.6.

Part 8.3 Driveways

A driveway crossover is proposed on the site at the existing crossover location, accessible from Herring Road. The driveway crossover will service vehicles in a left-in-left-out arrangement.

4.2 Built Form and Urban Design As outlined above, the proposal is consistent with the standards established by Ryde LEP 2014 and is generally consistent with the built form controls set out in Ryde DCP 2014. The urban design and built form principles for the scheme are further discussed in the SEPP 65 Design Statement and Architectural Design Report at Appendix N and Appendix E, including the proposal’s consistency with the Design Quality Principles outlined in SEPP 65. Key built form and urban design issues are considered below.

4.2.1 Height, Bulk and Scale In November 2012, the NSW Government endorsed Macquarie University Station (Herring Road) as a Priority Precinct (PP). The Precinct includes Macquarie University and Macquarie Shopping Centre, and is close to the employment opportunities offered by Macquarie Park. The PP has facilitated changes to the site’s planning controls to enable development of an Epping Road ‘gateway’ at the junction of Herring Road and Epping Road, with a height limit of 75m and a FSR of 4.5:1. The proposed


JBA 16128 35

development is consistent with these development standard, and together with the neighbouring development across Herring Rd (Macquarie Park Village) will define the south - west entry into the Precinct. The proposed siting and alignment of the buildings has been considered to achieve a balanced outcome between retaining as many existing trees as practically possible, whilst providing a development that delivers the intended outcome for the site as a gateway into a Precinct well serviced with public transport, retail services, open space, and employment opportunities. Each building is broken into three smaller, slender forms which are oriented at 45 degrees to the site’s Herring Road frontage in a sawtooth like footprint. The three distinct ‘fingers’ slide past each other, allowing for enhanced articulation to the Herring Road frontage. The slender floor plates of each of the ‘fingers’ are linked via open breezeways which further articulate the subtle separation within each of the clusters. This strategy allows the following benefits:

Very good solar orientation;

Maximises the number of cross-ventilated apartments above the number stipulated by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG);

Maximises the number of apartments with dual aspects;

Provides slender floor plates with excellent view opportunities to Sydney CBD and the Blue Mountains;

Improves tree retention;

Increases articulation to Herring Road, minimising long stretches of unarticulated walls;

Sits well within the existing tree canopy;

Provides better visual permeability from Herring Road towards Ivanhoe Estate;

Increases the deep soil allowance above the number stipulated by the ADG;

Ensures substantial areas of communal open space; and

Achieves balanced street and site setbacks. To reduce the perceived mass of the development, the buildings have been articulated through off-setting of the ‘fingers’ and increasing setbacks at the upper levels of each building. The overall mass of the proposal alters as the height increases, with the floor-plates stepped back at the upper levels to reveal more of the sky. Each transition level is defined by a large private terrace that in time will be populated with lush planting which will further distinguish the vertical change and soften the scale of the proposal. In addition to these physical mechanisms, as demonstrated in the photomontage at Figure 14, the building’s facades are highly refined. The following principles have been adopted in the design process:

The proposed colours are neutral and offer a backdrop for which the green vegetation is to be read against. The subtle gold panels have been incorporated to add interest to the facade, the pattern between the buildings differ to make each building individual.

Careful articulation of the building form has been adopted to reduce the perceived bulk of the building. The dominant white bands are interrupted by different tones of grey and gold to break-up the mass and split the buildings up further.

Glass balustrades have been used to further reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings.


36 JBA 16128

Darker blades which articulate the verticality of the buildings.

Figure 14 – Relationship between the buildings and the public domain Source: SJB

4.2.2 Building Siting and Setbacks The proposed design has been carefully considered with emphasis placed on achieving the most appropriate design solution for the site and a balanced response to the site’s ecological constraints. As a result, the design provides a well-spaced built form which seeks to retain as many of the site’s significant trees as possible. The development facilitates good amenity outcomes for proposed residential apartments on the site, and maintains amenity to existing and future surrounding development. Basement setbacks, street setbacks and setbacks between proposed buildings and existing buildings on and surrounding the site have been carefully considered. Whilst some nominal non-compliances with the DCP’s setback requirements are proposed, as detailed below, the setbacks are considered appropriate in the context of the site’s topographical and ecological constraints and non-compliance ultimately provides for a better planning outcome.

Basement Setback

Provisions 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 of Ryde DCP require that underground parking not be located within the setback areas unless it can be demonstrated that deep soil planting can be provided in these areas. The proposed development complies on the northern-eastern and south-western (to Epping Road) frontages, but locates part of the basement within the north-western setback to Herring Road. This is considered to be an acceptable outcome on the site due to the following:

Council has requested that the existing vegetation and trees at the south-west (Herring Road) frontage be preserved. As a result, there is no opportunity to locate the basement within the area that might typically be occupied within the setback zones.

The additional zone provided at the Epping Road / Herring Road corner enables the retention of key existing trees which maintains the landscape character on the site, rather than remove them to provide a compliant basement and relying on new trees to become established.


JBA 16128 37

The basement is setback at the north-western end of the site in order to retain the key tree (Tree A) in that location, whilst also providing sufficient planter zones to accommodate trees above the basement along the remainder of the Herring Road frontage.

The development complies with the landscaping and site coverage controls in the DCP, and exceeds the deep soil zone requirement by 5%. The proposal will continue to achieve the objectives of the control despite the non-compliant basement setback.

Herring Road Setback

As established previously with Council, the Herring Road setback is to be treated as a front setback and the minimum setback requirements set out at section 7.4 of the Macquarie Park Corridor DCP is 5m. The control stipulates that 5m is required to all existing and new streets.

