planning committee meeting - strathfield council committee meeting – 21 july 2015 minutes 4...

PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Strathfield Municipal Council

Tuesday 18 August 2015

6.30pm Strathfield Library

65-67 Rochester Street, Homebush

PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – 18 AUGUST 2015

AGENDA

1. Declaration of Pecuniary or Conflict of Interest (nature of interest to be disclosed)

2. Confirmation of Minutes

Planning Committee Meeting 16 June 2015

3. Apologies

4. Deferred/Outstanding matters awaiting report

1. Planning Proposal for 330 – 332 Parramatta Road, Homebush

5. Reports by Officers

1. DA2015/052 - 587 Liverpool Road, Strathfield

2. DA0405/176/03 - Stage 1D – 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West

3. DA2015/033 - 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West

4. DA2015/065 - 153 Parramatta Road, Homebush

5. DA2014/067/02 - 2-6 Bede Street Strathfield

6. Matters of Urgency in Accordance with Clause 241 of the Local Government General Regulation, 2005

7. Closed Session

Nil.

I endorse the recommendations contained herein.

______________________________

Director Corporate Services

Persons in the gallery are advised that under the Local Government Act, 1993 a person may NOT tape record the proceeding of a meeting of a council or committee without the authority of the council or committee.“Tape record” includes a video camera and an electronic device capable of recording speech. Mobile phones must be turned off so as not to disrupt the meeting. Anyone, including Councillors, found using a mobile phone will be told to leave the meeting immediately and for the duration of the said meeting. An audio recording of this meeting will be taken for minute taking purposes as authorised by the Local Government Act.

MINUTESPlanning Committee Meeting

21 July 2015

PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – 21 JULY 2015

MINUTES

2

Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of Strathfield Municipal Council held on 21 July 2015, in the Ironbark Room at Strathfield Library, 65 Rochester Street, Homebush. COMMENCING: 6.35pm

PRESENT: Mayor Councillor G Vaccari (Chairman) Councillor D Bott Councillor R Datta Councillor S Kokkolis Councillor H McLucas Councillor S Ok Councillor A Soulos

STAFF: General Manager Director Corporate Services Director Technical Services Group Manager Planning and Environment Personal Assistant to Director Corporate Services

1. PECUNIARY INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES P40/15 RESOLVED: (Datta/Kokkolis) That the minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of the Council held on 16 June 2015, copies of which have been furnished to each Councillor, be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting and that the Chairman and General Manager be authorised to sign such minutes. For the Motion: Councillors Vaccari, Bott, Datta, Kokkolis, McLucas, Ok and Soulos

Against the Motion: Nil

3. APOLOGIES Nil.


MINUTES

3

4. DEFERRED/OUTSTANDING MATTERS AWAITING REPORT

1. Planning Proposal for 330-332 Parramatta Road, Homebush Noted. 5. REPORTS BY OFFICERS 1. DA2014/169 – 22-26 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush P41/15 RESOLVED: (McLucas/Ok) That DA2014/169 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of an eight (8) storey residential flat building with (47) units containing eight (8) x 1 bedroom, (32) x 2 bedroom and seven (7) x 3 bedroom units above two (2) levels of basement car parking at 22-26 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush be granted a DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONSENT subject to the following conditions: PART A - DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS This consent will lapse 3 months from the date of this consent, unless conditions D1 and D2 below have been complied with and Council’s written confirmation of the satisfaction of the below conditions has been issued: D1 Amended plans shall be prepared and submitted to Council demonstrating

compliance with the maximum permitted FSR of 2:1, calculated in accordance with the ‘gross floor area’ definition of the Strathfield LEP 2012.

D2 Amended plans shall be prepared and submitted to Council whereby the three

(3) bedroom units (No’s 35, 39, 40, 44, 45 and 49) are modified to achieve a minimum internal floor area of 95m².

Upon written confirmation from Council that the above conditions have been satisfied, the consent will become operable subject to the following conditions. PART B - OTHER CONDITIONS 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and

documents listed below, prior to the building being used or occupied, and subject to any amendments “in red” and any variation as required by conditions of this consent: Basement Car Park Level 2 Dwg No. DA03 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015


MINUTES

4

Basement Car Park Level 1 Dwg No. DA04 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Ground Floor Plan Dwg No. DA05 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Level 1 Plan Dwg No. DA06 prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Level 2 – 4 Plan Dwg No. DA07 Issue A prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 5 November 2014 Level 5 Plan Dwg No. DA08 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Level 6 – 7 Plan Dwg No. DA09 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Roof Plan Dwg No. DA10 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 Section B-B Dwg No. DA12 Issue C prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 8 July 2015 North West Elevation Dwg No. DA13 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 South East Elevation Dwg No. DA14 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 South West Elevation Dwg No. DA15 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 North East Elevation Dwg No. DA16 Issue B prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 28 May 2015 External Finishes – North West Elevation Dwg No. DA17 Issue A prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 5 November 2014 External Finishes – South East Elevation Dwg No. DA18 Issue A prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 5 November 2014 Car Park Entry Sections Dwg No. DA19 Issue A prepared by PBD Architects received by Council 5 November 2014 Proposed Landscape Plan Dwg No. L/01 Rev A prepared by A Total Concept Landscape Architects & Swimming Pool Designers received by Council 28 May 2015


MINUTES

5

Proposed Landscape Plan Dwg No. L/02 Rev A prepared by A Total Concept Landscape Architects & Swimming Pool Designers received by Council 28 May 2015 BASIX Certificate No. 567413M_03 issued 13 May 2015 Street Location Plan Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA01/P3 received by Council 28 May 2015 Basement Carpark Level 2 Plan Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA02/P4 received by Council 28 May 2015 Basement Carpark Level 1 Plan Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA03/P4 received by Council 28 May 2015 Ground Floor Plan Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA04/P3 received by Council 28 May 2015 Roof Plan Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA05/P3 received by Council 28 May 2015 Stormwater Details Project No. 2014-0547 Dwg No. HDA06/P3 received by Council 28 May 2015 Arboricultural impact assessment Dwg No. aiasc 2.01 Rev 0.2 prepared by Melanie Howden received by Council 28 May 2015 DA Acoustic Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic received by Council 28 May 2015

2. A Construction Certificate must be obtained either from Council or a privately accredited person before commencement of any construction associated with this consent.

