690 - statement of environmental effects

Daintry Associates Pty Ltd Page i of ii

Statement of Environmental Effects

Project: No.690

The Site: APT 26 / 59 - 65, GERRALE ST CRONULLA SYDNEY NSW 2230

Lot: 26 (Level 7) SP 60523

Date: 2 October 2019

Daintry Associates Pty Ltd Page ii of ii

Table of Contents

1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Impacts of the development ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Shadows .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Urban Form ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Impact Identification ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Director Generals Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 The Site & Existing Context ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3 The Proposal ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Site works .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Demolition ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.3 Archaeological excavation ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Geotechnical and remediation works ....................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Resource recovery and disposal of demolition and excavation waste ................................................. 10 3.6 Building work .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.7 Commissioning ............................................................................................................................................... 10 3.8 Stratum Subdivision ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3.9 Strata Subdivision ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.10 Community Title Subdivision ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.11 Occupation and initial use ........................................................................................................................... 10

4 Coastal Management Act 2016 ......................................................................................................................... 11 5 Development Standards and Controls .............................................................................................................. 12

5.1 State Environmental Planning Policies ........................................................................................................ 12 5.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land ................................................ 12 5.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 5.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (Coastal SEPP) ...................... 14 5.1.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ............................ 14 5.1.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) .................................................... 15

5.2 Draft State Environmental Planning Policies ............................................................................................... 17 5.3 Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP) .............................................................................. 18

5.3.1 Permissibility ............................................................................................................................................. 18 5.3.2 Principal Development Standards ....................................................................................................... 19 5.3.3 Heritage ................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.3.4 Urban Design .......................................................................................................................................... 20

5.4 Draft LEP .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.5 Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 ..................................................................................... 21

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 24

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Sheet 9 SP60523 ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 – Locality Aerial ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 – LEP Heritage Map Extract ............................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4 - No.47-57 Gerrale Street, Cronulla (approved cross section) ................................................................... 7 Figure 5 - No.47-57 Gerrale Street, Cronulla (dormant site) ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 - No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 7 - Extract Plan DA5.05 ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8 - Coastal Management Act Map Extract .................................................................................................. 11 Figure 9 - Coastal Zone ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 10 - Road and Rail Noise Buffer Map 40 ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 11 - ePlanning Spatial - Zoning Layer (B3) ..................................................................................................... 18 Figure 12 - Council Strategy Map .............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 13 - No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla Beach Park Avenue - DCP Massing Controls ............... 22


Daintry Associates Pty Ltd Page 1 of 24

1 Purpose This Statement of Environmental Effects (“SEE”) has been prepared for submission with the development application (DA) as required by Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 2 (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 (“Regulation”) in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“Act”).

Schedule 1, Part 2(4) of the Regulation provides:

“A statement of environmental effects referred to in subclause (1) (c) must indicate the following matters:

a) the environmental impacts of the development,

b) how the environmental impacts of the development have been identified,

c) the steps to be taken to protect the environment or to lessen the expected harm to the environment,

d) any matters required to be indicated by any guidelines issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause.”

This SEE does not purport to be an assessment under section 4.15 of the Act and limits itself to the requirements of the Regulation. This SEE relies in good faith upon details provided by the architect and a range of consult experts as is necessary and reasonable subject to clause 283 of the Regulation.

1.1 Impacts of the development

The impacts are:

• Shadowing

• Urban Form

1.1.1 Shadows

The design of the roof above the additions is consistent with the existing skillion roofing above the existing balconies. The extent of additional shadowing is limit to a small additional shadow case to the SEE at the winter solstice upon Gerrale Street. Critically, the shadow diagrams demonstrate that there is no additional shadowing of Monro Park and this is addressed in more detail under clause 5.5 of this SEE and detailed by the Shadow diagrams.

1.1.2 Urban Form

On the basis that SEPP 65 does not apply as the test under clause 4(1)(a)(ii) of SEPP 65 correctly applied the extent of works is not considered “” we will still address the Schedule 1 Design quality principles as a summary of the urban form impacts. Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

The design responds and contributes to its context. The alterations and additions will not be visible from within close proximity of the site give they occur at the 8th storey of the building. Given the constrained views between building and established vegetation the additions will barely be visible. The design is consider contextually appropriate, well below HOB and FSR permissible under the LEP.