Figure 15 – Building A setback to Herring Road Source: SJB

Figure 16 – Building B setback to Herring Road Source: SJB

The proposed building footprints and siting has been informed by the complex site constraints, in particular the need to retain the significant trees near Epping Road. This led to the development of a stepped form which provides a variable setback to Herring Road. Building A fully complies and significantly exceeds the setback control (see Figure 15). Building B does not comply in three isolated locations, with a minimum of 2.6m. However as shown in Figure 16, the façade is predominantly outside of the setback zone, and if a weighted average were to be


38 JBA 16128

taken, the proposal would comply with the 5m minimum. Further, the proposed variation meets the objectives of the control in that the non-compliant form is provided in direct response to the need to retain and reinforce the existing character of green setbacks with mature planting.

Epping Road Setback

The DCP requires a 10m setback to Epping Road. The proposed development demonstrates compliance with this control, with setbacks in excess of 10m along the south-western side of Building A, adjacent to Epping Road.

Rear Setback

Under the DCP, development is to be setback 10m from the rear boundary (the Ivanhoe Estate). As discussed previously, the proposed development adopts a staggered floorplate in response to the complex constraints that apply to the site. As a result of this staggered form, the proposed footprint encroaches into the setback in certain locations, with a setback of 5m at the south-eastern corner of Building A and a minimum of 7.4m at the north-eastern corner of Building B (see Figure 17). However, the majority of the building mass sits behind the 10m setback, and if a weighted average was adopted, the buildings would comply with the setback requirements. Whilst achieving an appropriate setback to the Ivanhoe Estate was a key consideration in the design and planning of the proposed development, the narrowness of the site, when combined with the significant ecology, necessitates non-compliances with the rear setback control in order to achieve a better planning outcome, specifically the retention of key trees. The proposed variation is therefore considered acceptable on the basis that the encroachment is limited to isolated parts of the buildings and that the building form is provided in response to the site’s constraints. The impact of the separation is further mitigated by:

Retention of the extensive mature vegetation along the rear boundary and in the site’s south-eastern corner. This vegetation, as well as the vegetation on the Ivanhoe Estate at the interface between the two sites, has ecological significance, and so will be retained as part of the future redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Estate, ensuring that privacy and amenity is achieved.

The orientation of the buildings, as well as the apartment layouts, does not result in overlooking. It is anticipated that the future development of the Ivanhoe Estate will adopt similar design mechanisms to ensure privacy and amenity.

Figure 17 – Proposed setback to Epping Road and existing adjoining dwellings at Ivanhoe Place Source: SJB


JBA 16128 39

It is noted that the proposed development achieves a separation in excess of 20m with the existing apartment buildings which exceeds the minimum separation requirements in SEPP 65.

4.2.3 Basement Projection As identified at Section 1.1, Council has noted that the basement should not protrude above the existing ground level along any side of the development. Since the initial pre-DA meeting, the scheme has been redesigned to minimise any basement protrusion above ground. However, due to the topography of the site, complexities around tree retention and the need to accommodate parking, on-site loading and waste collection, there is a minor protrusion along the site’s rear boundary with the Ivanhoe Estate. In this isolated location, the basement protrudes 1.3m above natural ground level for a distance of approximately 3m. In order to mitigate visual impacts to the neighbouring Ivanhoe Estate, the landscape design incorporates mass planting and raised planters along this north-eastern boundary, which will soften the appearance of the basement protrusion and provide visual interest through colour and texture. Further, the retention of existing mature trees along this boundary will screen the basement protrusion from view. Based on the site’s physical constraints and the proposed mitigation measures, the minor basement protrusion along the site’s rear boundary is considered acceptable. Further, as noted above, the site is still capable of providing 25% deep soil planting, and so remains consistent with the objectives of DCP 2014.

4.3 Impacts on Adjoining Properties

4.3.1 Overshadowing Shadow Diagrams have been provided as part of the Architectural Drawings at Appendix A which demonstrate the shadow cast from the proposed development and surrounding development at hourly intervals between 9:00am and 3:00pm on the Winter Solstice. The tall and slender nature of the proposed buildings will result in narrow shadowed areas which move quickly across the surrounding areas. As shown on the plans, the proposal will result in an acceptable level of solar access to nearby properties, in particular the lower scale residential development on the opposite side of Epping Road, which will only be in shadow for short periods during mid-winter (see Figure 18). It is acknowledged that due to the orientation of the site, there will be some shadow impact on the neighbouring Ivanhoe Estate. However, as shown on the plans, shadow impacts are generally limited to the afternoon period, with minimal overshadowing of existing dwellings between 9am and midday. Further, given the presence of ecologically significant trees at the interface between the two sites, it is considered likely that future dwellings will continue to have a generous setback from the site boundary, further limiting overshadowing impacts during the morning and early afternoon period.


40 JBA 16128

Figure 18 – Extract of the shadow studies during mid-winter Source: SJB

4.3.2 Visual Impacts The proposed development has been designed appropriately for the surrounding context, and the future desired character of the area. Whilst the proposal will change the current character of the site, when compared to existing development, the high quality design of the proposal will significantly improve the visual appearance of the area. As shown in the photomontages at Figures 19 – 22, the buildings have been carefully designed to respond to the characteristics of the locality and site, as well as to reduce any potential visual impacts. This has been effectively achieved through:

Providing landscaping within the setbacks to ensure that the development compliments the existing bushland character of Epping and Herring Roads and that the buildings are appropriately screened;

Additional landscaping throughout the site to soften the edges of the buildings and reduce the visual impact when viewed from the public domain;

Modulation and articulation of the building form, particularly at the upper levels, to break up the bulk and scale of the development and provide views to the sky between the buildings; and

Incorporating high quality materials and finishes into the building design in a natural colour pallet.


