development application - · pdf fileproject synopsis ... architectural design report ......

www.smec.com

Development Application 86-88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield

Prepared for: Conquest Reference No: 3002600

14/11/2017

Statement of Environmental Effects 86-88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield | Development Application | Conquest | 3002600

SMEC Australia | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Project Synopsis ................................................................................................................ 3

2. Background .............................................................................................................................. 4

3. Site Description ........................................................................................................................ 5

The Location of the Site & Existing Development ............................................................ 5 The Site ............................................................................................................................. 6 Surrounding Development ............................................................................................... 7 Characteristics of Surrounding Area ................................................................................. 7 Surrounding Road Network .............................................................................................. 8 Active & Public Transport ................................................................................................. 8

4. 79C Evaluation & Statutory Assessment ................................................................................... 9

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Environmental Planning Instruments ............................................ 9

4.1.1. State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) ............... 9 4.1.2. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land) ....................... 9 4.1.3. State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential

Apartment Development ........................................................................ 10 4.1.4. Apartment Design Guide ........................................................................................ 14 4.1.5. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1.6. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ................................... 19 4.1.7. Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 ............................................................ 20 4.1.8. Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005 .................................... 22 4.1.9. Likely Impacts ......................................................................................................... 24 4.1.10. Suitability of the Site .............................................................................................. 26 4.1.11. Submissions Received ............................................................................................. 26 4.1.12. Public Interest ......................................................................................................... 26

5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 27

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Aerial photograph of subject site and surrounding development ....................................... 5 Figure 2 Approved layout of development (DA2015/100) ................................................................ 6 Figure 3: Site general arrangement. ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 Graphic depiction of the relocated floor area from the eastern side of Building B to provide additional residential levels. .......................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables

Table 1 Accompanying Documents .................................................................................................. 2 Table 2 Project Synopsis .................................................................................................................. 3 Table 3 Comparison of Traffic Generation ..................................................................................... 19


SMEC Australia | Page ii

Appendices

Clause 4.6 Request to Vary the Height of Building Development Standard

Clause 4.6 Request to Vary the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard

Architectural Plans

Architectural Design Report

Landscape Plans

Preliminary Site Investigation

Validation Report

Sustainability Report & BASIX Certificate

Traffic Impact Assessment

Acoustic Report

Concept Stormwater Management Plans

Waste Management Plan

Survey

Geotechnical Report

Arborist Report


SMEC Australia | Page 1

1. Introduction

The Site is legally identified as Lot 300 DP1208910, 3011 and 3012 DP 1233236 and is identified as 86, 86A and 88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield. The site was formerly known as 84 Centenary Drive, Strathfield and previously identified as Lot 300 and 301 DP1208910. The site contains a single storey building and adjoining hard stand car parking area currently used as the function centre and club house of Strathfield Golf Club and former fairway.

The proposed development will be integrated with the approved townhouses currently under construction on Lot 300, and will continue to share vehicular access with this approved component of the development via Centenary Drive. The townhouse component of the site is not to be modified under the subject application and will remain as approved in DA2015/100.

The proposal seeks consent to modify the footprint and form of the two x approved residential flat buildings on the north-western portion of the site (Lot 3012). The modifications to the buildings present an improved urban form, increased differentiation in building height, improved range of materials and finishes, increased common open space for residents of the site and does not noticeably increase overshadowing to the adjoining high school or townhouses. The modifications also internally reconfigure the layout of units to provide improved residential amenity, solar access, natural ventilation and maximises opportunities for view sharing between the two buildings.

In comparison to the previously approved form of development on the site, the proposal provides significant upgrade to the presentation of the residential buildings. The site is unique in its location and context within the urban hierarchy, and presents an opportunity to provide additional uplift in height and floor space without impact on surrounding properties.

The proposal is accompanied by objections to the height of buildings and floor space ratio Development Standards of Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal seeks to provide a maximum building height of 29.5m to Building A and 42.6m to Building B where a maximum of 28m is permitted. This represents a respective departure of 5.4% and 52% from the numeric height standard. The proposal seeks to provide a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.32:1 (26,752m²) which presents a departure of 10% or 2,430m² from the permitted FSR pursuant to the SLEP 2012 of 1.2:1 (24,322m²).

The requests to vary these development standards have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.6 and are well founded, justifying that the variations are acceptable in the context of the site for the following reasons:

• The underlying purpose of the SLEP 2012 objectives relating to floor space ratio and height of building development standards can be satisfied notwithstanding the numeric variations. It has been demonstrated that compliance with the numeric standards is unreasonable or unnecessary in accordance with the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• The additional density proposed by the subject application can be accommodated without impacting the amenity of adjoining properties. This demonstrates that despite the numeric non-compliance with the height and FSR development standards, the purpose of the objectives can be achieved, thereby satisfying the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the height of building and floor space ratio development standard, and the proposed development results in a better outcome for the site than a compliant proposal by delivering an additional 26 residential units in a strategic and well connected location, within close proximity to existing transport, road networks, schools, employment opportunities and services within local and



regional centres. These matters justify that there are ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards’ in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the SLEP 2012;

• There is a lack of environmental impact resulting from the numeric variations. Whilst it is acknowledged that the lack of environmental impact is not reason enough to justify a variation, this is an important aspect of the proposed development and demonstrates that the site has additional capacity for development beyond the current numeric controls.

• The development remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, notwithstanding the numeric variations, thus satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.

• The proposed development and specifically, the proposed variation to the floor space ratio development standard, is in the public interest as the proposal can provide additional residential density without causing unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties by way of overlooking or overshadowing thus satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.

This report is accompanied by the following documentation:

Table 1 Accompanying Documents Document Prepared By Appendix

Clause 4.6 Request to Vary Development Standard – Height of Building

SMEC Appendix A

Clause 4.6 Request to Vary Development Standard – Floor Space Ratio

SMEC Appendix B

Architectural Plans Woods Bagot Appendix C

Architectural Design Report Woods Bagot Appendix D

Landscape Plans Acardia Appendix E

Preliminary Site Investigation SMEC Testing Services Appendix F

Validation Report CSTS Pty Ltd Appendix G

Sustainability Report and BASIX Wood & Grieve Engineers Appendix H

Traffic Impact Statement Transport and Traffic Planning Associates

Appendix I

Acoustic Report Wood & Grieve Engineers Appendix J


Glenn Haig and Partners Appendix K

Waste Management Plan Elephants Foot Appendix L

Survey LTS Lockley Appendix M

Geotechnical Report SMEC Testing Services Appendix N

Arborist Report Lee Hancock Consulting Arborists Appendix O



Project Synopsis Table 2 Project Synopsis

Parcel Details Lot 300 DP 1208910

3011 and 3012 DP 1233236

Property Address 86A Centenary Drive, Strathfield

86 Centenary Drive, Strathfield

88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield

Relevant statutory provisions

SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011

SEPP No. 55 (Remediation of Land)

SEPP No. 64 (Advertising and Signage)

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

Strathfield Development Control Plan 2012

Strathfield Development Contributions Plan



2. Background

4 May 2016 DA2015/100 proposing the demolition of the existing clubhouse and structures, tree removal and construction of 23 x two storey townhouses, 27 x three storey townhouses and two x nine storey apartment buildings was granted by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel.