3. The Principal Certifying Authority must be appointed prior to work commencing to supervise the work and authorise occupation/use of the building when completed.

4. A copy of the endorsed stamped plans and specifications, together with a copy of

the Development Consent, Construction Certificate and any approved Traffic Management Plan are to be retained on site at all times.

General

5. The building shall not be occupied or used until the development has been

completed in accordance with the conditions of this consent, construction has been completed in accordance with the Construction Certificate and an Occupation Certificate has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.


MINUTES

6

6. For residential flat developments which are subject to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and required to be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer under Clause 50(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulation 2000, a certifying authority must not issue:

(a) a Construction Certificate unless the certifying authority has received a

design verification statement from a qualified designer that verifies that the plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted having regard to the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of SEPP No. 65, in accordance with Clause 143A of the Regulations; and

(b) an Occupation Certificate to authorise a person to commence occupation or use of the residential flat building unless the certifying authority has received a design verification statement from a qualified designer that verifies that the residential flat development achieves the design quality of the development as shown in the plans and specifications in respect of which the construction certificate was issued, having regard to the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of SEPP No. 65, in accordance with Clause 154A of the Regulations.

7. A Works Permit shall be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre at least

48 hours prior to undertaking any works on public/Council-controlled areas. The permit must be retained on site at all times.

8. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, photographs documenting any

existing damage to the kerb and gutter and footpaths adjacent to the property shall be submitted to the consent authority. In the absence of this documentation, the applicant is liable for all damage that occurs to Councils’ assets.

9. The applicant or any contractors carrying out works in public or Council controlled

lands shall have public liability insurance cover to the value of $10million and shall provide proof of such cover to Council prior to carrying out works.

Financial Matters

10. In accordance with the provisions of Section 94(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act 1979 and the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030, a contribution in the form of cash, cheque or credit card (financial transaction fee applies) shall be paid to Council for the following purposes:

Provision of Community Facilities $44,944.90 Provision of Major Open Space $216,316.10 Provision of Local Open Space $86,786.70 Provision Roads and traffic Management $126,619.00 Administration $9,209.20 TOTAL $483,875.90


MINUTES

7

The total amount of the contribution is valid as at the date of determination and is subject to annual indexation. If the contribution is paid after 1st July in any year, the amount of the contribution under this condition shall be indexed in accordance with clause 2.14 of the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030.

The required contribution shall be paid prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

11. A security payment of $25,381.00 in the form of cash, bank guarantee, cheque or credit card (financial transactions fees apply) shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The security payment is GST inclusive and comprises the following:

Refundable tree protection bond $1,000.00 Refundable drainage bond (Council asset) $20,000.00 Refundable works bond $4,000.00 Non-refundable administration fee ($127/bd) $381.00 TOTAL $25,381.00

The security payment covers the following matters and will be released upon satisfactory completion of these items: (a) road and stormwater drainage works in roadways and public areas; (b) connection to Council’s stormwater drainage system; (c) installation and maintenance of sediment control measures for the duration of

construction activities; (d) tree final inspection to ensure that Council’s street trees have been retained,

protected or replanted in accordance with conditions of consent and/or Arborists’ report for the post final inspection twelve (12) month period; and

(e) Ensuring no damage occurs to or building debris/materials are left on Council land including footpath, nature strip, kerb and gutter. The security bond may be used to recover the costs incurred by Council in cleaning and restoring the land to its original condition.

12. Fees are payable where Council is appointed as principal certifying authority to carry

out the post-approval inspections. A quotation for the fees can be obtained by contacting Council and the fees shall be paid prior to the carrying out of any of the inspections.

Any re-inspection which is necessary due to site access not being available, defective work, or the matter not being ready for inspection will be charged in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges Policy. Council will advise in writing if an additional re-inspection is required and the re-inspection fee shall be paid prior to release of the damage deposit. If the additional fee is not paid it will be deducted from the damage deposit.


MINUTES

8

Parking/Traffic Matters 13. A total of (63) off-street parking spaces, hardpaved, linemarked, labelled and

drained, shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and distributed as follows: Residents 54 Visitors 9 TOTAL 63 These spaces shall only be used for the parking of motorcycles, sedans, utilities, vans and similar vehicles up to two (2) tonne capacity and the residential car parking spaces shall be designated at a rate of at least one (1) space per 1 and 2 bedroom unit and two (2) spaces per 3 bedroom unit. If it is proposed to strata subdivide the development in the future, parking designation shall be strictly in accordance with this condition.

14. Where entry points to car park areas are fitted with security gates/shutter and access

to visitor parking is required to be provided a suitable communication system shall be provided at the entry point to allow the security gates/shutter to be opened remotely by occupants of the building.

15. The entry and exit driveways shall be suitably signposted and directional arrows

shall be painted on the internal roadway. 16. The vehicle spaces must not be enclosed with walls or meshed security screens

without the prior approval of Council. 17. All redundant vehicular crossings shall be removed and replaced with kerb and

gutter and footpath at no cost to Council. 18. The footpath, kerb and gutter shall be reconstructed to Council’s specifications for

the full frontage of the development site at the completion of all building works. 19. Purpose built storage compartment(s) shall be provided to and within each of the

resident car parking bays and/or associated dwellings at the following rates:

o 6m3 for each one (1) bedroom unit; o 8m3 for each two (2) bedroom unit; and o 10m3 for each unit with three (3) bedrooms or more. Amended plans showing the location and configuration of each of storage compartment(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


MINUTES

9

20. Prior to the Commencement of Works a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate that the proposed delivery routes for equipment, materials and machinery to and from the site will not disrupt the local traffic network. The CTMP is to nominate waiting zones for the queueing of vehicles pending their loading/unloading at the site in order to manage traffic impact on Parramatta Road. The recommendations of the CTMP are to be implemented during construction and excavation phases of the development. This document shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

21. Residents and occupiers of the proposed development shall not be eligible to

participate in any On-Street Permit Parking Scheme that may be introduced in the area.