JBA 16128 41

Overall, the proposed development will result in a significant positive impact on the surrounding area through its careful design and associated landscaping.

Figure 19 – View looking south along Herring Road

Figure 20 – View looking east at Epping / Herring Road intersection

Figure 21 – View looking north at Epping / Herring Road intersection

Source: SJB

Figure 22 – View looking north-west towards the site

4.4 Residential Amenity SJB has undertaken an assessment of the proposal against the ‘Design Criteria’ in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) at Appendix N. The Design Criteria are a means for measuring the amenity of an apartment. The assessment demonstrates that the proposed development complies with the majority of the Design Criteria and that all apartments within the proposed development will achieve a very high standard of internal amenity. The proposed variations to the Design Criteria are discussed below.


42 JBA 16128

4.4.1 Visual Privacy The minimum separation distances between Building A and Building B are:

Levels 1 – 9: Approximately 14.6m between the balconies in Buildings A and B;

Levels 10 – 17: Approximately 16.4m between the balconies in Buildings A and B; and

Levels 18 – 23: Approximately 31m between habitable rooms in Buildings A and B.

The proposed separation distances are consistent with the Design Criteria between Levels 1 – 4 (12m separation required) and above Level 18 (24m separation required). However, the proposal seeks to vary the recommended separation between balconies at Levels 5 - 8 (18m separation required) and Levels 9 – 17 (24m separation required). As noted in Section 4.2, the placement of the buildings has been influenced by the need to retain the site’s significant trees. This has resulted in a reduced separation between the buildings, and whilst the separation between Building A and B does not comply with the numeric requirement set out in the Design Criteria at certain levels, the architectural composition and alignment of the buildings in relation to each other has been carefully considered to maximise outlook whilst providing privacy between the buildings to satisfy Objective 3F-1 as follows:

The proposed development has ensured that apartments are offset, with views oriented to the east and west from the balconies away from bedrooms and living rooms of the apartments in the opposite building.

Sightlines from the balconies have been obstructed by architectural elements such as fixed privacy blades and building composition to provide privacy.

The balconies have been oriented towards available views, with measures taken accordingly to limit overlooking (see Figures 23 and 24). The fixed privacy blades on both buildings together with an orientation that minimises direct overlooking and overlapping view lines will ensure that privacy is maintained. The design has the effect of ‘channelling’ sightlines to mitigate cross viewing into the private open space of the opposing apartment. Figure 25 shows the complying separation from above Level 18, which has been achieved by stepping back the upper levels of the buildings.

Figure 23 – Separation between Building A and Building B at Levels 1 – 9 demonstrating the orientation of apartments in order to mitigate cross-views Source: SJB


JBA 16128 43

Figure 24 – Separation between Building A and Building B at Levels 10 - 17 demonstrating the orientation of apartments in order to mitigate cross-views Source: SJB

Figure 25 – Complying separation between Building A and Building B from Level 18 Source: SJB

4.4.2 Lift Capacity The ADG recommends that for buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is limited to 40. The development provides two lifts per building, equating to a ratio of lifts to apartments of 1:68 in Building A and 1:81 in Building B. Whilst the proposal seeks to vary the recommended ratio, as detailed in the Lift Traffic Analysis prepared by Wood and Grieve Engineers at Appendix R and Figure 26, the lift service has been designed to meet the requirements for mid-tier owner occupier development in terms of intervals, waiting times and speed. With this in mind, the proposal will achieve the intent of Objective 4F-1 of the ADG.


44 JBA 16128

Figure 26 – Lift traffic analysis results Source: Wood and Grieve Engineers

4.5 Transport and Accessibility A Traffic and Parking Assessment has been prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants and is attached at Appendix J. The Assessment details the parking requirements and traffic impacts of the development, and discusses the access and internal design arrangements. The conclusions of the Traffic and Parking Assessment are summarised below.

4.5.1 Traffic Generation An indication of the traffic generating potential of the proposed development is provided by reference to the Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating Development and Technical Direction 13/04. Due to the development comprising more than 20 units, the development is considered a high density residential development, and therefore the technical direction adopted provides traffic generation based on trips per unit, as follows:

High density residential apartment buildings:

– Morning peak hour: 0.19 trips per unit; and

– Evening peak hour: 0.15 trips per unit. Application of the above traffic generation rates to the 297 apartments proposed yields a maximum traffic generation potential of 56 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour period and 45 vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour period. As outlined in the Traffic and Parking Assessment, it is likely that the proposed development will result in an increase in the traffic generation potential of the site of 44 vehicle trips per hour. In order to confirm the post development operation of the intersections, an assessment has been undertaken using SIDRA Intersection modelling software. The software presents a range of performance indicators (Level of Service, Average Delay etc.) for the proposed left-in / left-out intersection onto Herring Road in combination with the existing Herring Road / Epping Road signalised intersection, the Ivanhoe Place / Herring Road roundabout and the Herring Road / Waterloo Road signalised intersection.


JBA 16128 45

For traffic modelling purposes, the traffic generation for the development has been adopted with an 80% (out) / 20% (in) movement split in the AM peak and vice versa in the PM peak. The SIDRA outputs indicate that the signalised intersection of Herring Road and Epping Road will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, the roundabout at Herring Road and Ivanhoe Place, and the intersection of Herring Road and Waterloo Road, has the capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development (assuming no vehicles perform U-turns at the roundabout). As a result, the development does not require any upgrades to the existing intersections.

4.5.2 Car Parking The proposed development provides a total of 275 car parking spaces, in accordance with the requirements set out in Part 4.5 of Ryde DCP. The car parking rates and number of spaces provided for the proposed development are outlined in Table 7 below.