4 August 2016 DA2015/100/01, a S96(1A) Application to correct the lot and DP, proposal description and to amend Condition 30 relating to the staging of development contributions.

At the time of preparation of this report, DA2015/100/02, a S96(1A) Application to correct the lot and DP reference, to modify the internal configuration of units was under consideration by Council officers.

10 July 2017 Meeting held with Manager Planning and Development and Senior Planner to discuss the proposed development. It was agreed that the proposed development be lodged as a Development Application, not a Section 96 Application.



3. Site Description

The Location of the Site & Existing Development The site is located at 86-88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield and is legally identified as Lot 300 DP 1208910, Lot 3011 and 3012 DP1233238. The three lots have a combined area of 20,268m². The site has a frontage of 116.91m to Centenary Drive, a rear boundary of 55.5m adjoining properties in Hedges Avenue and a southern boundary of 290.06m. The site is unique being strategically located near major arterial roads such as Centenary Drive, Roberts Road, Liverpool Road and the M4, whilst also enjoying a natural setting with expansive views across the adjoining Strathfield Golf course and toward Sydney city.

Figure 1 Aerial photograph of subject site and surrounding development

Presently, the site is occupied by the Strathfield Golf Club, a single storey clubhouse and restaurant with adjoining open car park. The 18 hole Strathfield Golf Course adjoins the northern boundary of the site and has been recently reshaped to coincide with the construction of new club house facilities currently under construction on the western side of Centenary Drive, accessed from Weeroona Road.

Development to the east of the site comprises single residential dwellings fronting Hedges Avenue. Adjacent to these low-density dwellings is the townhouse component of the approved development. The townhouses have been constructed in stage 1 and are accessed by an easement through Lot 301 and a loop road running centrally through the two rows of townhouses and along the southern boundary.

The approved layout of the development is shown below.

6 km to Sydney Olympic Park

16 km to Sydney CBD

Site

Golf Course

Light

Industrial

Light Industrial

Strathfield Park



Strathfield South High

School

Strathfield Golf Course

Figure 2 Approved layout of development (DA2015/100)

The southern boundary of the site adjoins Strathfield South High School. A two-storey school building is located at the interface with the approved town house development. Playing fields are located on the western portion of the school site. Established trees provide landscaped screening along the shared boundary and along the school boundary with the approximately 3-metre-high noise wall located between the school and Centenary Drive.

The Site The site is located approximately 16 km west of Sydney CBD. Sydney Olympic Park is located 6 km north of the site. The site has a frontage to Centenary Drive of 116.905m, a rear boundary dimension of 55.5m, a northern boundary dimension of 374.845m and a southern boundary dimension of 290.055m and an overall area of 20,267.9m².

Directly adjoining the Site to the south is Strathfield South High School. The playing greens of the Strathfield Golf Club adjoin the property to the north. A cluster of takeaway food and beverage premises is located approximately 500 m south of the Site along Liverpool Road.

The Site has a split zoning. The eastern portion of the Site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential whilst the western portion of the Site is zoned B4 Mixed Use. Development of 50 x townhouses is currently underway on Lot 300, being the south-eastern portion of the site which is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

Figure 3: Site general arrangement.



Surrounding Development Development surrounding the site is varied. As discussed above, the Strathfield Golf Course adjoins the site to the north. A Development Application to construct a new club house on the portion of the golf course to the west of Centenary Drive and regrade the existing golf course was approved by Strathfield Council in 2016.

The Strathfield South High School adjoins the site to the south. The existing school building has a varied setback of 6m to 8m from the shared boundary with the Stage 1 – townhouses. The western portion of the high school, adjacent to Stage 2, contains playing fields and tennis courts.

Development to the east of the site comprises low density residential dwellings fronting Hedges Avenue. A small cluster of local shops is located along Cave Road. The Cooks River Cycleway is located on the eastern side of the Cave Road shops and connects to the wider Bay-to-Bay cycle route.

Development south-east of the site along Liverpool Road is mixed-use in nature and mostly comprises land zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor. This area contains take-away food and beverage premises such as McDonalds, Oporto and KFC, car wash businesses and an Ibis Hotel. These businesses adjoin the Strathfield South Light Industrial area which includes the TNT Enfield Depot, a range of mechanical and panel beating uses and the Port Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre.

The major intersection of Liverpool Road (Hume Highway), Cosgrove Road and Roberts Road adjoins the site to the south-west. Development on the western side of the intersection comprises light industrial uses (north of Liverpool Road) such as a nursery and landscape supplier and low density residential development along the southern part of Liverpool Road. A freight railway corridor follows the alignment of Centenary Drive and is located within the western part of the road reserve.

Characteristics of Surrounding Area The site is strategically located in the inner-west suburb of Strathfield approximately 6.5 km south of Sydney Olympic Park and 16 km west of Sydney CBD.

The Strathfield South Industrial Area is established along Cosgrove Road and is accessible from the southern side of Liverpool Road and further south along Roberts Road. The Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre began operation in Strathfield South in 2015 and is anticipated to provide additional local employment as the capacity of operations increase. The Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre is expected to support the local economy and the wider transportation of freight through containerised rail and road networks throughout Sydney and wider NSW.

Flemington Food and Flower Markets are located approximately 4 km north of the site. The Flemington Markets are a major contributor to the regional economy distributing fresh produce to a range of businesses throughout NSW. The market includes the ‘Sydney Produce Market’, ‘Sydney Flower Market’ and ‘Sydney Growers Market’ and comprises over 700 businesses that sell fresh produce supplied by over 20,000 growers from the wider NSW region and interstate. The site comprises a retail facility of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 sqm including local convenience store, takeaway food businesses, banks, medical centre, veterinary hospital and other local services.