22. Vehicles entering the development must not obstruct the footpath area while waiting

for security gates to open.

Drainage/Stormwater 23. The connection of stormwater runoff from the development site to Council’s street

drainage system shall consist of a pipe line across to the street kerb with the pipeline then continuing under the kerb and gutter to Council’s drainage pit on the eastern side of Smallwood Avenue.

24. The pipe in Smallwood Avenue shall be 375mm in diameter, reinforced concrete

spigot and socked with rubber ring joints. A pit shall be constructed at the property boundary and at the kerb line. Class of the pipe shall comply with the manufacturer’s specification and Council’s standard requirements. The proposed pit in Smallwood Avenue shall locate a minimum of 2m from the street tree and layback of the crossings and 1m from the power poles.

25. A plan and long section of the proposed drainage line within the road reserve shall

be submitted for approval of Council’s Engineering Works & Services. This plan to show On-site Stormwater Detention Storage (OSD) and the outlet pipe connecting to the proposed lintel inlet pit in Smallwood Avenue.

26. The utility services within the area of effect of the proposed drainage works (i.e. gas,

water, sewer, electricity, telephone, etc) shall be physically located and shown on the long section of the proposed drainage line in Edward Street. The relevant authority’s written consent for excavation adjacent to their services shall be obtained. Any adjustments required shall be at no cost to Council.

27. Details of the proposed connection of stormwater runoff to Council’s street drainage system shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulics engineer in accordance with Council’s standard requirements and submitted for approval of Council’s Manager Engineering Works & Services.


MINUTES

10

28. The proposed drainage line and pits in Smallwood Avenue shall be constructed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

29. FOR CONNECTION TO COUNCIL’S DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN SMALLWOOD AVENUE INSPECTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED:

(a) AFTER THE EXCAVATION OF PIPELINE TRENCHES (b) AFTER THE LAYING OF ALL PIPES PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (c) AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ALL PITS AND CONNECTION POINTS.

30. UPON COMPLETION OF DRAINAGE WORKS WITHIN THE ROAD RESERVE FULL WORKS-AS-EXECUTED PLANS PREPARED AND SIGNED BY A REGISTERED SURVEYOR, SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR COUNCIL’S APPROVAL. WHERE CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED THE PLANS SHALL BE MARKED-UP IN RED INK AND SHALL INCLUDE LEVELS AND LOCATIONS FOR THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND WORKS.

31. ANY AFFECTED AREAS I.E. ROADWAY, NATURE STRIP, FOOTPATH, KERB & GUTTERING AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE REINSTATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF MANAGER ENGINEERING WORKS & SERVICES AT NO COST TO COUNCIL.

32. Stormwater runoff from all roof and paved surfaces shall be collected and

discharged by means of gravity fed system via an onsite stormwater detention tank discharging to the new kerb inlet pit in Smallwood Avenue and generally as depicted on the submitted CONCEPT STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLANS DRAWINGS NO. HD01-HD06 PREPARED BY AJ WHIPPS CONSULTING GROUP JOB NO.2014-0547 DATED 17.09.2014. THE CONSULTANT SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED OSD TANK IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUBMERGED STORAGE DURING ALL STORM EVENTS. DESIGN CERTIFICATION IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CERTIFYING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

33. Details of the proposed method of stormwater disposal shall be prepared by a

suitably qualified professional civil engineer in accordance with the endorsed concept plans AND the requirements of Council’s Stormwater Management Code.

In this project the above engineering plans are satisfactory as Concept plans. The

assessment authority, (either (a) Council, or (b) a Private Certifier), is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the above plans for the purposes of Construction. They are to independently determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Where a Private Certifier issues the Construction Certificate a copy must be

provided to Council, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.


MINUTES

11

34. On-site stormwater detention storage shall be provided in conjunction with the stormwater disposal system. The storage system shall be designed in accordance with the endorsed concept stormwater plans AND/OR Council’s Stormwater Management Code. Details of the storage system and its design components shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

35. The carparking spaces, aisle widths, driveway access, and footpath crossing(s)

shall be designed to fully comply with the relevant section of AS 2890.1.-2004 and Council’s issued alignment levels. Engineering certification indicating compliance with this condition is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

36. Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate/use of the building, written

verification from a suitably qualified professional civil engineer shall be obtained, stating that all stormwater drainage and related work has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

In addition, detailed works-as-executed plans, prepared and signed by a registered

surveyor, shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. Where changes have occurred the plans shall be marked-up in red ink and shall include levels and location for all drainage structures and works, buildings (including floor levels) and finished ground and pavement surface levels.

37. Temporary measures shall be provided and regularly maintained during demolition,

excavation and construction to prevent sediment and polluted waters discharging from site. Plans showing such measures in accordance with the NSW Department of Housing, Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Manual dated August 1998 shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

38. For drainage works within public land or connecting to Council’s stormwater

drainage system the following inspections will be required:-

(a) After the excavation of pipeline trenches. (b) After the laying of all pipes prior to backfilling. (c) After the completion of all pits and connection points. A minimum of 48 hours notice shall be given to Council to inspect works. Inspections may be arranged by telephoning Council’s Engineering Works and Services section on 9748-9999 during office hours. Work is not to proceed until the works are inspected and approved by Council.

39. All pits shall be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS3500.3.

40. All subsoil drainage must be designed to meet the requirements of AS3500.

41. Access to the basement car park, head room for basement entry, driveway ramp

and turning circles shall be designed in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004.


MINUTES

12

42. The proposed basement pump out system is to be strictly in accordance with the requirements set out in Strathfield Council's Stormwater Management Code 1994. The rising main shall be connected to the OSD tank/basin. Final details of this system are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

43. Overflow paths shall be provided to allow for flows in excess of the capacity of the

pipe/drainage system draining the site, as well as from any on-site stormwater detention storage.