Table 7 – Proposed parking provision

Component Quantity Applicable Rate Max. Permissible Spaces

Proposed Parking Provisions

1 bedroom units 88 0.6 space per unit 52.8



Subtotal (Residential)* 245 (244.4) 245

Visitor Parking 297 units 1 space per 10 units 30 (29.7) 30

Total Residential Parking Provision 275

Car wash Bay 1 1

Car Share 1 space per 50 residential spaces

5 2

*Includes 30 accessible parking spaces (i.e. 10% of the total parking provision)

Car Share

Ryde Council strongly encourages the use of car share within new developments. The DCP outlines that, in addition to the maximum parking permitted for the development, developments are to be provided with a maximum of one (1) car space per 50 car spaces for the use of a car share scheme. Application of this rate would require five (5) car spare spaces for the proposed development (based on the provision of 245 parking spaces for residential users). However, in discussion with GoGet, it has been determined that two (2) car share spaces are sufficient for the proposed development. As outlined in the letter from GoGet at Appendix S, there are 56 members within 250m of the site and only one (1) car share pod. GoGet’s experience has shown that it is desirable to provide one car share vehicle for every 20 units without parking. On this basis, it is considered that two (2) car share vehicles would be appropriate for this development.

4.5.3 Bicycle Parking The DCP requires 10% of car spaces to be provided for visitor bicycle parking. As outlined above, the development will provide 275 parking spaces for residents and visitors (excluding spaces associated with the car share and wash bay). The proposed development therefore requires 28 bicycle spaces. The proposal accommodates 30 bicycle spaces which exceeds the minimum requirements of the DCP.


46 JBA 16128

The visitor bicycle parking spaces are provided within the basement and in front of the entry to Building A, with access provided via lifts which are readily accessible to residents and visitors. In addition, resident bicycle parking is provided in the basement storage cages. The basement storage complies with Class 1 bicycle storage requirements.

4.5.4 Service Vehicles In accordance with Section 3.1 of Part 2 of the DCP, on-site loading and unloading facilities are required for all new developments. The proposed development incorporates a loading dock at ground level, with a turntable which will allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The loading dock area is capable of accommodating Council’s waste collection vehicles and other trucks up to 11m in length. Given that the development consists of residential uses only, the provision of one loading dock is considered appropriate.

4.5.5 Access and Sight Distances Parking and Traffic Consultants have reviewed the proposed development against the relevant standards and have confirmed that the proposed access driveway, sight lines, internal circulation and parking arrangements comply with the development standards contained in AS 2890.1.

4.6 Water Cycle Management The proposed stormwater system is described at Section 4.6. The proposed system will ensure that stormwater quality and quantity is maintained.

4.6.1 Water Quality Ryde DCP 2014 requires water sensitive urban design (WSUD) measures to be implemented on sites greater than 1,500m2. A water quality assessment was undertaken using the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) software program. To achieve Council’s water quality requirements, the proposed development incorporates a bioswale, Stormwater 360 Enviropods and a gross pollutant trap. The water quality targets established by DCP 2014, and the MUSIC modelling results, are outlined in Table 8 below. The modelling demonstrates that the proposal will exceed the WSUD stormwater quality performance targets.

Table 8 – WSUD stormwater quality performance targets

Pollutant % Post Development Average Annual Load Reduction – Requirement

% Post Development Average Annual Load Reduction - Results

Gross Pollutants 90% 100%

Total Suspended Solids 85% 93.3%

Total Phosphorus 60% 67.3%

Total Nitrogen 45% 45.1%

4.6.2 Water Quantity Ryde DCP 2014 requires OSD to be designed to ensure that stormwater runoff post-development does not exceed the peak stormwater discharge occurring during the 5 year ARI pre-development storm. DRAINS modelling was undertaken based on pre and post-development catchment areas. Based on the modelling undertaken, an OSD tank volume of 120m3 with an orifice size of 298mm was chosen to restrict these flows.


JBA 16128 47

The DRAINS modelling results are outlined in Table 9, and demonstrate that with the proposed OSD, the post development stormwater discharge will be within the 5 year ARI pre-development storm.

Table 9 – Pre and post development flor calculated for DRAINS

Pre Development Post Development without OSD

Post Development with OSD

5 Year ARI Flows (m3/s) 172 184 106

100 Year ARI Flows (m3/s) 300 308 169

4.7 Waste Management A Waste Management Plan has been prepared for the site by Elephant’s Foot Waste Compactors Pty Ltd in accordance with Council’s waste management principles (refer to Appendix Q). The Plan seeks to reduce waste generation where possible, and encourage recycling through appropriate storage and collection facilities for waste, and quality design of waste facilities.

4.7.1 Demolition and Construction Waste A Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan has been prepared by China Overseas Sydney Pty Limited (refer to Appendix T). Together with the Demolition Work Method Plan at Appendix AA, these documents outline the quantities of waste that will be generated during demolition and construction, and how waste will be minimised. A detailed waste management plan outlining how demolition and construction waste will be managed will be developed by the head contractor, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

4.7.2 Operational Waste The City of Ryde Council’s DCP and Waste Management Strategy provide the requirements of all waste facilities for new developments. The Waste Management Plan determines that the proposed garbage provision is sufficient for the proposed development, and outlines measures to implement the suitable collection and disposal of garbage from the site.