The Chullora Market Place is the closest local shopping centre, approximately 1.7 km west of the site. Further local services and shopping facilities are available in Homebush West (approximately 5 km), Bankstown Centro, Strathfield Town Centre (4.5 km) and Burwood (6 km). A small strip of local shops is provided on Cave Road approximately 800m from the site and contain a delicatessen, newsagency and florist. Take-away food and beverage businesses (Subway, McDonalds, KFC, Oporto) are located on the southern side of Liverpool Road approximately 550m from the site.

The site is very well serviced by existing local parks and regional open space including Freshwater Park (1.5 km), Strathfield Park (1.7 km), Ford Park (2.5km) and Begnell Field (2.5 km). These areas of open space provide future residents with access to outdoor playing facilities, playing courts, children’s play



equipment and areas for formal and informal recreation. The site is adjacent to the Strathfield Golf Club (private recreation land) and the Hudson Park Golf Course is located approximately 2.5 km north of the site at the intersection of Centenary Drive and Arthur Street.

The site is within the catchment for Strathfield South Public school, which is located 2km east of the site and caters for children in kindergarten to year 6. Strathfield South High School is located directly south of the site with the primary entry via Hedges Avenue. The site is also within the catchment of Homebush Boys High School and Strathfield Girls High School which are located approximately 1.5km from the site. The site is also reasonably serviced by universities being 2km south of the Australian Catholic University located on Barker Road in Strathfield, 6km east of the Lidcombe campuses for TAFE NSW and Sydney University.

The nearest public hospital to the site is Concord Repatriation General Hospital, approximately 8 km to the north-east. Whilst Bankstown Hospital is a similar distance south-west of the site.

Surrounding Road Network Vehicular access to the site is provided via a slip lane off Centenary Drive, approximately 200 m north of the signalised intersection with Liverpool Road. Vehicles are only able to access the site when travelling south along Centenary Drive.

Centenary Drive is a two-lane dual carriageway directly adjacent to the site entry however opens to three lanes 200 m north of the site and 700 m south of the site where the Centenary Drive flyover bridge joins Roberts Road. Centenary Drive and Roberts Road are important north-south connectors in the Sydney road transit network, providing access to Homebush Olympic Park, the M4 motorway linking to the western suburbs and the M5 motorway providing links to the city and the airport. The strategic location of the site supports the movement of residents to areas of work and economic interest throughout the Sydney Metropolitan Region.

Active & Public Transport The site is located adjacent to the Bay to Bay Cycleway, a 30km share path connecting Botany Bay to Ryde. Much of the cycleway is located off-road and supports active travel as a choice for commuters. Cycle lanes are provided on nearby roads including Centenary Drive. The site is approximately a 15-minute journey via bicycle to Strathfield station, providing train access every 5 minutes to Central Station (15-minute journey) and Parramatta Station (17-minute journey).

Strathfield station is a major metropolitan commuter station providing access to the North Shore Line, Northern Line, Western Line, Inner West & South Line, Blue Mountains Line and Central Coast & Newcastle Line.

The site is approximately 450m from the nearest bus stop, located on Liverpool Road adjacent to Strathfield South High School. The M90, 913 and 914 buses service this bus stop linking the site to Strathfield, Bankstown, Greenacre and Liverpool. These services operate approximately every 10 minutes during daytime hours and 30 minutes during evenings providing direct connectivity to nearby activity centres.



4. 79C Evaluation & Statutory Assessment

This section provides an assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the following statutory instruments:

• SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011

• SEPP 55 (Remediation of Land)

• SEPP 64 (Advertising and Signage)

• SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

• Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

• Strathfield Development Control Plan 2012

• Strathfield Council Section 94 Contributions Plan

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Environmental Planning Instruments

4.1.1. State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development)

In accordance with Schedule 4A of the EP&A Act, the proposed development is required to be determined by the Southern Joint Regional Planning Panel as the development has a capital investment value (CIV) of more than $20 million. Clause 21 of SEPP (State and Regional Development) provides for the functions of a regional panel.

4.1.2. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (Remediation of Land)

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land to reduce the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The provisions of SEPP 55 require the consent authority to consider the following matters, prior to the determination of a development application:

(a) Whether the land is contaminated

(b) If the land is contaminated; whether the land is suitable for the proposed use either in its contaminated state or following remediation

(c) If the land requires remediation, that it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for the intended purpose.

A Preliminary (Phase 1) Site Investigation (PSI) prepared by SMEC Testing Services (May 2014) is provided at Appendix F. The PSI details the history of the use of the site including the location of underground petroleum storage systems.

The PSI indicates that the site was vacant prior to its development as a golf course around 1940. The golf course infrastructure on the subject site comprises the golf club, car parking area and underground petroleum storage tank within the car park which appears to have been installed around 1960. Soil sampling occurred from ten locations and one onsite groundwater monitoring well was installed. The results of the sampling show that the concentrations of chemical contaminants measured in the soil



are generally low and below criteria for protection of human health and the environment for a residential development. The groundwater testing showed the site is not expected to be the source of any unacceptable groundwater impacts and that the underground petroleum storage tank is unlikely to have leaked significantly.

The underground petroleum storage tank has since been removed and validation report issued on 28 June 2016. The validation certificate is provided at Appendix G.

Therefore, it is confirmed that the site is suitable for the intended use in accordance with the provisions of SEPP No. 55.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development in New South Wales. Strathfield Council does not have a design review panel referred to under Clause 28 however an assessment of the design quality of the development against the design principles of the SEPP and the relevant design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide has been undertaken in the following table:

Principle 1: Context and neighbourhood character

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

The contemporary presentation of the proposed residential flat buildings presents a superior architectural form in comparison to the previously approved development. The height diversity presented in 1 x 9 storey and 1 x 13 storey building is a better urban design outcome to the previous application where both buildings were 9 storeys in height.

The proposal also reduces the extent of the building footprint to reduce the bulky appearance of the buildings.

The upgraded materiality will present a high-end aesthetic with good longevity to provide a landmark development which delineates the change in urban form heading east along Liverpool Road. This change in urban form is already identified by the existing controls for two nine storey (28m) towers which would be higher than surrounding development.

The built form context of the site is established by the flyover road from Roberts Road to Centenary Drive and industrial development on the southern side of Liverpool Road including the large white silos and electrical transmission towers (approx. 55-60m). Consistency with this building form is not the question, rather the question is how can development on the site improve the urban form of the local area.

Whilst the proposal does seek to vary the maximum permitted building height (28m) to increase the height of Building B to 42.6m,



however the built form context of the site, which has few buildings and is dominated by large scale road infrastructure, transmission towers and industrial development, can support the additional building height. The gateway location of the site at the commencement of the Strathfield portion of Liverpool Road also presents the opportunity for a taller landmark building that delineates the change in urban form.