44. Allowance shall be made for surface runoff from adjacent properties (if any), and to

retain existing surface flow path systems through the site. Any redirection or treatment of these flows shall not adversely affect any other properties.

45. A Positive Covenant under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act shall be created

on the title of the property detailing the:

(a) On-site stormwater detention system

incorporated in the development. The wording of the Instrument shall be submitted to, and approved by Council prior to lodgement at Land & Property Information NSW. The Instrument shall be registered and a registered copy of the document shall be submitted to and approved by the consent authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The positive covenant is required to prevent future modification or alteration without

the written consent of the consent authority, and to ensure suitable maintenance is carried out.

Public Authority Matters 46. Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate all existing overhead electricity

and telecommunication cabling adjacent to the development site shall be consolidated into a single Aerial Bundle Cable (ABC) at the applicants’ expense in accordance with the specifications of AusGrid and the telecommunications supplier.

Landscaping/Tree Matters 47. The trees listed below shall be retained at all times:

Tree Height/Spread

(m)

Location Protection Zone

(m)

Structural Root

Zone (m)1)Tristainopsis laurina 4.5/4 Council verge 2.7 1.6 2) Tristainopsis laurina 5/6 Council verge 5.4 2.4 3) Tristainopsis laurina 5/6 Council verge 3.2 1.9


MINUTES

13

9)Eleocarpus reticulatus 7/5 Adjoining property 2.5 1.5 10)Hymenosporum flavum 7/5 Adjoining property 2.5 1.3 11a) Hymenosporum flavum 5/4 Adjoining property 2 1.1 11b)Buckinghamia celsissima 5/4 Adjoining property 2.3 1.5 29)Livistona australis 4/4 Adjoining property 3.6 2 30) Livistona australis 10/4 Adjoining property 3.4 1.9 32)Corymbia ficifolia 8/10 Adjoining property 5.3 2.1 34)Melaleuca linearifolia 7/5 40-42 Loftus Crs 3.6 2 35)Leptospermum petersonii 6/4 Adjoining property 2.9 1.8 36)Eucalyptus seiberi 10/8 Adjoining property 4.2 2.1 37)Seratonia siliqua 10/11 40-42 Loftus Crs 5.5 2.1 38)Syzigium australe 5/3 Adjoining property 2.3 1.5 39)Fraxinus raywoodii 13/6 Adjoining property 3.4 1.9 40) Fraxinus raywoodii 8/4 Adjoining property 2.6 1.6 41)Camellia sasanqua 6/5 Adjoining property 2.5 1.5 43)Eleocarpus reticulatus 6/2 Adjoining property 1.5 1.1 45)Jacaranda mimosifolia 5/5 Adjoining property 3.1 1.9 47)Murraya paniculata 5/4 Adjoining property 2.4 1.7 48)Archontophoenix cunninghamii 12/4 Adjoining property 3 1.6 54)Cuppressocyparis leylandii 6/3 Adjoining property 2.2 1.6 55)Acer negundo 6/4 Adjoining property 2 1.4 56)Acer palmatum 5.5/4 Adjoining property 2.7 1.6

Tree management is to be conducted in accordance with the Arboricultural impact assessment and protected by the establishment of a protection zone (in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-Protection of trees on development sites) before any site works begin (including any demolition/excavation). The protection zone shall be maintained for the duration of works and implemented as follows: (a) A minimum 1.8m high barrier (Chain wire mesh panels, plywood or wooden

paling fence panels: refer to AS4687-Temporary fencing and hoardings for fencing requirements) shall be erected around the perimeter of the stated Protection Zone as measured from the base of the tree (or where practical). Shade cloth or similar should be attached to reduce the transport of dust, other particulate matter and liquids into the protected area. Fence posts and supports should have a diameter greater than 20mm and be located clear of roots. The barrier shall be constructed so as to prevent pedestrian and vehicular entry into the protection zone. The barrier shall not project beyond the kerb onto the roadway or any adjacent footpath.

(b) Signs identifying the Protection Zone should be installed on the fencing and be visible from within the development site. Lettering should comply with section 4.4 of AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites

(c) No concrete slurry or wash, building materials, builders’ rubble, excavation soil or similar shall be placed or stored within the tree protection zone.

(d) The whole of the tree protection zone shall be mulched to a minimum depth of 75mm.


MINUTES

14

(e) The tree protection zone shall be regularly watered. (f) Any roots over 50mm in diameter which are encountered shall be pruned by a

qualified Arborist. (g) No excavation or construction shall be carried out within the stated

Structural Root Zone distances from the base of the trunk surface. (h) Only permeable surfaces (e.g. decomposed granite, gravel, turfpave,

permeable paving systems or soft landscaping) are permitted within the canopy spread of the trees to be protected.

48. A minimum 600mm deep root deflection barrier shall be provided on both sides of

proposed driveway crossing(s) and footpaths when within 3 metres of trees to be retained.

49. All noxious weeds on the site shall be removed and destroyed as per their

classification under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993. 50. The following listed trees are permitted to be removed to accommodate the

proposed development however, any of the trees listed below that are located on adjoining properties must only be removed after consent from the tree’s owner has been sought and attained in writing. Location of trees as per Arborist Report.

Tree

4)Chamaecyparis obtusa 20)Dimocarpus longan 22)Plumeria acutifolia 23)Thuja occidentalis 24)Thuja orientalis 26)Jacaranda mimosifolia 44)Agonis flexuosa 46)Melaleuca bracteata 53)Thuja occidentalis

51. The following branch or root pruning works are permitted to accommodate the

proposed development:

Tree Approved Works 32)Corymbia ficifolia Prune as required in order to provide

approximately 2 metres clearance from proposed structures

(a) All pruning work must be undertaken by a minimum level 2 (AQF 2) qualified

Arborist who is currently a member or eligible for membership to Arboriculture Australia (AA) or the Tree Contractors Association Australia (TCAA) and in accordance with AS4373—Pruning of amenity trees.

(b) No climbing spikes/spurs are to be worn.