4.8 Geotechnical and Groundwater A Geotechnical Investigation Assessment has been prepared by Douglas Partners, and provided at Appendix F. This report provides preliminary information on the subsurface conditions on the site based on the drilling of eight boreholes, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. With respect to groundwater, Douglas Partners note that groundwater was encountered below the top of rock, and it is anticipated that the groundwater ingress into the excavation will generally occur as seepage along the soil-rock interface and through joints and bedding planes in the rock, especially after wet weather. However, during excavation of the deep basement (5 levels) immediately across Herring Road, there was no noticeable groundwater inflow from the sides or base of the excavation during construction. Water encountered during construction was generally due to rain. Conditions are expected to be similar for the proposed basement excavation. Therefore, dewatering the site to construct the proposed basement is not anticipated for the site.


48 JBA 16128

Subject to the satisfaction of the recommendations listed in each relevant section of the report, the report finds that the proposed development is acceptable for construction without any adverse impacts on the surrounding stability.

4.9 Contamination A Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination report has been undertaken by Douglas Partners and the findings are provided at Appendix M. The report finds that further detailed investigation / assessment of potential contamination in soil is not necessary and that the site is suitable for the proposed residential use.

4.10 Tree Removal An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been prepared by Tree iQ (Appendix G) to assess the impact of the proposed development on the existing trees on the site and, where appropriate, recommend the use of sensitive construction methods to minimise adverse impacts on the trees. Tree iQ has surveyed the 103 trees on and adjacent to the site. The Assessment details the retention value of all trees assessed based on the trees’ useful life expectancy and landscape significance. Of the 103 trees assessed:

None of the trees are listed on Council’s Significant Tree Register.

One (1) tree is an Exempt Tree Species under Ryde DCP.

Three (3) trees are dead.

54 trees will need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed development. As indicated in the Assessment:

– two (2) of these trees are identified as being ‘priority for retention’;

– 27 of these trees are identified as being ‘consider for retention’;

– 24 of these trees are identified as being ‘consider for removal’; and

– one (1) of these trees is identified as being ‘priority for removal’.

45 trees are proposed to be retained and protected. As indicated in the Assessment:

– 15 of these trees are identified as being ‘priority for retention’;

– 16 of these trees are identified as being ‘consider for retention’;

– seven (7) of these trees are identified as being ‘consider for removal’; and

– seven (7) of these trees is identified as being ‘priority for removal’.

A plan illustrating the proposed tree removal and tree retention is provided at Figure 27. The trees consist of a mix of locally indigenous species, Australian natives and exotic species. As discussed in detail at Section 4.11, the Assessment notes that the site contains species that are represented in the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) ecological community. The Assessment goes on to detail the trees that will be subject to minor and major TPZ encroachments as defined by AS-4970, as well as those trees that require pruning works to provide clearance for new buildings. Based on the results of the root mapping, and the extent and nature of the TPZ encroachments proposed, Tree iQ concludes that the works are unlikely to significantly impact the health or structural condition of the affected trees with the implementation of appropriate tree protection measures. The Assessment also provides recommendations to ensure that the required pruning works do not permanently damage the trees.


JBA 16128 49

Figure 27 – Tree retention and removal plan Source: SJB

4.11 Flora and Fauna A Flora and Fauna Assessment Report has been prepared by Lesryk Environmental (Appendix U) to consider the ecological significance of species currently present on the site. To inform the current assessment, Lesryk conducted a Constraints Analysis Report in July 2016. The analysis identified those vegetation communities and threatened species that were present, or could potentially occur within, adjacent to or surrounding the study area. The constraints analysis identified the presence of STIF within the study area. Whilst this ecological community is listed as critically endangered and endangered under the EPBC and TSC Acts respectively, the example of STIF within the study area was not considered to conform to the Commonwealth listing. Further assessment of the site’s ecological significance is provided below.

4.11.1 Flora Assessment A review of relevant databases shows a total of 36 threatened plant species listed under the EPBC Act and / or the Schedules of the TSC Act that have previously been recorded, or are considered to have habitat, in the study region. Vegetation mapping undertaken in the locality differs, however mapping undertaken by the Office of Environment and Heritage (2013), Oculus Environmental Planning (2001) and Ecological Australia (2016) all indicate the presence of STIF on and surrounding the site.


50 JBA 16128

A field survey was undertaken by Lesryk to identify any plants, animals, fauna habitats or vegetation communities that are of regional, State and / or national conservation significance as listed under the Schedules to the EPBC and / or TSC Acts. By the completion of the flora survey, 48 native and exotic plants had been recorded.

Threatened Species

Of those plants recorded, it is noted that one, Magenta Lilly Pilly (Syzygium

paniculatum), is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and endangered under the TSC Act. This species would have been planted as it does not occur naturally within the area and its habitat requirements do not occur within the subject site. The Magenta Lilly Pilly grows in subtropical and littoral rainforest on sandy soils or stabilised dunes near the sea. As such, no assessments under the EPBC Act’s Significant Impact Guidelines or Part 1, Section 5A of the EPA Act have been undertaken. None of the plants recorded on the site are of regional conservation significance and none are listed as rare or threatened Australian plant species. Whilst their presence was considered, none of the threatened flora species previously recorded in the study region were recorded within, or close to, the study area. Similarly, no suitable habitat for any of these species is present.

Vegetation Communities

The study area is highly disturbed and modified. Apart from isolated remnant native trees, the entire site has been cleared for previous development. The native trees present generally occur as linear stands along the boundaries of the property and include Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna), Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis), Swamp She-Oak (Casuarina glauca) and Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) that reach a height of 25 m. Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus) has also been planted in association with the Blackbutts that occur in the south of the property. No intact understorey or groundcover layers are present. The groundcover consists predominantly of introduced grasses, herbs and forbs, such as Panic Veldt Grass (Ehrharta erecta), Carpet Grass (Axonopus fissifolius), Parramatta Grass (Sporobolus africanus), Cudweed (Gamochaeta sp.) and Cyperus sp. The vegetation present within the property consists mainly of isolated horticulturally selected landscaping plants (Evergreen Ash [Fraxinus griffithii], Snow in Summer [Melaleuca linarifolia] and Agapanthus [Agapanthus praecox

subsp. orientalis]) and weeds (Privett [Ligustrum spp.]). Large non-endemic Tallowwoods (Eucalyptus microcorys) are also present.