Principle 2: Built form and scale

The proposal is a good design that achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. The HOB and the FSR are generally a good



degerminator of what is the appropriate bulk and scale outcomes. The roads to the west, south and east and the design of the approved building to the north all contribute to good separation. There are no adverse public domain, character , views or vistas, impacts. The proposal provides internal amenity and outlook.

Principle 3: Density

The additions do not increase the density or the intensity of the existing use as there is no proposed change to the number of bedrooms.

Principle 4: Sustainability

The proposal is supported by a BASIX Certificate making the required commitments under SEPP BASIX..

Principle 5: Landscape

There is no change to the landscape outcomes. There is no opportunity to make any further improvements.

Principle 6: Amenity

The design, dimensions and shapes of room provide access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space and efficient layouts.

Principle 7: Safety

The apartments and the apartment subject to this proposal meet relevant CPTED requirements in terms of save and secure access. There is no change proposed to the method of access or security.

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

There is no proposed change to the number of bedrooms.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The design has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. The design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

1.2 Impact Identification

The environmental impacts have been identified by reference to:

• The Applicant’s bundle of plans and supporting documents:



• NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Legislation Webpage including:

o Act

o Regulation

o SEPPs

o LEP

• Sutherland Shore Council’s Webpage:

o Development Control Plan

o Planning Proposals

• NSW Department of Planning’s webpages including:

o ePlanning Spatial Viewer

o Draft Plans and Polices

• Detailed site inspection

• Analysis of the context and urban morphology

• All relevant EPI and critically Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP) noting:

o Zoned B3 – Commercial Core

o HOB 30m

o FSR3:1

o No heritage item or HCA in immediate vicinity

o Class 5 Potential Acid Sulphate Soils – excavation into sandstone no ground water or perched water table likely.

o Low Archaeological Sensitivity - used and disturbed land with dwelling to be demolished

o No Bushfire Risk

o Not within Greenweb

o No EEC or mapped Vegetation Communities

o Not in the Coastal Zone (SEPP 71)

• The Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP2015) was approved by the Sydney South Planning Panel on 25 July 2017. The SSDCP2015 came into effect on 2 August 2017. SDCP2015 provides more detailed provisions with respect to carrying out development permissible under Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP2015). Not all parts of the DCP are relevant. The following parts are considered relevant to this proposal:

o Chapter 1 Introduction

o Chapter 19 B3 Commercial Core Cronulla

o Chapter 36 Vehicular Access, Traffic, Parking and Bicycles



o Road and Rail Noise Buffer Map

• State Environmental Planning Polices apply to the land but most are not relevant to the proposal. The following policies are considered relevant to the proposal:

o SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

o SEPP (Concurrences) 2018

o SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

o SEPP No 55—Remediation of Land

o SEPP No 64—Advertising and Signage

o SEPP No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

• Planning Principles:

o Aesthetics - Architects Marshall v Lake Macquarie City Council [2005] NSWLEC 78 at 38-42

o DCPs and Council policies - Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472 at 86-88 and 89-93; revised - 01/10/2004

o General impact - Davies v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1141 at [116] to [121]

o Privacy – Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 at 45-46 and Super Studio v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 91 at 5-7

o View Sharing - Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 at 25-29

o Sunlight - The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 at 133-144

1.3 Mitigation

The steps to be taken to protect the environment or to lessen the expected harm to the environment include:

• The building has been designed to meet the objectives and principal development standards under the LEP and meet the SEPP 65 objectives despite the extent of work not triggering SEPP 65

• The HOB outcome will result in a roof level that is demonstrably lower than the maximum HOB permitted under the LEP.

• The GFA has achieved an FSR outcome 953.6m2 below the 3:1 maximum FSR.

• There is no change to the existing deep soil landscape areas.

• There are no adverse streetscape or adverse amenity outcome externalised from the development.