MINUTES

15

(c) Any root pruning/root barrier installation must be undertaken by a minimum level 4 (AQF 4) qualified Arborist who is currently a member or eligible for membership to the Arboriculture Australia (AA) or Tree Contractors Association Australia (TCAA) and in accordance with AS4373—Pruning of amenity trees.

52. General maintenance of Council’s nature strip adjoining the development site,

including regular lawn mowing, edging, irrigation of the lawn and street trees and restricting the storage of materials, rubbish and parking or driving of vehicles on the nature strip, must be carried out during the full period of all approved works (including any demolition and excavation).

53. Tree management on this site is to be conducted in accordance with the

recommendations and the content of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report for this site by Andrew Morton from Earthscape Horticultural Services, dated February 2015.

54. Tree protection measures and works within the TPZ of trees to be retained are to be

conducted in accordance with section 10 and Appendix 6 of the Earthscape AIA and with section 4 of AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

55. Excavations in the vicinity of trees 29, 30, 31, 32, 45 and 48 are to be conducted in

accordance with section 9.1.6 of the Earthscape AIA. Construction Matters 56. Prior to the commencement of any construction or demolition work, the

Applicant or principal contractor must, subject to obtaining permission from the respective property owners, provide dilapidation reports prepared by a suitably qualified person (such as a structural engineer), on the buildings located on any lot adjacent to the subject site, inclusive of ancillary structures. A copy of the respective report must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and neighbouring property owners that are the subject of that report.

57. The proposed development shall comply with the Building Code of Australia and details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

58. Footings shall be designed in accordance with the soil classification of H, or Highly

Reactive (unless determined to the contrary by a suitably qualified person). 59. If the soil conditions require it retaining walls associated with the erection or

demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided, and adequate provision must be made for drainage.

60. All construction, demolition and excavation work shall be restricted to 7am and 5pm

(Eastern Standard Time) on Mondays to Saturdays (inclusive) and prohibited on Sundays and public holidays.


MINUTES

16

61. All excavations and backfilling associated with the approved works must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards. All excavations must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

62. If an excavation associated with the approved works extends below the level of the

base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

(a) Must preserve and protect the building from damage; and (b) If necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner,

and (c) Must, at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of

the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished.

63. There are built structures which may be in the zone of influence of the proposed

works and excavations on the site. A qualified practicing geotechnical engineer must prepare a Construction Methodology Report demonstrating that the proposed construction method including any excavation and the configuration of the built structures will have no adverse impact on any surrounding property and infrastructure.

The report must be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate and must include an investigation to determine the design parameters appropriate to the specific development and site. This would typically include;

(a) the location and level of nearby foundations and footings (site and

neighbouring); (b) proposed method of excavation; (c) Permanent and temporary support measures for excavation; (d) Potential settlements affecting footings and foundations; (e) Ground water levels (if any); (f) Batter slopes; (g) Potential vibration cause by method of excavation; and (h) De-watering including seepage and offsite disposal rate (if any).

Excavation, retention, underpinning and construction must be undertaken onsite by an excavation contractor with specialist excavation experience. A suitably qualified geotechnical engineer, specialising in excavation must supervise the excavation procedure.

64. The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of

work carried out, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land.


MINUTES

17

65. The common access pathways, letterboxes and entry doorways to the building shall be provided with suitable low level artificial lighting systems to ensure safe and convenient access at night. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Building Matters

66. Identification numbers are to be clearly displayed at the front of the premises and be

easily visible from the street. Sustainability

67. Water collected in the rainwater tank must be roof water only and not surface water.

Water from the rainwater tank must only be used for following purposes and not for human consumption: (a) Toilet flushing; (b) Clothes washing; (c) Garden irrigation; (d) Car washing and similar outdoor uses; (e) Filling swimming pools, spa pools and ornamental ponds; and (f) Fire fighting.

68. Water heating systems to multi-unit residential developments shall be located so as not to be visible from public places and the ground level of adjoining properties. Details (type and location) of the water heaters shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Demolition 69. Demolition shall be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601 - ‘The

demolition of structures’ or any subsequent standard and the relevant legislation.

70. The demolition of the building shall be carried out by a licensed demolition contractor. A copy of the licence shall be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any work commencing on site.

71. Details demonstrating that excavated and demolished materials including asbestos-

based materials will be disposed of at an approved site shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any work commencing on site.

72. The cleared ground surface of the site shall be suitably stabilised to prevent the

generation of dust and the erosion of soil on the site.


MINUTES

18

Fire Safety Measures

73. Upon completion of works a final fire safety certificate is to be issued from a properly qualified person in respect of each essential fire safety measure installed within the building and specified in the fire safety schedule. The final fire safety certificate shall be provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

74. Each 12 months after the installation of essential fire or other safety measures, the owner of a building must submit an Annual Fire Safety Statement for the building to Council. In addition a copy of the statement must be given to the NSW Fire Commissioner and a copy displayed prominently in the building.

Hoardings 75. The site to which this approval relates must be adequately fenced or other suitable

measures employed that are acceptable to the principal certifying authority to restrict public access to the site and building works. Such fencing or other measures must be in place before the approved activity commences.

76. An overhead ‘B’ type hoarding shall be constructed where buildings over 7.5 m in height above the footpath level and within 3.6 m of the street alignment are being erected or demolished or where the outer part of such a building adjoining a public way is being altered. Where the height of the building or the position of the site is such that danger is likely to occur from falling objects, additional safety hoarding shall be provided to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority and Workcover NSW.

77. An overhead ‘B’ type hoarding shall be constructed where material is being hoisted over or across a public way.

78. The following additional requirements apply to the erection of a ‘B’ type hoarding:

(a) No advertisement of any kind shall be affixed to hoarding with the exception of a board not exceeding 2400 –mm by 1800-mm on which may be shown the architects, builders and principal certifying authority company name / contact details or any particulars regarding the subject building, and notices regarding the existing or future occupancies in the building.

(b) A sign reading ‘Billposters will be Prosecuted’ shall be attached or printed upon the front of the hoarding

(c) A hydrant or other footpath box shall not be covered in any way or access to it impeded

(d) Cranes shall not be placed upon the public way unless a permit has been obtained under section 68 Local Government Act, 1993.