Conservation Significance

Indicative species of the STIF endangered ecological community, which is listed under both the EPBC and TSC Acts, were recorded on, and adjacent to, the subject site. Figure 28 indicates the location of the STIF within the subject site, which is predominantly within the southern part of the property and along the northern and eastern fence lines. A more typical example of this community is present in the adjacent block to the south-east of the property where Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera) occurs. Ground truthing of the subject site identified less STIF than what is indicated on previous vegetation mapping undertaken within the locality. With reference to the conservation advice provided for the STIF under the EPBC Act, it is unlikely that the presence of this community at the subject site would conform to the Commonwealth listing given that:


JBA 16128 51

it is not a high quality remnant patch with native plant species characteristic of STIF present in all structural layers;

the patch size is less than 1 ha in size; and

the native midstorey / understorey trees are absent.

Whilst the STIF does not meet the above criteria to class it as endangered under the EPBC Act, the community still has conservation value as biodiversity reservoirs and faunal corridors. Further, the STIF would meet the relevant criteria as provided in its determination for listing under the TSC Act. To consider the impact that the proposed development may have on this endangered ecological community, an assessment referring to the criteria provided under Part 1, Section 5A of the EPA Act (i.e. a Seven Part Test) has been undertaken. The Seven Part Test concludes that whilst the proposed works would require the removal of four (4) trees that are characteristic of STIF, the works represent a minimal reduction to this endangered ecological community and the impact is not considered significant. In summary, whilst listed under the EPBC Act, the occurrence of STIF on the site does not conform to the definitions provided under this piece of legislation. As such, referral of the matter to the Federal Minister for the Environment and Energy is not required. Notwithstanding this, the STIF present within and adjacent to the site would conform to the listing provided for this endangered ecological community under the TSC Act. As such, a Seven Part Test was undertaken to consider the impact that the proposed development may have on this ecological community. The Seven Part Test concluded that the proposal would not have a significant impact on this endangered ecological community and therefore, a Species Impact Statement is not required. Given that the Magenta Lilly Pilly is considered to have been planted and no natural habitat for the species is present within or close to the subject site, no legislative assessments were carried out in relation to this plant.

Figure 28 – The location of the STIF within, and close to, the subject site Source: Lesryk Environmental


52 JBA 16128

4.11.2 Fauna Assessment A review of the relevant databases shows 52 fauna species listed under the EPBC and / or TSC Acts that have been previously recorded, or are considered to have habitat, in the study region. Based on a consideration of the habitat needs of these threatened species, combined with the identification of those habitats present within the study area, there is the potential for some of these animals to occur within, or in the vicinity of, the subject site. As such, targeted surveys for these species, or their necessary habitats, were undertaken as part of the field investigation. It is acknowledged that some of the threatened fauna species previously recorded in the study region may fly over or use the study area on occasion (e.g. Grey-headed Flying Fox [Pteropus poliocephalus]). Whilst this is the case, none of these animals would be considered to rely solely on the resources provided by the subject site such that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the local populations of these species, or their habitats. As would be expected for a highly disturbed and modified site, few native species were recorded. All of the native species recorded are protected as defined by the NPW Act, but are considered urban tolerant and common to abundant species throughout their distribution ranges. None are considered to be of regional conservation significance. Due to their tolerance of urban environments, and as both retention of habitat and landscaping works are to be undertaken, post-development these species would continue to be recorded within, and in the vicinity of, the subject site. Further, no Federally or State listed species would be reliant upon, or affected by the development of the subject site. No resources important to the local occurrence of these animals were recorded within, or close to, the subject site. No assessments referring to the criteria provided under the EPBC Act’s Significant Impact Guidelines or Part 1, Section 5A of the EPA Act have been undertaken in regard to threatened fauna.

4.11.3 Recommendations Lesryk has made the following recommendations to support the proposed development:

In accordance with the regulations set out under the NW Act, those weeds identified as noxious on site, should be subject to any biological control or other control program directed by the Local Control Authority to result in the suppression of these species.

Newly exposed surfaces should be stabilised as soon as possible in order to reduce the potential for soil erosion. This should be done through the planting of native species endemic to the study area.

The trees to be retained should be protected through the erection of temporary fencing or other suitable methods detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Tree IQ 2017).

4.11.4 Conclusion Lesryk concludes that there are no ecological constraints to the proposed development proceeding as planned.


JBA 16128 53

4.12 Wind Impact A Pedestrian Wind Environment Wind Tunnel Report has been prepared by Windtech (Appendix O). The Report addresses the likely wind conditions affecting the various trafficable outdoor areas within and surrounding the subject development. The strongest and most frequent winds in the Sydney Region come from the south, with secondary winds coming from the west during winter and the north-east during summer. Testing of the proposed development indicates that certain areas will be susceptible to adverse wind effects. This is largely due to the height of the proposed development with respect to the neighbouring buildings, and the orientation of the proposed development with respect to the prevailing winds. For the test point locations along the Herring Road frontage of the development, these points were found to exceed criteria as a result of direct westerly winds being funnelled between the proposed development and the Macquarie Park Village development on the opposite site of Herring Road. However, it should be noted that testing of these points was also conducted for the existing site scenario, which were also found to exceed criteria by a similar margin. The same is also true for the test point locations closer to the Epping Road corner, which indicated a greater sensitivity to the direct southerly winds. A number of points within the ground level open space between the two buildings were also found to exceed the relevant criteria, as a result of prevailing winds funnelling between the two buildings. Points in this central region also showed sensitivity to the incident southerly winds, due to the north-south orientation of this outdoor space. Finally, testing of the breezeway corridors throughout Buildings A and B indicated that these pedestrian corridors would be susceptible to pressure-driven flows, as they share a common orientation with the prevailing southerly winds. To address these potential adverse wind effects, Windtech has made the following recommendations:

Inclusion of the proposed landscaping and tree planting along the ground and level 1 areas within and around the site, as detailed in the Architectural and Landscape Plans.