The Architectural Design Report provided at Appendix D provides a detailed analysis of the surrounding area and the design strategies used on the site, including the response to site and context.

As such, whilst the proposal does not directly align with the numeric controls of the SLEP, it is considered that the two residential buildings will upgrade the appearance of the local area and provide a landmark building of architectural excellence.

Principle 2: Built form and scale

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

The proposal provides an example of ‘good design’ though breaking the two buildings to clearly differentiate bulk into a building base, middle and top. The introduction of glass and more light weight construction provides a building with a sleek appearance and improves internal outlook.

As discussed above, the context of the site supports a taller building than permitted by the LEP controls and the modified scale of the development presents a superior built form outcome for the site without impacting solar access or amenity on the adjoining sites.

Principle 3: Density

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context. Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population. Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

The modified floor plan promotes improved view sharing within the site and increased northerly and easterly orientation of units. Improved residential amenity is supported by additional common open space areas such as the multi-court in the northern corner of the site.

The proposal provides a total of 204 units, which is an additional 26 units from the previous approval of 178 apartments. It is accepted that this additional density provides an FSR of 1.32:1 which extends beyond the permitted FSR of 1.2:1 by 10%.

It is justified that the additional density can be supported on the site due to its strategic location, excellent access to established local shopping areas, public transportation (Metro Buses), bicycle and shared paths and arterial road network. The proposal also includes the



purchase of a private shuttle bus that would be owned by the body corporate and is intended to function as an on-demand carpooling option for residents accessing Strathfield Station or the Strategic Centre at Burwood (as identified in the draft Greater Sydney Regional Plan and previous regional planning strategies).

The additional density proposed on this infill site can be accommodated without adversely impacting the adjoining development or the road network. It is considered that the additional density is appropriate for the site and will support the anticipated growth in local population.

Principle 4: Sustainability

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

The proposal adopts a floor plate which maximises solar access and cross ventilation. The proposal provides 78% or 161 of 204 units with a minimum of 2 hours’ solar access at mid-winter and 69% or 140 of 204 units able to naturally cross ventilate. Both solar access and cross ventilation are provided beyond the minimum guidelines of 70% and 60% (respectively) in the Apartment Design Guide.

A BASIX Certificate and NatHERS assessment is submitted with the application demonstrating compliance with the required targets through inclusion of upgraded floor, wall and roof insulation, 2 x 5000L rainwater tanks, centralised gas hot water, split system zoned air conditioning, LED lighting with motion sensor control and water efficient fixtures and fittings.

Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well-designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

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

The proposal is accompanied by a landscape plan demonstrating additional outdoor common open space for use by residents. A multi-court is provided in the northern corner of the site and expansive areas of open space are provided between the buildings including a small café/kiosk to provide a space for casual interaction between residents and visitors to the site.

The building design and landscape plan ensure that the mature trees along the northern boundary of the site are retained. These trees provide canopy cover and enhanced outlook from the proposed development and are an important element in the integration of the proposed buildings with the surrounding environment.



Principle 6: Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being. Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

The proposal is well deigned to maintain a high degree of internal amenity without adversely affecting the existing amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring school and golf course. This is largely achieved through appropriate building separation between the buildings and orientation of views over the tree canopy and toward the golf course. Internal residential amenity is also enhanced through the efficient layout of units with queen sized bedrooms and living areas opening to large private balconies and courtyards. The proposal accommodates ‘aging in place’ through the inclusion of adaptable units (10% of units) and Silver Level design to 20% of units for easy addition of grab rails and the like. Level entry to lifts and units ensures all units are visitable by a range of residents and guests from young families to those with mobility difficulties.

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety. A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

Due to the configuration of the site, there are few opportunities for passive surveillance of the public domain. However, the proposal orientates balconies and open space to provide views over common areas and building entries.

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

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

The proposal provides a good housing mix to provide for a variety of future residents. The proposed housing mix is 11% studio and 1 bed, 80% 2 bed and 9% three and four bedroom units.

The proposed units are well designed to support a high level of residential amenity across a variety of household demographics from young families to empty nesters. Common open space areas are designed to accommodate multiple user needs including outdoor recreation (multi-court), passive recreation with garden seating areas and on-site café for casual social interaction among residents.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and

The proposal is to be constructed of highly durable natural materials with components of facebrick, exposed concrete framing and timber. These materials will be easily maintained and will ensure this landmark



4.1.4. Apartment Design Guide The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Apartment Design Guide as follows:

Development Guideline

Required Proposed Compliance

Building depth

Max 10 m to 18 m Maximum 18m with narrower sections for articulation.

Building Separation

Building height

Habitable Rooms / balconies

Non-habitable

1 to 4 storeys

12 m 6 m Min 12.2m

5-8 storeys

18 m 9 m Min 19m as planter boxes are designed as non-habitable privacy features.

9 + storeys

24 m 12 m 18m between Building B and edge of rooftop open space on Building A.

Acceptable

At the boundary between a change in zone from apartment buildings to a lower density area, increase the building setback from the boundary by 3m

n/a n/a

Street setbacks

Consider building uses and adjoining development

Limited street frontage. Min 4m setback provided. This is consistent with the previous approval and allows the development to address Centenary Drive whilst providing

structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures. The visual appearance of a well-designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

building retains a high quality finish. The previously approved development on the site contained large areas of concrete render; removing expansive areas of render was a key consideration in revisiting the design.

The proposed height differential between building A (nine storeys) and B (13 storeys) improves the urban form by adding interest in building height.

The improved building presentation and material palate upgrades the visual appearance of the development and provides a landmark building of architectural excellence.





sufficient separation for amenity.

Side and rear setbacks

Consistent with existing streetscape patterns

Consider impact on overshadowing

There are no existing streetscape patterns however the rear setback of Building A is retained to minimise overshadowing to the adjoining high school.

Fences and walls

Consistent with existing streetscape Low sandstone wall to be provided along Centenary Drive with established

n/a

Landscape design

Improve amenity, streetscape and energy efficiency

High quality landscape design by Acardis incorporates amenity features, variety of garden and shade plantings to support various future uses and improve the setting of the two residential flat buildings.

Communal Open space

25% of the site, min 3m dimension

50% direct sunlight to the principal area for 2 hours at mid winter

57%(4,655 m²) of the site with minimum dimension of 5m

Due to the orientation of the site, all areas of common open space retain solar access for at least 2 hours throughout the day at mid-winter. Whilst some areas are overshadowed, others receive full sunlight.