(e) The hoarding must be so constructed that it will not obstruct the view of traffic lights of motorists or pedestrians.

(f) The use of the roadway for the storage of building materials is not permitted. (g) Where materials are being hoisted over a public way a sign shall be attached

or printed upon the front of the hoarding at the decking level with the lettering


MINUTES

19

‘Lifting Operation Above’. The lettering shall not be less than 300-mm in height.

(h) Persons undertaking the work in accordance with this Approval must hold this Approval/Permit on-site for inspection.

(i) Approval for a temporary protective structure does not permit use of the roadway for general loading and unloading from construction vehicles. This requires a separate Construction Zone Application.

(j) An appropriate qualified practising structural engineer shall certify the structural stability / adequacy of the erected ‘B’ type hoarding. A copy of the certificate shall be forward to the principal certifying authority and to Council, where Council is not the principal certifying authority.

79. The builder shall erect and maintain all necessary hoardings, barricades and

warning signs required to provide adequate public safety. Night warning lamps are to be provided where necessary and must be in place before the approved activity commences.

80. Permits are required to erect Class ‘A’ or ‘B’ type hoardings. If any type hoarding is to occupy a section of Council’s property, that section will require a permit for the occupation of Council’s property. The applicant, owner, builder or site supervisor must apply for specific permits. The application form is available from Council’s Customer Service Department.

Air Quality 81. Full compliance shall be given to the recommendations contained in Section 5 of the

endorsed acoustic consultant's report.

Subdivision 82. The strata subdivision of the proposed development is not approved under the

subject application. Disabled Access 83. Access to the building for persons with disabilities shall be in accordance with the

requirements of the Building Code of Australia, the relevant standards and the requirements of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

84. A car parking space for persons with disabilities shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and the relevant standards. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.


MINUTES

20

Waste Management 85. Full compliance must be given to the endorsed Waste Management Plan submitted

for the proposed development. Copies of any weighbridge receipts from all approved waste disposal facilities shall be retained for presentation to the Principal Certifying Authority upon request.

86. The waste storage room shall be designed to comply with the relevant standards and details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

87. A Positive Covenant under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act shall be created on

the title of the property as follows: (a) Full and free right must be provided to Strathfield Council employees or its

authorised contractors to: (i) Enter upon the land and remove any waste products using any vehicle

or equipment as necessary; (b) The owner of the lot burdened shall be solely responsible for the cost of

maintaining in good and sufficient repair at all times the internal roads or access ways used by Strathfield Council for the purpose of exercising its rights as set out in clause (a) above.

The wording of the Instrument shall be submitted to, and approved by Council prior to lodgement at Land & Property Information NSW. The Instrument shall be registered and a registered copy of the document shall be submitted to and approved by the consent authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Automatic Waste Collection System (AWCS) 88. (a) The Developer, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate must

design and construct all buildings on the site to provide a conventional waste collection system that is adaptable to an AWCS for each building that:

(i) Collects general, recyclables and food and organics waste fractions (incl.

garden waste) separately; and (ii) Complies with Council’s requirements for future connection to an

Automated Waste Collection System, including provision of the space and provisional pipework necessary for connection to a future AWCS system.

(b) Detailed design drawings for the AWCS components must be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, including details of waste collection rooms, potential locations for air inlet facilities and waste inlet areas, pipe access spaces and site boundary connection points, in order to:

(i) Ensure the development will meet the requirements of Council;


MINUTES

21

(ii) Ensure that the building will be capable of adaptation when the building is integrated into the wider AWCS; and

(iii) Provide written feedback from Council on the proposal, which will form

part of these conditions, detailing how the design may need to be modified to ensure that it will enable the AWCS to be integrated into the building.

Note: Detailed requirements for the provision of AWCS components are available from Council.

NSW Office of Water 89. There is considerable uncertainty within the geotechnical report in regard to the

groundwater level beneath the property. Should the proposed excavation into the groundwater result in the requirement for a significantly greater dewatering volume to be extracted than that currently anticipated, the NSW Office of Water shall be advised of the increased water volume prior to the extraction of the additional water.

90. The basement shall be sealed or tanked to prevent ongoing groundwater ingress after construction.

Land Contamination 91. Any new information which comes to light during demolition or construction works

which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

92. All fill imported on to the site shall be validated by an appropriately qualified

person/body to ensure the imported fill is suitable, from a contamination perspective, for the proposed land use. Fill imported onto the site shall also be compatible with the existing soil characteristics for site drainage purposes.

For the Motion: Councillors Vaccari, Bott, Datta, Kokkolis, McLucas, Ok and Soulos


2. DA2015/024 – 31-33 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush P42/15 RESOLVED: (Datta/Kokkolis) That DA2015/024 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of two (2) residential flat buildings over a shared single level basement car park at 31-33 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush be REFUSED for the following reasons:


MINUTES

22

1. The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 1.2(a) to Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 which seeks to ensure high quality urban form and design excellence. The proposal does not provide sufficient separation to the side boundaries, compromises the internal amenity of the proposed apartments and neighbouring dwellings in terms of aural and visual privacy and does not provide sufficient separation to the boundary with Hudson Lane to ameliorate the impacts of noise and lighting generated by the operation of the Sydney Markets (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

2. The proposal fails to comply with Design Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of State

Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings in respect of providing a development that responds to its context, results in a suitable scale, built form and density, provides appropriate landscaping and a high level of amenity, safety and security for future residents and neighbours. (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

3. The proposal fails to comply with the building separation requirements established by

the Residential Flat Design Code which is applicable pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The inadequate separation distances will compromise the privacy and amenity of future residents as well as residents of neighbouring dwellings and will compromise the development potential for the adjoining properties to the south-west and north-east (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

4. The proposal fails to comply with the maximum floor space ratio in Clauses 4.4 of the

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and no justification for the variation has been submitted for consideration by the consent authority as required by Clause 4.6 to Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

5. The proposal will isolate the single B4 zoned site adjoining the site and as a

consequence, will compromise the redevelopment potential of 35 Smallwood Avenue. The layout, orientation and non-compliant building separation will have unacceptable and detrimental impacts on the amenity of 35 Smallwood Avenue by way of overshadowing and overlooking. Therefore the proposal is unsuitable for the site. (s.79C(1)(b) and s.79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

6. The proposal will not be compatible with the streetscape and context of the desired future character for redevelopment of the Parramatta Road Corridor and Smallwood Avenue in particular and is unsuitable for the site (s.79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

7. The proposal fails to provide a mix of residential and non-residential uses and does not

meet the objectives for development in the B4 Mixed Use zone and the objectives for the Parramatta Road Corridor as specified in Clause 6.9 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).