Retention of existing densely foliating tree planting, particularly at the Epping Road corner of the site, as proposed.

Inclusion of a standard-height impermeable balustrade at both ends of the breezeway corridors throughout Buildings A and B, for Levels 2 - 23

The recommendations have been incorporated into the Architectural Drawings at Appendix A and Landscape Plans at Appendix H to ensure wind impacts are mitigated.

4.13 Acoustic Impacts An Acoustic Report has been prepared by Wood and Grieve Engineers to assess noise emissions from the proposed development, as well as noise intrusion from vehicle movements along Epping and Herring Roads (refer to Appendix P).

4.13.1 Noise Criteria and Guidelines The Acoustic Report assesses the proposal against the following relevant criteria and guidelines:

City of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014;


54 JBA 16128

Department of Planning (DoP) – Development Near Rail Corridors and Buys Roads – Interim Guideline;

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007;

AS/NZS 2107:2000 – Acoustics – Recommended Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors; and

NSW OEH Industrial Noise Policy.

Based on the above, Wood and Grieve Engineers have adopted Noise Criteria for the proposed development, as outlined at Section 5 of the Acoustic Report. An assessment of the proposal against the relevant criteria is provided below.

4.13.2 Noise Impact Assessment

External Glazing

In terms of noise attenuation, the general limiting factor of the performance of a building’s façade is the glazing. In the case of the proposed development, traffic noise on Epping and Herring Roads places the most acoustic demand on the development facades. In order to achieve the internal noise levels specified in the Department’s Interim Guideline, Wood and Grieve Engineers have outlined the minimum recommended glazing selection for the façades. During the detailed design stage of the project, the acoustic performance of the glazing should be reviewed as the combined noise from external sources and mechanical services could result in the internal noise level exceeding the design sound level. Provided the glazing to the facade is installed in accordance with the details in the Acoustic Report, the internal noise levels are expected to comply with the requirements of the Interim Guideline.

Alternative Means of Ventilation

An open windows assessment has been conducted in order to assess whether the habitable spaces can meet the internal noise level requirements of the Department’s Interim Guideline with windows open for natural ventilation. If there is an exceedance of the internal noise level criteria with the windows open, alternative means of ventilation is required in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code (i.e. mechanical ventilation or air conditioning system complying with AS 1668.2 and AS/NZS 3666.1). An assessment has been conducted using software SoundPLAN to model the open windows scenario. The Acoustic Report details the facades / apartments where alternative means of ventilation is required in order to meet the internal noise requirements.

External Noise Emissions

Noise sources from general operations at the site typically include mechanical services noise from air-conditioning equipment, supply and exhaust fans etc. servicing the residential units and car parks. The main mechanical sources associated with the development will include:

Carpark supply fan (CPSF) and carpark exhaust fan (CPEF) located in basement 1, with intake and exhaust on the façade;

2 x lobby relief fans (LRF) on the rooftop;

2 x stair pressurisation fans (SPF) on the rooftop; and

Condenser units located on the balconies.


JBA 16128 55

These noise sources have been used to predict the worst case scenario noise impact to the surrounding residential receivers. An acoustic assessment for the ground level loading dock has been conducted to determine the noise levels to the nearest residential receiver in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy during the day time only. The loading dock activities and waste collection will take place at the ground level loading dock area with access from Herring Road. The loading dock incorporates a turntable for collection vehicles with a roller door access on the north side. The roller door has been assessed including the perforations for ventilation purposes. Based on this assessment and the implementation of the acoustic mitigation measures as detailed below, the loading dock activities are predicted to comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy noise limits at the surrounding residential receivers during the daytime. Finally, noise relating to the carpark has been assessed to the residential receivers based on the predicted number of cars in the worst case 15-minute period. The predicted number of vehicles during peak hours was based on the information contained in the traffic report. Noise from vehicles entering and exiting the carpark has been assessed to the residential receivers to the east. A sound power level of 88dB(A) was used for the vehicles based on previous measurements conducted by Wood and Grieve Engineers. Based on this assessment and the implementation of the acoustic mitigation measures detailed below, the car park noise is expected to comply with the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy at the most affected receiver.

4.13.3 Recommendations and Mitigation Measures The following acoustic mitigation measures are required for the loading dock in order to achieve compliance to the nearest most affected receiver:

The loading dock is to be fully enclosed with no openings aside from the perforated metal roller door for ventilation. The roller door is to remain closed during operation within the loading dock.

The walls of the loading dock are to be constructed from a material with a sound insulation rating of Rw45

The following acoustic mitigation measures are required for the car park in order to achieve compliance to the nearest most affected receiver:

Install a 2m high acoustic barrier for vehicles using the access ramp. The 2m minimum height is to be taken from the RL of the slab / ramp to the extent where indicated in Figure 29 below. The Rw rating of the barrier shall be no less than Rw 35 and be free of any air gaps or penetrations. The wall is shown indicatively on the Architectural Drawings at Appendix A, however is subject to coordination during detailed design.