1.4 Director Generals Guidelines

The Director General has not gazetted and guidelines under Schedule 1, Part 2(4)(d) of the Regulation. The format of this SEE and relevant content follows DoPI draft guidelines (un-published).



2 The Site & Existing Context The site is Apartment 26 / 59 - 65, GERRALE ST CRONULLA SYDNEY NSW 2230 (Lot: 26 (Level 7) SP 60523.

The site is surround to its east, south and west by public roads. Beach Park Avenue is closed to vehicular traffic. (Figure 2). To the north is the approved “Wavelength” development (Figure 4 & Figure 5).

Figure 1 - Sheet 9 SP60523

The site is the penthouse located on Level 7 of the western wing of what is known as the “Peninsula”, a mixed use commercial and residential apartment building (Figure 2). Peninsula has a frontage of 24.14m to Gerrale Street with restaurant uses occupying the ground floor and two level of apartments above.

The rear wing has a frontage of 24.165m to Surf Lane has a commercial office occupying level 1 upper ground floor (facing Beach Park Avenue)and 6 levels of residential apartments above, including the subject site at Level 7. Beach Park Avenue is partly activated by the office and restaurant uses at the ground and upper ground floor levels. The entry to both the eastern and western residential towers is from Beach Park Avenue.

South of the site from No.67 to No.93 Gerrale Street is an eclectic mix of residential apartment buildings with frontages to both Gerrale Street and Surf Lane. South West of the site is Monro Park. Monro Park is listed as a heritage item No.1013 (LEP Map 7150_COM_LZN_008A_010_20170301).

East of the site and east of Gerrale Street and South Cronulla Beach carparking is Cronulla Park, also listed as a heritage item No.1023 and associated items No.1055, 1052. North of the site is an excavated and dormant development site subject to development consent granted to Iridium Developments Pty Ltd - DA17/0885 - 2017SSH028 DA (Figure 4 & Figure 5). West of the site is a consolidated site No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla (Lot 1 to Lot 4 in DP 18461) (Figure 6).



Figure 2 – Locality Aerial

Figure 3 – LEP Heritage Map Extract



Figure 4 - No.47-57 Gerrale Street, Cronulla (approved cross section)

Note: The building shown in Figure 4 above is 59 - 65, GERRALE ST CRONULLA. The approved “Wavelength” building is a mixed use development containing ground floor commercial units and 67 residential units with 4 rooftop swimming pools and a podium level pool. The approved and more than minimally commenced Wavelength building occasions a 5.2% exceedance of the 30m HOB.



Figure 5 - No.47-57 Gerrale Street, Cronulla (dormant site)

Figure 6 - No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla



3 The Proposal The proposal is alterations and additions to Apartment 26 as detailed by the architectural plans drawn by Vic Lake Architects, Project Reference 150810. The works include demolition of north eastern external walls to enlarge the living area and dining room, demolition of south-eastern walls to create and Office, WIR, Spa, BBQ area and Loungeroom, minor internal modifications. The skillion roof above the existing balconies will be extended and replaced with the new works being well below the height of and subservient in bulk and scale to the existing curved roof. This is best demonstrated in Plan DA5.05 (Figure 7).

Figure 7 - Extract Plan DA5.05

3.1 Site works

There are no site works as the proposed alterations and additions are located at Level 7 and Level 8 (Roof level)

3.2 Demolition

Consistent with clause 92 of the Regulation all demolition work will be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601—1991: The Demolition of Structures, published by Standards Australia, and as in force at 1 July 1993, by a Workcover NSW licenced contract. Such contractors are bound by their licence conditions and Workcover NSW OH&S laws and requirement to identify asbestos, lead and other potentially harmful waste and ensure that it's demolition, temporary storage and removal comply with current OH&S and environmental standards. Demolition must occurred in compliance with AS2601 as has been recently confirmed in K & M Prodanovski Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2013] NSWCA 202, this includes:

• investigate the site and structures for hazardous substances in line with clause 2.2 of AS2601- 2001,



• prepare a work plan pursuant to AS 2601-2001, and

• prepare a hazardous material survey.