Communal Open space

Between 20-30% of site area 57% (4,655 m²) of the site. This is an improvement on former scheme due to reduced footprint of Building B.

Deep soil zones

Min. 7% of site area

Located to retain significant trees

17% (1,352m²)

Building Entry Provide physical and visual connection between building and street

Provide safe and equitable entrance

Upgrade and enhance public domain

The building entries are clearly identifiable from within the site, are open and provide clear sight lines to enhance safety.

Parking Provide underground car parking and bicycle parking.

Underground parking provided.





Parking may be reduced within 800m of a railway station

The site is not within 800m of a railway station.

n/a

Pedestrian Access

Barrier free access to at least 20% of dwellings Barrier free access to all dwellings.

Vehicle Access

Max width driveway is 6 m

Vehicular entry located away from pedestrian entry

Integrated into overall façade

Vehicular access from Centenary Drive slip lane remains consistent with the approved concept for the site.

Basement entry ramp is integrated into the southern façade of Building A

Apartment layout

Single aspect max depth is 8m

Max depth of cross through is 15m or more than 4m in width.

Min apartment size:

Studio – 35m²

1 bed – 50m²

2 bed – 70m²

3 bed – 90m²

Additional bathrooms +5m²

Window must be at least 10% of the floor area of the room

Max. 7m

Cross through units are wider than 4m

Min. 42m²

Min. 50m²

Min. 75m²

Min. 98m²

Yes.

Design incorporates large windows for access to natural light to all habitable spaces.

Apartment mix

Provide a mix 11% studio and 1 bed, 80% 2 bed and 9% three and four bedroom units.

Balconies Balconies have a minimum depth of 2m

Studio – 4m²

1 bed – 8m²

2 bed – 10m²

3+ bed – 12m²

Most units are provided with more than one balcony enjoying a different orientation.

Min. depth of 2.0m

Studio – 31m² (GF)

1 bed – min. 24m²

2 bed – min. 21m²

3+ bed – min. 29m²





Ground level min 15m² and 3m depth

Ground min. 31m² and min. 3m deep

Circulation Spaces

Max 8 apartments off a single circulation core

Maximum 5 units per core

Storage Studio – 4mᵌ

1 bed – 6mᵌ

2 bed – 8mᵌ

3+ bed – 10mᵌ

In-built storage in units and storage cages provided in basement.

Minimum volumes are satisfied.

Acoustic Privacy

Like rooms share common walls

Layout is designed with like rooms sharing common walls.

Daylight access

70% of units to receive 2 hours between 9am – 3pm

Adjoining solar access not reduced by more than 20% (where existing non-compliant).

Maximum 15% receive nil solar access at mid-winter

78% (161 of 204)

Adjoining solar access remains the same as approved to the adjoining school and townhouses.

Natural ventilation

60% of units are to be naturally cross ventilated

Light wells are not the primary air source

69% natural cross ventilation.

No light wells provided.

Ceiling heights

Habitable rooms: 2.7m

Non-habitable rooms: 2.4m

2.7m throughout

Facades Composition of varied building elements

Defined base, middle and top

Varied materiality designated base, middle and top and introduces improved articulation.

Roof Design Consider architectural roof features for improved articulation

Roof feature provides pergola to rooftop open space and provides building articulation.

Waste Management

Sufficient in size, convenient location

Well ventilated

Temporary storage for bulky goods

Preparation of a waste management plan

Refer to Waste Management Plan prepared by Elephants Foot (Appendix L)

Loading area provided within basement for waste collection.





209m² storage area provides sufficient bin storage and manoeuvring space for garbage and recycling bins.

Discussion

Enhancing amenity within the site and reducing impacts on the adjoining school and townhouses has been a primary design consideration in this application. As demonstrated above, the proposed development complies with, or exceeds the minimum standards provided by the Apartment Design Guide in relation to solar access, cross ventilation, unit sizes, balcony sizes and common open space.

The proposal achieves more than 2 hours’ solar access to 78% (161 of 204) units at mid-winter, compared to the minimum 70% required. Similarly, the proposal achieves cross ventilation to 69% (140 of 204) units, where a minimum of 60% is required. The proposal also includes generous private balconies, most with northerly or easterly orientation and outlook over the golf course, providing excellent amenity.

Surpassing the minimum requirements of the apartment design guide has been achievable on the site by reducing the footprint of Building B, comparatively to what was previously approved under DA2015/100, and transferring these units into a taller structure. The relocation of floor area from the eastern portion of the footprint of Building B into additional residential levels is demonstrated graphically below.

Figure 4 Graphic depiction of the relocated floor area from the eastern side of Building B to provide additional residential levels.



The variations sought to the permitted height and FSR are justified separately in the attached Clause 4.6 objections, however in summary, achieve an upgraded residential amenity within the site through improved building separation, solar access and better internal unit planning to improve natural cross ventilation. The modified building form also introduces a differential in building height which upgrades the visual contribution of the two buildings to the appearance of the local area, which is primarily characterised by industrial structures, road infrastructure and transmission towers.

It is clear that the proposal demonstrates consistency with the purpose of SEPP 65, which is to promote the importance of design quality to the economic, environmental, cultural and social fabric of residential apartment development.

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

The subject application is accompanied by BASIX certificates (No. 658364M_05 and 877810M) (Appendix H) demonstrating compliance with the sustainability targets relevant to the proposed development in accordance with SEPP (BASIX) 2004. Sustainable features include:

• upgraded floor,

• wall and roof insulation,

• 2 x 5,000L rainwater tanks

• centralised gas hot water,

• split system zoned air conditioning,

• LED lighting with motion sensor control and

• water efficient fixtures and fittings.

4.1.6. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Vehicular entry into and out of the site is to be retained from Centenary Drive, a classified road under the Roads Act. The location of the vehicular entry/exit remains the same as previously approved by RMS and the Joint Regional Planning Panel, and is a shared driveway with the stage 1 townhouse development (50 townhouses).

The proposal is deemed Traffic Generating Development under Schedule 1 and is required to be referred to RMS under Clause 104 of SEPP (Infrastructure). A Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates and is provided at Appendix E.

A comparison of the approved rates of traffic generation and the proposed rates is provided in the following table:

Table 3 Comparison of Traffic Generation

AM Peak PM Peak

DA2015/100 65 vph 94 vph

Current Application 74 vph 80 vph

This demonstrates that, notwithstanding the additional 26 units proposed in the subject application, the anticipated traffic impact will be very similar to the previous approval and that the additional movements due to the proposed development can be accommodated without adversely impacting the functionality of the slip lane access into the site and the surrounding road network.