With the incorporation of the above recommendations, Wood and Grieve Engineers have confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable on acoustic grounds.


56 JBA 16128

Figure 29 – Ground level acoustic barrier Source: Wood and Grieve Engineers

4.14 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Assessment has been conducted by JBA and is included at Appendix V. The Assessment identified that the proposed development is likely to provide for a safer environment for residents and visitors however, the assessment includes a number of recommendations to further improve the safety and security of the development, as outlined below:

Provide areas of effective natural surveillance with clear sight lines between public and private places, effective lighting of communal and public areas surrounding the development.

Lighting be provided around the proposed development, with a focus on main residential entrance, raised lawn area, communal pathways, communal vehicular access/egress point into the basement.

Provide 1.8m high fences with security gates at two appropriate points in order to restrict public access to the rear landscaped area that is located along the south-eastern and north-eastern boundaries of the site.

Ongoing maintenance of the building and landscaped areas to balance safety and aesthetics of the development.

Individual apartments are fitted out with locks to windows and balcony doors and doors should be lockable from both outside and inside.

Use high quality materials for construction to lessen the likelihood of damage and help to reduce maintenance costs.

4.15 Demolition and Construction Impacts Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be developed for the site. The CMP will be based on the following principles relating to construction traffic and water quality.

4.15.1 Demolition Impacts Demolition will be carried out in accordance with the Demolition Work Method Plan prepared by Metropolitan Developments Pty Ltd (refer to Appendix AA). The Plan has been prepared in accordance with Work Health and Safety Regulations


JBA 16128 57

2011 and Australian Standard 2601-2011. Implementation of the Plan will ensure that demolition, including removal of any hazardous materials, will be managed to avoid any adverse impacts on surrounding receivers.

4.15.2 Construction Traffic A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan will be development in consultation with the head contractor, and will provide details relating to construction vehicle access to the site, truck routes and working hours. However, in response to Council’s comments that construction vehicles will not be permitted to stop within the Herring or Epping Road frontages, Parking and Traffic Consultants have confirmed that all demolition, excavation and construction activities will be contained within the site. Arrangements for parking, manoeuvring and materials handling will be presented in the detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan, however it is proposed that access will be limited to existing driveway on Herring Road.

4.15.3 Water Quality During the construction phase, an erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented to prevent sediment laden stormwater from entering the drainage network. Stormwater controls on site will be detailed in an erosion and sediment control plan, generally in accordance with the Blue Book. As detailed in the preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix W) measures will include:

Upstream clean water diversion;

Silt fences;

Sediment basins;

Dust control; and

Vehicle wash down areas.

4.16 BCA, Accessibility and Fire Safety

BCA

A BCA Report prepared by Philip Chun Building Compliance is provided at Appendix X and confirms that the proposed development is capable of achieving compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and other relevant codes and standards.

Accessibility

An Accessibility Review Report has been prepared by ABE Consulting and is attached at Appendix Y. The Report provides a review of the relevant documentation to determine the compliance status of the proposal against Part D3, Clause F2.4 and Clause E3.6 ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ requirements of the BCA and Australian Standards. The Report has also provided an assessment of the proposed adaptable housing units against the AS4299-1995-Class A and includes an assessment of the proposed liveable housing units against the Liveable Housing Guidelines – Silver Level. ABE Consulting concludes that the development can provide appropriate accessibility requirements with minor design amendments incorporating the recommendations of the Report at detailed design stage.


58 JBA 16128

Fire Safety

Wood and Grieve Engineers have undertaken a fire engineering review of the proposed design (Appendix Z) and conclude that the proposal is capable of complying with the performance requirements of the BCA without significant changes to the design.

4.17 Site Suitability and Public Interest The proposed development involves the construction of two residential apartment buildings to benefit the existing and future local community of Macquarie Park. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposal, and is in the public interest for the following reasons:

It is consistent with the urban renewal and urban consolidation objectives of A Plan for Growing Sydney and the Draft North District Plan, providing a significant quantity of new housing on a disused site, in close proximity to transport, employment and services.

It is consistent with the development standards established in Ryde LEP 2014 and will deliver on the vision of creating a gateway into the Herring Road Precinct.

It has been designed to retain as many of the site’s significant trees as possible, whilst delivering a development which offers a high level of amenity for future residents.

The site is not unreasonably constrained by any planning or environmental factors which would prevent the development of the site. Where environmental impacts may arise, they are able to be appropriately managed.

The development will meet contemporary standards of environmental performance, particularly with regard to building materials, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste management, thereby improving on the current inefficient building stock.


JBA 16128 59

5.0 Conclusion This SEE has been prepared to consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed residential development at 137-143 Herring Road, Macquarie Park. The proposed development is permissible with consent in the B4 Mixed Use zone under the Ryde LEP 2014, and results in a suitable design outcome that balances the site’s environmental constraints, whilst delivering a viable development outcome that is consistent with the site’s gateway location. The proposal seeks consent for the following:






This SEE has considered the key issues pertaining to the proposal and it is concluded that:

The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of the Ryde LEP 2014 and is consistent with the objectives of Ryde DCP 2014;

The proposal has responded to the constraints of the site by retaining as many of the site’s significant trees as possible;

The environmental impacts of the proposal on adjoining development, access and parking, tree removal, safety and security, stormwater and waste can be appropriately managed through the adoption of recommendations identified in this report; and

The site is suitable for the proposed development. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development will provide a significant social benefit to the local area. Accordingly, we recommend that Council recommend approval of the development to the Sydney North Planning Panel.

137-143 herring road, macquarie park proposed residential … · 2017-04-05 · 137-143 herring...

Documents