Compliance with AS2601-1991 may form a relevant condition of the development consent.

3.3 Archaeological excavation

The site is not considered to have any archaeological significance. The existing site is highly modified. There is no trigger for the need for any excavation permit. If any archaeological relic is found during demolition, excavation or construction the applicant will cease work and obtain an excavation permit prior to the any works under Part 6 Division 9 of the Heritage Act 1977 before continuing.

3.4 Geotechnical and remediation works

There are no ground water issues and no geotechnical issues as the works are limited to Levels 7 & 8. Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and clause 98E of the Regulation satisfactorily address the law of support issues to protect adjoining land form damage. As there is no excavation there are no geotechnical issues.

3.5 Resource recovery and disposal of demolition and excavation waste

A DECC (EPA) licenced contractors will sort and dispose of waste by proper classification. VENM will be taken to landfill or recycled by the waste contractors at EP Licenced Facailities.

3.6 Building work

All building works will comply with the NCC-BCA as this is a prescribed consent condition. The design is capable of DTS or Performance compliance with the NCC-BCA.

3.7 Commissioning

The commission of all building services including all essential fire safety measures detailed by the Construction Certificate(s) will be subject to formal commissioning and certification by relevant professional engineers. The commissioning of all building services will be completed prior to the issue of any occupation certificate for each relevant part of the building.

3.8 Stratum Subdivision

No subdivision is proposed.

3.9 Strata Subdivision

Once the new boundaries of Lot 26 in SP 60523 are defined by building works not inconsistent with the approved building plans (construction certificate(s), a Strata Certificate will be issued by Council under Part 4, Division 2 or by an Accredited Certifier under Part 4, Division 3 of the Strat Schemed Development Act 2015 relying upon Part 6, Division 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008:

3.10 Community Title Subdivision

No subdivision is proposed.

3.11 Occupation and initial use

The occupation and use of the building will be in accordance with the development consent and relevant Occupation Certificate(s).



4 Coastal Management Act 2016 The Coastal Management Act 2016 replaces the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and establishes a new strategic framework and objectives for managing coastal issues in NSW.

We have reviewed the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 – maps published by NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Figure 8). We note that the site is not affected by and is not proximate to:

• Coastal wetlands,

• Littoral Rainforest

• Coastal Vulnerability (no map at this date)

• Coastal Environment

• Coastal Use

Figure 8 - Coastal Management Act Map Extract



5 Development Standards and Controls The relevant EPI development standards and DCP controls have been disclosed through research.

This Statement of Environmental Effects has not considered any amendments to EPI, Draft EPI or DCP post 21 July 2019. If necessary, subject to consideration of any savings and transitional provision the Applicant may be required to provide an addendum to the SEE addressing subsequent changes.

5.1 State Environmental Planning Policies

The following SEPPs as in force at 9 December 2015 are (or are not) relevant to the proposal (as distinct from relevant to the land):

5.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

SEPP 55 applies to the land and pursuant to section 79C is a relevant consideration for the Council.

Clause 7 of the SEPP 55 provides:

" (1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

(2) Before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

(3) The applicant for development consent must carry out the investigation required by subclause (2) and must provide a report on it to the consent authority. The consent authority may require the applicant to carry out, and provide a report on, a detailed investigation (as referred to in the contaminated land planning guidelines) if it considers that the findings of the preliminary investigation warrant such an investigation.

(4) The land concerned is:

(a) land that is within an investigation area,

(b) land on which development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines is being, or is known to have been, carried out,

(c) to the extent to which it is proposed to carry out development on it for residential, educational, recreational or child care purposes, or for the purposes of a hospital—land:

(i) in relation to which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge) as to whether development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines has been carried out, and

(ii) on which it would have been lawful to carry out such development during any period in respect of which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge)."



Contaminated land is land in, on or under which any substance is present at a concentration above that naturally present in, on or under the land and that poses, or is likely to pose, an immediate or long-term risk to human health or the environment.