The provisions of Clause 102 relate to amenity due to the impact of noise or vibration on non-road development. Centenary Drive meets the traffic volume requirements of the clause and as such, the consent authority is required to ensure that appropriate measures are incorporated into the design of the building to ensure the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the building—35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am,

(b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.

The Acoustic Report provided in Appendix J demonstrates that the internal amenity requirements of Clause 102 can be achieved to the living and bedroom areas of the proposed development. Compliance with the recommended construction methodology to achieve compliance with these internal noise levels can be included as a condition of consent.

4.1.7. Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The Site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the zoning provisions of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2012. The proposed construction of a residential flat building is permissible with consent is compatible with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone as follows:

• To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

The proposed residential flat building is a permissible use in the B4 Mixed Use zone. The proposal includes a café to service the needs of residents within the site and the local area. It is considered that residential accommodation presents the highest and best use of the site, and allows the provision of additional residential density to support local services which are readily accessible in Homebush, Strathfield, Chullora, Bankstown, Belfield and Burwood.

• To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

The proposal provides residential accommodation within a highly accessible and strategic location, connected to existing high frequency local and regional bus services operating along Liverpool Road and connecting to Strathfield and Burwood transport interchanges. The site is well connected to existing walking and cycling paths within the Cooks River Cycleway, and is a 15-minute bicycle commute to Strathfield Station.

The proposal meets the ’30-minute city’ objective of the Sydney Regional Strategy 2056 by providing additional residential density within 30 minutes travel time from existing economic centres in Central Sydney, Burwood, Strathfield, Parramatta and Bankstown.

• To facilitate mixed use urban growth around railway stations and transport nodes and corridors, commercial centres and open space.

The proposal supports this objective by facilitating additional residential density within an established area, with great connectivity to transport nodes, railway stations and commercial centres. The proposal is adjacent to an expansive golf course and is within easy walking distance of public open space at Freshwater Park, Strathfield Park and Edwards Park. The proposal also incorporates expansive areas of common open space within the site including unencumbered open space, rooftop common areas, a multi-court and a variety of areas for passive recreation.



• To provide local and regional employment and live and work opportunities.

The proposal supports this zone objective by providing additional residential accommodation in an area well serviced by transport routes and road infrastructure connecting to multiple established local and regional employment centres. Additionally, common room facilities on the ground floor of Building A are intended to provide bookable office areas to support live- work opportunities for residents.

Building Height

The proposal presents a building height of 29.5m to Building A, comprising lift overrun and access stair, and 42.6m to Building B, comprising four additional residential levels. Clause 4.3 of the SLEP permits a maximum building height of 28m and the application seeks a variation of 1.5m or 5.4% for Building A and 14.6m or 52% for Building B.

A request to vary the height development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the SLEP has been prepared in support of this application and is provided in Appendix A. Shadow diagrams presenting the approved (building envelope compliant) and proposed impacts are also provided in the architectural plans. Together, the Clause 4.6 variation request and the comparative shadow analysis demonstrate that the additional building height has a comparable shadow impact on the neighbouring school to the approval, and that the additional building height is appropriate for the site.

In summary, the Clause 4.6 variation is considered well-founded for the following reasons:

• Compliance with the height of building development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as the objectives of the standard can be achieved notwithstanding the numeric non-compliance, thus satisfying Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a);

• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the height of building standard and the proposed development results in a better outcome for the site than a compliant proposal, thus satisfying Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the SLEP 2012;

• There is a lack of environmental impact resulting from the numeric variation, the proposal is within a strategic location to support additional residential density and building height, and the proposed landmark building is appropriate for the built form context of the area. These matters justify that there are ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard’ in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the SLEP 2012;

• The development remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, notwithstanding the numeric variation in accordance with Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.

• The proposed development and specifically, the proposed height variation, is in the public interest as the proposal can provide additional residential density without causing unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties by way of overlooking or overshadowing, thus satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed development seeks to provide a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.32:1, representing a departure of 10% or 2,430m² from the maximum permitted under Clause 4.4 of the SLEP 2012 of 1.2:1. A request to vary the FSR development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the SLEP has been prepared in support of this application and is provided in Appendix B. The Clause 4.6 request is well justified and presents sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the variation, as follows:

• The underlying purpose of a number of the objectives of the floor space ratio relate to consistency of urban form and residential character, or development in Strathfield Town Centre or Parramatta Road. It is argued that these objectives are not relevant to the proposal



and thus compliance is unnecessary in accordance with the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• The additional density proposed by the subject application can be accommodated without impacting the amenity of adjoining properties. This demonstrates that despite the numeric non-compliance with the FSR development standard, the purpose of the objective which seeks “to minimise the impact of new development on the amenity of adjoining properties” can be achieved, thereby satisfying the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the floor space ratio development standard and the proposed development results in a better outcome for the site than a compliant proposal by delivering an additional 26 residential units in a strategic and well connected location, within close proximity to existing transport, road networks, schools, employment opportunities and services within local and regional centres. These matters justify that there are ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard’ in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the SLEP 2012;

• There is a lack of environmental impact resulting from the numeric variation. Whilst the lack of environmental impact is not reason enough to justify a variation, this is an important aspect of the proposed development and demonstrates that the site has additional capacity for development beyond the current numeric controls.

• The development remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, notwithstanding the numeric variation, thus satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.


Trees

The proposal seeks to retain all trees which were to be protected under the previous consent (DA2015/100) and retains the same setbacks from the school and golf course as previously approved. The approved Arborist Report prepared for the previous application is provided in Appendix O, and remains relevant as there are no changes to setbacks from trees or trees to be removed. Therefore, the proposal is satisfactory in regard to Clause 5.9 of the SLEP 2012.

4.1.8. Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005 Clause 6A of SEPP 65 confirms that in the instance of any inconsistency between the controls of the ADG and Council’s Development Control Plan, the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in the ADG prevail. This confirms that if a development control plan contains provisions that specify requirements, standards or controls in relation to the following matters, those provisions are of no effect: (a) visual privacy, (b) solar and daylight access, (c) common circulation and spaces, (d) apartment size and layout, (e) ceiling heights, (f) private open space and balconies, (g) natural ventilation, and (h) storage.



These matters have been addressed in the ADG assessment above where it has been determined that the proposal presents a very high level of amenity and surpasses the minimum requirements relating to common open space, balcony size, solar access and cross ventilation. Additional matters of relevance to the modified application in relation to the SCDCP are as follows:

Part C – Multiple Unit Housing

Section Control Proposal Complies?

2.3 Building Design

Minimum 15% adaptable

15% (31 units)

Entry with barrier-free access

No step, barrier free access to both buildings.