MINUTES

23

8. The proposal is unsatisfactory in that it does not provide sufficient adaptable dwellings and ancillary on-site parking for people with a disability and provides an accessible path of travel which is excessive in length, convoluted and exposed to the weather and is therefore contrary to the public interest (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

9. The proposal is unsatisfactory in that there are multiple points of pedestrian entry/exit

from both street frontages with unsatisfactory levels of access control and casual surveillance which is inconsistent with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and is therefore contrary to the public interest (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

10. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory variety in the apartment mix to accommodate

for a variety of household types and requirements in that there are insufficient three (3) bedroom apartments and all adaptable apartments are provided as one (1) bedroom units. The proposed unit mix, being heavily weighted toward two (2) bedroom units, will not support a good social mix and is therefore contrary to the public interest. (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

11. The proposal is unsatisfactory in that it does not provide sufficient off-street car parking

for residents and visitors and is contrary to Section 2.13 of DCP 20 and will be likely to reduce the availability of on-street parking within Smallwood Avenue (s.79 C (1)(a)(iii) and s.79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

12. The proposed development fails to provide facilities for the on-site collection of waste

and is contrary to the provisions of Section 3.3.6 of Part H of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005 (s.79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

13. The proposed development results in a number of departures from the relevant

Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans. The development will provide an unacceptable level of amenity for future residents and will compromise the development potential of adjoining properties and is not in the public interest (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).



3. Strathfield DCP 2005 – Draft Part H – Waste Minimisation and Management Plan P43/15 RESOLVED: (McLucas/Kokkolis)

1. That Council adopt and implement Part H - Waste Minimisation and Management Plan of Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.


MINUTES

24

2. That Council notify the community of the adoption and activation of Part H - Waste Minimisation and Management Plan of Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005, and that the existing Part H – Waste Management is rescinded.



4. Planning Proposal for 11-17 Columbia Lane, Homebush In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice the following persons addressed the meeting. For the Proposal

Ms Clare Brown from Urbis JQZ Pty Ltd t/a Columbia Lane Developments

Councillors Bott and McLucas allowed 1minute extra time. P44/15 RESOLVED: (Bott/McLucas)

1. That the Planning Proposal for 11-17 Columbia Lane, Homebush be deferred for the reasons outlined in this report.

2. That the proponent be advised accordingly.



5. Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005 P45/15 RESOLVED: (Bott/Kokkolis)

1. That Council note the report regarding the Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005.

2. That Council attend the consultation and put in a submission.


MINUTES

25

3. That Council place a detailed notice on the website of Council’s responsibilities when a Private Certifier is employed. This would include the lack of Council’s ability to take responsibility for problems that arise under Private Certification process.

4. That Council advise of action that residents can take if aggrieved by the actions of a Private Certifier.

5. That previous Council resolutions also be made available on the website.

For the Motion: Councillors Kokkolis, Ok, McLucas, Bott and Vaccari

Against the Motion: Councillors Soulos and Datta

6. MATTERS OF URGENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 241 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION, 2005 Nil. 7. CLOSED SESSION Nil. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.29PM

The foregoing minutes were confirmed at the Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the Municipality of Strathfield held on 18 August 2015. Chairman__________________________General Manager_________________________

Reports by Officers


ITEM 1. DA2015/052 – 587 LIVERPOOL ROAD, STRATHFIELD SOUTH

1.1

SUMMARY PROPERTY: 587 Liverpool Road, Strathfield South

Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 417004 DA NO.: 2015/052 APPLICATION TYPE: Fit-out and use of the existing premises as an indoor

recreation facility (gymnasium). REPORT BY: Kathryn McGovern – Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL SUBMISSIONS: Five (5) written objections and One (1) petition with (17) signatories. ZONING: R2 – Low Density Residential DATE APPLICATION LODGED: 4 June 2015 APPLICANT: Anytime Fitness Australia Pty Ltd OWNER: Pallamonello Investments Pty Ltd INTRODUCTION Approval is sought for the fit-out and use of the existing premises as a recreation facility (indoor), or more specifically, a gymnasium, operating 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. Under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP 2012), a recreation facility (indoor) is defined as follows;

“a building or place used predominantly for indoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain, including a squash court, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, table tennis centre, health studio, bowling alley, ice rink or any other building or place of a like character used for indoor recreation, but does not include an entertainment facility, a recreation facility (major) or a registered club”.

The site is zoned R2 and the use of the site as a recreation facility (indoor) is prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. As the proposed use of the site is prohibited, the application cannot be approved pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. While the application cannot be approved, it has been referred to Councils Planning Committee because of the number of submissions received.



1.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the northern side of Liverpool Road forming the corner with Hedges Avenue to the west. Irregular in shape, the site comprises a total site area of approximately 663.28m2, with a frontage to Liverpool Road of approximately 20.9m. The site is currently occupied by a two (2) storey building of brick construction with a decked sheet metal roof and orientation towards Liverpool Road. The premise is currently vacant and maintains six (6) off street parking spaces forward of the building line adjacent to Liverpool Road. Vehicle access is presently available from both Liverpool Road and Hedges Avenue. The current streetscape is varied, with this section of Liverpool Road supporting a variety of land use zones within the immediate locality. The northern side of the street presents a mixture of R2 Low Density Residential and B6 Enterprise Corridor zoning, while the southern side of the street is largely zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor.

Figure 1: (View of the subject premises from Liverpool Road.)