Appendix A of the Managing Land Contamination, Planning Guidelines, SEPP 55–Remediation of Land, provides a list of land use activities, that through an investigation of "site history", if disclosed, would found reasonable ground to trigger the "site investigation process" entailing investigations beyond "preliminary investigation" of "site history".

There are not previous land uses that would trigger the need for any further investigations and Council may be reasonably satisfied that compliance has been achieved with clause 7 of the SEPP 55.

5.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Pursuant to clause 4 of SEPP 65 we consider that SEPP 65 does not apply to these modest alterations and additions as they are qualitatively and quantitatively not reasonably classified as “substantial”, ibid clause 4(1)(a)(ii).

(4) Application of Policy

(1) This Policy applies to development for the purpose of a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation component if:

(a) the development consists of any of the following:

(i) the erection of a new building,

(ii) the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building,

(iii) the conversion of an existing building, and

(b) the building concerned is at least 3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level (existing) or levels that are less than 1.2 metres above ground level (existing) that provide for car parking), and

(c) the building concerned contains at least 4 or more dwellings.

(2) If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

(3) To remove doubt, this Policy does not apply to a building that is a class 1a or 1b building within the meaning of the Building Code of Australia.

(4) Unless a local environmental plan states otherwise, this Policy does not apply to a boarding house or a serviced apartment to which that plan applies.

Quantitatively the extent of the alterations and additions are de minimise. Works are limited to one apartment. The existing GFA is 3319.8m2 the proposed GFA is 3385.6m2. The increase GFA is 65.8m2 which is less than 2% of the existing GFA. We also not that the maximum GFA is 4339.2m2 and the proposed total GFA is 3385.6m2. That is the proposed GFA remains 953.6m2 below the maximum FSR for this site. The alterations and additions will be barely visible from the public domain, will not result in any significant change to the bulk and scale of the existing apartments, will make positive implements to the internal amenity of Apartment 26. On this basis the proposal is not a substantial substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building. We nevertheless note that the proposal is subservient to the dominant circular balconies on the south west corner of the building and the curved higher roof form that will remain the most visible elements of the building.



5.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (Coastal SEPP)

The Coastal SEPP replaces SEPP 71 as it applied to the Sutherland Shire Council LGA (Schedule 1). The site was not within the mapped Coastal Zone (Figure 9 - Coastal Zone). We have address the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 2016 above. We reiterate that the site is not affected by and is not proximate to:

• Coastal wetlands,

• Littoral Rainforest

• Coastal Vulnerability (no map at this date)

• Coastal Environment

• Coastal Use

Figure 9 - Coastal Zone

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

This Policy applied to:

BASIX affected building having the same meaning as it has in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.



BASIX affected development having the same meaning as it has in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

The Regulation definitions are:

BASIX affected building means any building that contains one or more dwellings, but does not include a hotel or motel.

BASIX affected development means any of the following development that is not BASIX excluded development:

(a) development that involves the erection (but not the relocation) of a BASIX affected building,

(b) development that involves a change of building use by which a building becomes a BASIX affected building,

(c) development that involves the alteration, enlargement or extension of a BASIX affected building, where the estimated construction cost of the development is:

(i) $100,000 or more—in the case of development for which a development application or an application for a complying development certificate is made on or after 1 October 2006 and before 1 July 2007, or

(ii) $50,000 or more—in the case of development for which a development application or an application for a complying development certificate is made on or after 1 July 2007,

(d) development for the purpose of a swimming pool or spa, or combination of swimming pools and spas, that services or service only one dwelling and that has a capacity, or combined capacity, of 40,000 litres or more.

A BASIX Certificate (Certificate No. A351713_02 dated 8 August 2019) is attached to the DA and makes relevant commitments. Should there be any amendments to the design it is likely that this will have to be reviewed.

To the extent that any other EPI or DCP provision is a competing provision it is not a relevant consideration for Council’s assessment or for the JRPP’s determination of the DA. Competing provisions are noted in the relevant compliance tables.

The BASIX commitments (Certificate No. 692427M) achieve a Water Score of 46 and an Energy Score of 47. The Minimum is 40. The State average Energy Score is 40.7. The proposal is well above average in its sustainability outcomes.