Building materials sympathetic with streetscape

Building materials and architectural articulation break the development into a base, middle and top. The upgraded palate of finishes will ensure the building is iconic and is more sympathetic to the high quality aesthetic sought by Council throughout high density precincts along Parramatta Road.

2.5 Streetscape and Building Orientation

Development is compatible with the character and architectural detailing of the street.

The site is an island site with few residential examples nearby. The height is compatible with nearby industrial silos and road infrastructure such as the flyover bridge, which set the context of the site.

Underground parking shall be designed not to dominate the street frontage.

Underground parking entry is integrated into the southern elevation of Building A to minimise visual obtrusiveness.

2.9 Access and Parking

Residential Flat Buildings

1 bed x 23

1 space 23

2 bed x 163

1.5 spaces 245

3 bed x 18

2 spaces 36

TOTAL: 304 required

Total 395 provided (91 additional)

1 space reallocated to café (refer below)

Parking control is a minimum

Visitor Parking

1 per 5 dwellings

204/ 5 = 41 required

41 visitor spaces provided



As demonstrated above, the proposed development complies with the provisions of Part C – Multiple Unit Housing of the Strathfield DCP. The proposal presents two residential flat buildings of architectural excellence and with very high level of residential amenity.

In addition to compliant basement car parking and access to existing public transport routes along Liverpool Road, the applicant also proposes to operate a private shuttle bus for residents (owned and operated by body corporate) to provide transport to nearby railway stations and town centres on demand. The site is within 10 minutes’ drive of Strathfield town centre, which provides numerous rail and bus options from the Strathfield interchange. This meets the vision of the “30 Minute City” from the draft Greater Sydney Regional Plan by providing infill residential development in a location which enables residents to access services and employment throughout various public transportation methods in under 30 minutes.

A detailed assessment of the parking and traffic impact is provided in the report prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates (Appendix E).

The proposal presents a unique opportunity to provide additional density, beyond the LEP controls, due to its strategic location, relatively unique location on a golf course, limited neighbours and gateway location which calls for a transition in urban form.

Part I – Provision of Off-Street Parking Facilities

The proposal includes a café area within the open space between building A and B. The café will share the existing waste collection area within the basement of the residential flat building for waste disposal and the adjacent loading area for short-stay deliveries. The additional one parking space required under the DCP would be provided for long-stay use by café employees. This parking space has been allocated as follows:

Section Control Proposal Complies?

3.5.2 Restaurants – all other locations

1 per 40m² 16m² café

1 parking space

4.1.9. Likely Impacts As demonstrated in this report, the proposed development, inclusive of the additional height and FSR sought beyond the SLEP 2012 controls, can be accommodated on the site without impacting neighbouring sites. An attribute of the relatively unique location is that the site can deliver additional ‘infill’ residential housing within a somewhat ‘greenfield’ context. The site has great connectivity to existing roads and transport routes and can readily support additional height and density with a comparable shadow impact to the approved building envelope.

It is acknowledged that the lack of environmental impact alone is not sufficient reason to vary development standards. The attached Clause 4.6 requests to vary the height and FSR standards (Appendix A and B) demonstrate broader environmental planning grounds including a discussion around the urban hierarchy of the local area and the need for a landmark building on this gateway site.

The existing planning controls within Council’s LEP and as approved in the previous development application (DA2015/100) permit two nine-storey buildings with significant footprints. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, the controls already envisage a different urban form on the subject site that is much higher and denser than surrounding development, i.e. the existing height and FSR controls do not call for consistency in built form but instead encourage a landmark building that is



taller and denser than surrounding development. Secondly, the previous approval presents as a bulky and unrelieved built form, due partly to the size of the building footprints and also to the consistency in building height across the two buildings.

The proposal enhances the existing approved built form by improving the building articulation, upgrading the materiality and improving internal amenity resulting in a development that surpasses the minimum solar access and cross ventilation targets, minimum unit sizes, common open space and private open space requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. This upgraded residential amenity is achieved through a reduction to the footprint of the northernmost building, and relocation of this building bulk into additional residential levels (i.e. levels 9 to 13).

By placing the additional building height into Building B, impacts on the adjoining high school and townhouses in stage 1 were able to be minimised. The modified shadow cast by the additional residential levels to Building A (at mid-winter) is redirected over Centenary Drive in the morning, moving to the north-western façade of Building B and onto the northern corner of the school playing field at midday, and then extending east toward the townhouses by 3 pm. (The shadow diagrams provided in the architectural plans are at Appendix C, and the comparative analysis of the approved and proposed shadow impact in the Clause 4.6 requests are in Appendix A and B). More than compliant solar access is proposed between the residential apartments (2 hours to 78%, where the ADG requires 70%) while the shadow impact on the school and townhouses remains the same as previously approved. This demonstrates that regardless of the departures from the height and FSR development standards, the proposal does not cause additional impacts on neighbouring properties.

The development is separated from the nearest residential neighbours (min 250m) to ensure opportunities for direct overlooking are not created. Overlooking impact to the school remains consistent with the previous approval, as Building A, being the closest to the common boundary, remains unaltered aside from rooftop open space which is orientated to look north.

In relation to traffic and parking, the proposal provides 91 spaces in addition to the minimum 346 required car parking spaces under the Strathfield DCP. sufficient to cater for the anticipated future demand by residents and visitors to the site. Additionally, the developer has proposed an on-demand shuttle service for use by residents, to provide access to the nearby railway stations and economic centres at Strathfield and Burwood. The nearby Cooks River Cycleway also provides excellent connectivity to Strathfield and Burwood town centres, numerous schools and the Australian Catholic University, to encourage active travel.

The Traffic Impact Assessment (Appendix I) considers the impact of the additional density on the functionality of Centenary Drive, based on RMS Traffic Generating Development requirements. This assessment concludes that there is more than sufficient capacity in the existing slip lane, that provides access to the site, to cater for the additional vehicular movements associated with the proposal. The assessment also concludes that there is sufficient capacity at the signalised intersection of Centenary Drive and Liverpool Road to cater for the additional traffic movements without significantly impacting waiting times.

As demonstrated in this report and the accompanying Clause 4.6 objections and consultant reports, there is sufficient planning merit to support additional density and building height on this site. This site is unlike other infill residential sites within the local area as it can support additional density without impact on the built form hierarchy, traffic, overshadowing or overlooking or visual amenity. The proposal provides additional residential density in a strategic location close to existing public transport, schools and within 15 minutes of Strathfield Station – meeting the Greater Sydney Commission’s objective for creating a ’30-minute city'.