5.1.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP)

Where available to the Applicant, Owner and Principal Contractors works may be carried out subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of the Codes SEPP as either exempt or complying development. The Strata Subdivision will be subject to issue by Council under Part 4, Division 2, or by an Accredited Certifier under Part 4, Division 3 of the Strata Schemed Development Act 2015 relying upon Part 6, Division 1 of the Codes SEPP:

5.1.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

We have considered Part 3 Division 17 Subdivision 2 of the ISEPP. We have considered the Road and Rail Noise Buffer Map 40 (Figure 10). Surf Lane is the eastern boundary for noise from Cronulla Railway Station being the termination of the Cronulla -Sutherland line. No further consideration of road or rail noise is considered necessary.



Figure 10 - Road and Rail Noise Buffer Map 40



5.2 Draft State Environmental Planning Policies

Our search of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s “on exhibition” disclosed the following documents that required further consideration:

1. Draft SEPP Environment 2. Proposed Amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land 3. Remediation of Land SEPP 4. Review of Sutherland draft local environmental plan

The Draft SEPP Environment is not final or certain and despite the Department of Planning closing submissions 31 January 2018 and 2020 now drawing near.

The new SEPP:

1. would repeal and replace:

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19—Bushland in Urban Areas • State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 50—Canal Estate Development • Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2—Georges River Catchment • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2-1997) • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1—World Heritage Property.

2. contains a single set of planning provisions for:

• Catchments • Waterways • Bushland • Protected areas.

We are no closer to understanding the timing or final form of this Draft SEPP. As nothing of an environmentally sensitive nature turns upon this proposal the Draft SEPP having been considered should not be given any significant weight in the assessment of this proposal.

With respect to assessment of potential contamination s (2 & 3 above) we have addressed SEPP 55 above and nothing in 1 and 2 above would alter that assessment and there is no need to further consider contamination. We expect that a condition requiring compliance with AS2601 and that include a hazardous material survey and report before demolition will address potential asbestos issues and if remediation is required in that even that a hazardous material report will recommend precautions complying with Work Safe requirements.

The Review of Sutherland draft local environmental plan is listed but this related to the now completed public hearings into the 2015 LEP. Nothing turns upon this document. Council considered the final report of Dr John Roseth and Ms Sussex when proceeding to the adoption of the 2015 LEP.

See: http://planspolicies.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=job_listing&status=consideration



5.3 Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP)

5.3.1 Permissibility

The LEP is a standard instrument LEP. The site is Zone B3 under Part 2 of the LEP (7150_COM_LZN_008A_010_20170301).

The existing and proposed use is permissible with development consent.

Figure 11 - ePlanning Spatial - Zoning Layer (B3)

Zone B3 Commercial Core

1 Objectives of zone

• To provide a wide range of retail, business, office, entertainment, community and other suitable land uses that serve the needs of the local and wider community.

• To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations. • To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. • To strengthen the viability of existing commercial centres through increased economic activity,

employment and resident population. • To create an attractive, vibrant and safe public domain with a high standard of urban design and

public amenity. • To enhance commercial centres by encouraging incidental public domain areas that have a

community focus and facilitate interaction, outdoor eating or landscaping. • To provide for pedestrian-friendly and safe shopping designed to cater for the needs of all ages and

abilities.

2 Permitted without consent

Home occupations

3 Permitted with consent

Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education



facilities; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Advertising structures; Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Attached dwellings; Biosolids treatment facilities; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Depots; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; General industries; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heavy industries; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home-based child care; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Jetties; Marinas; Multi dwelling housing; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Recreation facilities (major); Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Rural workers’ dwellings; Semi-detached dwellings; Sewage treatment plants; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Water recycling facilities; Water supply systems; Wholesale supplies

5.3.2 Principal Development Standards

The principal development standards are complied with:

• Clause 4.3 HOB 30m (7150_COM_HOB_008A_010_20170301 • Clause 4.4 FSR 3:1 (7150_COM_FSR_008A_010_20170210

Quantitatively the extent of the alterations and additions are de minimise. Works are limited to one apartment. The existing maximum HOB measured to the highest portion of the curved roof is 23.77m from existing ground level determined by the application of Bettar v Council of City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1070. This more than 6m lower than the 30m HOB. The top of the proposed alterations is 21.63m above EGL applying Bettar v Council of City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1070. This is more than 8m below the maximum HOB. The existing GFA is 3319.8m2 the proposed GFA is 3385.6m2. The increase GFA is 65.8m2 which is less than 2% of the existing GFA. We also not that the maximum GFA is 4339.2m2 and the proposed total GFA is 3385.6m2. That is the proposed GFA remains 953.6m2 below the maximum FSR for this site. A review of the remain maps in sheet 20 found no other relevant considerations arising from the LEP maps and related clause.

The development is considered to achieve the requirements of the following clause as observed in previous and more detailed DCP review below;

• Clause 4.5B no subdivision proposed

• Clause 4.6 No exceptions sought

• Clause 5.5 The site is not in the in the Coastal SEPP (SEPP 71 repealed) zones.

• Clause 5.9 The site has no significant vegetation or trees

• Clause 5.10 Addressed below in more detail given proximity to Monro Park.

• Clause 5.11 The site is not bush fire affected

• Clause 6.1 ASS : Class 5



• Clause 6.2 see below

• Clause 6.3 The site is not flood affected

• Clause 6.4 The concept stormwater plans address stormwater management + BASIX

• Clause 6.4-6.13 Not Applicable

5.3.3 Heritage

This is a short heritage impact statement noting that the heritage impacts are considered negligible.

Clause 5.10 of the LEP provides the following objectives:

a) to conserve the environmental heritage of the City of Sydney,

b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

c) to conserve archaeological sites,

d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

The most relevant and heritage item proximate to the site is No.1013, Monro Park, bus shelter, gate posts and monument at , Cronulla 146 Cronulla Street (Lots 5–7 and part of Lot 8, Section 1, DP 758305). These elements are cumulatively a “local item” (Figure 3).

We have sighted shadowing of Monro Park to be a matter of relevant consideration and for heritage and general public amenity reasons retaining direct solar access to Monro Park is a central consideration within Council controls for No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla (Figure 6)

These controls include those shown in Figure 13 - No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla Beach Park Avenue - DCP Massing Controls.

Whilst the proposed alterations and addition may be visible from limited vantage points within Monaro Park, these works are subservient to the dominant façade (round corner element in the south western corner of the site) and the dominant curved roof above level 7. The heritage impacts that would be occasioned by the modest alterations and additions are considered negligible.

The extent of the impacts, being so negligible, make out no reasonable necessity for Council to apply clause 5.10(5) requiring “a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.” We reinforce the heritage impacts are negligible.

5.3.4 Urban Design

It is our opinion that Clause 6.16-6.17 being the general and residential specific Urban Design considerations have all been achieved by the proposal. These LEP provisions cover and repeat much of the detail above and below. We reinforce that the design is exemplar of high quality work.

The contemporary design is consistent the recent outcomes in Cronulla’s B3 zone and the additional bulk is not readily discernible within the visual purview of the streetscape. The urban design impacts are de minimis for and from the development, within a bulk that occasions negligible impact.



5.4 Draft LEP

We have reviewed the Council’s Planning Proposals webpage: https://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/Development/Local-Environmental-Plan-LEP/Planning-Proposals We do not believe that any of these planning proposal relate to the site or alter the assessment of it in any substantive form. To the extent that Council assessment officers believe that this SEE ought to address any planning proposal we will undertake that work.

5.5 Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015

Chapter 19, B3 Commercial Core Cronulla, is the most relevant portions of the DCP affecting the mix of uses and influencing the design of buildings in this locality.

The strategy map (p.8) requires that the existing pedestrian link along Beach Park Avenue be maintained and improved . With a new/improved pedestrian node affecting Beach Park Avenue and Monro Park. Another note is to “Create opportunities for outdoor dining and cafes to enliven the area."