4.1.10. Suitability of the Site The site is capable of accommodating additional residential density and building height beyond the current controls without impacting the adjoining sites. The site is relatively unique, being located on the edge of a golf course, and can provide additional infill residential density in a strategic location without resulting in loss of amenity to the adjoining school, nearby dwellings or the townhouses constructed in the stage 1 portion of the site.

The urban form created by the proposal will provide a landmark building on a gateway site, where the existing controls already anticipate an increased scale of development. The proposed building is of great architectural merit, comprises highly durable building materials and provides a very high level of amenity for future residents.

Therefore, the proposal is suitable for the site as a very high level of amenity can be provided for future residents, within an excellent architectural aesthetic that is consistent with the desired urban hierarchy, and with minimal impact on adjoining properties.

Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of Section 79C(1)(c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

4.1.11. Submissions Received Following public notification of the Development Application, Council Officers will consider the content of any submissions received in accordance with Section 79C(1)(d) of the EP&A Act 1979.

4.1.12. Public Interest Increasing density of sites where impacts are minimised or mitigated is in the public interest as it assists with the delivery of infill housing close to schools, services, economic centres and transport infrastructure. The subject site presents an opportunity to achieve additional density and an improvement to architectural form and urban scale, without compromising adjoining properties. Therefore, approval of the proposal would be in the public interest.



5. Conclusion

This report has demonstrated the strategic location of the site in relation to the vision for a 30-minute city endorsed by the draft Greater Sydney Regional Plan, and the ability of the site to accommodate additional residential density and building height beyond that permitted by the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The proposal considers the previous approval granted on the site under DA2015/100 and seeks to improve the urban form, amenity and reduce impacts on adjoining properties. The resultant built form has an upgraded architectural appearance, that will have longevity and will positively improve the landscape surrounding the dwelling. The assessment of residential amenity using the Apartment Design Guide demonstrates that the minimum amenity markers are surpassed, demonstrating a very high level of internal amenity for future residents.

The proposal is accompanied by requests prepared in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 to vary the height of building and floor space ratio development standard permitted on the site. These requests are well founded, and have been prepared noting established and recent land and environment court precedents. In summary, it is considered acceptable to vary the height and floor space ratio development standards in the context of the proposed development and that the proposed development be supported for the following reasons:

• The underlying purpose of the SLEP 2012 objectives relating to floor space ratio and height of building development standards can be satisfied notwithstanding the numeric variations. It has been demonstrated that compliance with the numeric standards is unreasonable or unnecessary in accordance with the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• The additional density proposed by the subject application can be accommodated without impacting the amenity of adjoining properties. This demonstrates that despite the numeric non-compliance with the height and FSR development standards, the purpose of the objectives can be achieved, thereby satisfying the tests developed in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827 and Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2012;

• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the height of building and floor space ratio development standard, and the proposed development results in a better outcome for the site than a compliant proposal by delivering an additional 26 residential units in a strategic and well connected location, within close proximity to existing transport, road networks, schools, employment opportunities and services within local and regional centres. These matters justify that there are ‘sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards’ in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the SLEP 2012;

• There is a lack of environmental impact resulting from the numeric variations. Whilst it is acknowledged that the lack of environmental impact is not reason enough to justify a variation, this is an important aspect of the proposed development and demonstrates that the site has additional capacity for development beyond the current numeric controls.

• The development remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, notwithstanding the numeric variations, thus satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SLEP 2012.




Clause 4.6 Request to Vary the Height of Building Development Standard



Clause 4.6 Request to Vary the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard



Architectural Plans



Architectural Design Report



Landscape Plans



Preliminary Site Investigation



Validation Report



Sustainability Report & BASIX Certificate



Traffic Impact Assessment



Acoustic Report



Waste Management Plan



Survey



Geotechnical Report



Arborist Report



Document/Report Control Form

File Location Name:

file:///X:\Projects\3002600%2084%20Centenary%20Drive%20Strathfield\

Project Name: 84 Centenary Drive

Project Number: 3002600

Revision Number: 01

Revision History Revision # Date Prepared by Reviewed by Approved for Issue by

01 15.11.17 Sophie Olsen Peter Evans Peter Evans

Issue Register Distribution List Date Issued Number of Copies

Conquest Development 15.11.17 Electronic

Office Library Canberra 15.11.17 Electronic

SMEC Project File 15.11.17 Electronic

SMEC Company Details Dan Spackman

234 Northbourne Avenue, Lyneham ACT 2602

Tel: +61 2 6234 1977 Fax: +61 2 6234 1977

Email: [email protected] Website: www.smec.com

The information within this document is and shall remain the property of Conquest (Builtcom)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.smec.com/


SMEC Australia | Page xliv

This report is confidential and is provided solely for the purposes of the submission of a Development Application to Strathfield Council. This report is provided pursuant to a Consultancy Agreement between SMEC Australia Pty Limited (“SMEC”) and Conquest under which SMEC undertook to perform a specific and limited task for Conquest. This report is strictly limited to the matters stated in it and subject to the various assumptions, qualifications and limitations in it and does not apply by implication to other matters. SMEC makes no representation that the scope, assumptions, qualifications and exclusions set out in this report will be suitable or sufficient for other purposes nor that the content of the report covers all matters which you may regard as material for your purposes.

This report must be read as a whole. The executive summary is not a substitute for this. Any subsequent report must be read in conjunction with this report.

The report supersedes all previous draft or interim reports, whether written or presented orally, before the date of this report. This report has not and will not be updated for events or transactions occurring after the date of the report or any other matters which might have a material effect on its contents or which come to light after the date of the report. SMEC is not obliged to inform you of any such event, transaction or matter nor to update the report for anything that occurs, or of which SMEC becomes aware, after the date of this report.

Unless expressly agreed otherwise in writing, SMEC does not accept a duty of care or any other legal responsibility whatsoever in relation to this report, or any related enquiries, advice or other work, nor does SMEC make any representation in connection with this report, to any person other than Conquest. Any other person who receives a draft or a copy of this report (or any part of it) or discusses it (or any part of it) or any related matter with SMEC, does so on the basis that he or she acknowledges and accepts that he or she may not rely on this report nor on any related information or advice given by SMEC for any purpose whatsoever.

Report for 86-88 Centenary Drive, Strathfield | Development Application | Conquest | 3002600

SMEC Australia

SMEC Australia Pt y Ltd Level 5, 20 Berr y Street Nor th Sydney, NSW, 2060 T +61 2 9925 5555 F +61 2 9925 5566 w w w.smec.com