Figure 12 - Council Strategy Map

The landscape strategy calls for street trees to Cronulla Street frontage (p.10). But none within Beach Park Avenue or Surf Lane.

Clause 4.1 is critical and in particular the GFA will need to be carefully distributed to achieve Controls 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11.

The most critical impact that will be the focus of any assessment will be the extent to which any buildings overshadowing Monro Park as not only is it open space it is a listed heritage item.

In my opinion any taller tower element is best place at the SW corner of the site with a lower built form to the east. The large fig trees that line western side of Monro Park already cast significant PM shadows and so will any new 9 storey element assuming 9 storeys is achievable within the HOB at No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla.

Having regard to the future development of No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla, this opinion is supported by the HOB and storeys plan at p.13. Although it shows a 2 storey podium to Cronulla Street and Beach Park Avenue (10m) and 7-8 storeys (25m) in the western portion and 3-4 storeys (13m) in the western portion of the site. In terms of the achievement of the LEP and DCP objectives I would speak against the distribution of the bulk as mapped at p.13. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this development application



and its impacts upon Monro Park, it should be assumed that any new development of . No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla will not be permitted to cause significant overshadowing.

Figure 13 - No.138 to No.142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla Beach Park Avenue - DCP Massing Controls



I have extracted the site specific controls below from p.22 of the PDF file

Again the objectives are:

5.4 Design guidelines for development of this site

1. Maintain a 3m setback at ground level to Surf Lane and Beach Park Avenue, with the upper levels further setback to reduce overshadowing onto Monro Park to the south.

2. Maintain prime retail to the Cronulla Street frontage and Beach Park Avenue (Cronulla Centre Active Street front Map).

3. Preserve solar access to Monro Park.

4. Improve public domain frontage to the Cronulla Street, Surf Lane and Beach Park Avenue frontages with active uses, landscaping and pedestrian areas in accordance with the Public Domain Design Manual.

Noting “Preserve solar access to Monro Park”

Layout, POS and Solar Access

The elevated POS seeks to leverage the views attained from the penthouse being the highest amenity attribute that the site’s orientation and attributes provide.

The elevated living areas and POS are consistent with Figure 5 (Source: Draft Good Design Guide for medium density living, NSW Department of Planning, 2011) providing direct access to elevated POS. Further the operable walls will allow the entire living area floor plate to become effective open space when favourable weather conditions permit.

The sites orientation and the building height and setbacks ensure that not less than 3 hours of direct sunlight will be maintained to the north facing POS and windows and openings.

There are high amenity outcomes for the proposal and no detrimental impacts upon the neighbours.

Visual and Aural Privacy

The proposal’s living areas are orientated above look east over the Gerrale Street to Cronulla Park to ensure that there are no adverse amenity impacts in terms of noise or overlooking upon any neighbour. The CPTED outcomes with this design observing the public domain are positive. The privacy to future occupants and neighbour are not adversely impacted.

Vehicular Access and Parking

There is no proposed change to the intensity of use, parking demand or provision for parking to service the apartment.

8 Waste Management

All waste storage is provide within the basement. The storage area is generous in size to ensure sufficient waste storage and meet the DCP objectives.



6 Conclusion The proposal represents an opportunity to improve the internal amenity of the subject apartment whilst maintaining the same general urban form and character of the locality. The proposal at a lower HOB and FSR than the LEP allows, is consistent with maintaining as a transition from the large approved apartments at No.47-57 Gerrale Street, Cronulla to the existing medium density apartments south of Beach Park Avenue and sits well in the context of the desirable future character for this locality.

Subject any neighbour submission we may wish to provide a more detailed Tenacity review of the view sharing outcomes and would appreciate the assessment officer discussing any objections to the proposal with us in this regard.

We reinforce that the FSR, HOB and setbacks (especially having regard to the separation provided by Beach Park Avenue and Surf Lane) are compliant and any other re-development within these parameters would have significantly greater impacts at 30m HOB.

Having regard to the relevant considerations under section 4.15 the Act, the proposal should be favourably considered by Council.

690 - statement of environmental effects

Documents