Figure 2: (View of the subject premises and surrounding sites along Liverpool Road.)



1.3

Figure 3: (View of the subject premises from Cave Road.)

Figure 4: (Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding locality.) PROPOSAL The application seeks Council approval for the fit-out and use of the existing premises as an indoor recreation facility (gymnasium). As previously discussed, the proposed use of the site is prohibited in the R2 zone and is unable to be approved. Notwithstanding, the elements of the proposal are: Ground Floor

Remove redundant walls and doors to internal staircase;



1.4

Construct toilet and shower room comprising of three (3) unisex toilets, one (1) shower room and one (1) utility room;

Install partition walling to create manager’s office, member lobby and guest lobby adjacent

to the western corner of the building; and

The remainder of the ground floor is to be reserved for open training space including a stretching area, cardio area and weight training area.

First Floor

Remove a number of dividing walls excluding the walls around the kitchen to provide an open plan layout; and

Divide the first floor into three (3) main training areas including stretch training, weight training and synergy training.

Signage

An illuminated wall sign with dimensions of 12m x 1.2m is proposed for the southern elevation. The wall sign is to be comprised of acrylic fabricated letters mounted to a powder coated box rail to house the power supply; and

Two (2) painted wall signs are proposed for the western elevation. The upper wall sign has dimensions of 8m x 0.8m. The lower wall sign has dimensions of 2.5m x 2.5m.

The following provides a summary of the operational features of the proposal. Summary of Proposal Type of business:

Recreation facility (indoor) - Gymnasium.

Number of staff:

Maximum of two (2) staff at any one time during staffed hours (10am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 10am to 2pm Saturday).

Hours and days of operation: 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Plant and machinery:

Typical gym equipment.

Vehicle access: Liverpool Road and Hedges Avenue

Car parking:

Six (6) dedicated parking spaces.

Works: General gymnasium fit-out.

A site plan and elevations are attached (2).



1.5

BACKGROUND It is understood the premises has been vacant for some time however the following applications are relevant to the subject site. 14 September 1971 Building permit 279/71 for the reconstruction of existing fruit and

vegetable shop and dwelling was granted approval.

27 August 1996 DA95/73 to alter the existing fruit shop to form two (2) shops was granted approval.

27 December 2001 DA0102/207 to change the use of an existing shop to allow footwear retail and replace roller shutters with glass shop fronts was granted approval.

19 January 2004 DA0304/131 for the change of use from a fruit shop to a shop for the sale and display of motor vehicle accessories including the internal fit out to cater for the activity was granted approval.

4 June 2015 DA2015/052 (current application) for the fit out and use of the existing premise as an indoor recreation facility (gymnasium) was lodged with Council.

The applicant was advised in writing on 6 July 2015 that the use of the premise as a recreation facility (indoor) is prohibited in the R2 zone. It was further advised that the application provided no legal mechanism in which the application could be supported. In this regard, it was recommended that the application be withdrawn. On 16 July 2015, a response was received from the applicant’s solicitor which argued Councils correspondence failed to take into account existing use rights attaching to the premises. The subject application however, does not establish existing use rights but rather seeks to justify the prohibited use on the basis the proposed use is considered consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone, even though the use is clearly prohibited. Notwithstanding the above, in the event the applicant sought to establish existing use rights, the proposed use as a recreation facility (indoor) could not rely on Clause 41(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 as required. Clause 41(e) allows one (1) commercial use to be changed to another commercial use (including a commercial use that would otherwise be prohibited). As the proposed use as a recreation facility (indoor) is not a commercial use as defined under the SLEP 2012, the proposal cannot rely on Clause 41(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. ASSESSMENT - Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 The application has been assessed pursuant to the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the relevant matters described in Sub-section (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 79C have been considered within this report.



1.6

(a) (i) Environmental Planning Instruments: Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP), 2012 wherein development for the purposes of a recreation facility (indoor) is prohibited. As the proposed use is prohibited in the zone, the subject application is unable to be supported. Given the proposal is unable to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act), no further assessment of the proposal against Section 79C of the Act is warranted as 79C (1) of the Act requires the consent authority to take into consideration matters only as of relevance to the subject application. Notwithstanding the above, a cursory assessment against the remaining provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been prepared as a matter of completeness. Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions would not be applicable to the proposed development in accordance with the Strathfield Indirect Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030 as the cost of works for the fit out of the premise is less than $100,000.

(ii) Draft Environmental Planning Instruments: There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable to the subject site.

(iii) Development Control Plans: Part I – ‘Provision of Off-Street Parking’ of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005

The DCP provides no provisions for indoor gymnasiums and accordingly reference is made to the Roads and Maritime Service’s ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Development, 2002’ (RMS guideline). The RMS guideline recommends the following minimum and desirable parking rates for gymnasiums:

RMS Guideline Required Proposed Compliance Minimum: 4.5 spaces per 100m2 of GFA

21 off street parking spaces 6 off street parking spaces

No

Desirable: 7.5 spaces per 100m2 of GFA

36 off street parking spaces 6 off street parking spaces

No

In this instance, the proposed gross floor area to be used for the purposes of a gymnasium is 476.22m2 and accordingly a minimum of twenty one (21) parking spaces would be required however it would be desirable if (36) parking spaces could be provided in accordance with the RMS guideline.



1.7

The current application provides six (6) dedicated off street parking spaces for the use of the recreation facility (indoor) and also relies on the provision of nearby on street parking. An unspecified level of staff parking is nominated at the rear of the premises in the SEE. Based on a visual inspection of the rear parking area, it is anticipated that no more than one (1) vehicle could be parked and safely manoeuvre in this area. As previously stated, the proposal is prohibited in the zone and is unable to be supported under the SLEP 2012. Additionally, the proposal seeks a significant departure from the minimum (21) and desirable (36) parking spaces as recommended under the RMS guideline which would be likely to reduce the availability of on-street parking in the nearby residential streets.

Part J – ‘Erection and Display of Advertising Signs and Structures’ of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005

Section Development Standard

Required Proposed Compliance

2.1 (v)

Language Predominantly in English, minimum of 50%

100% English Acceptable

2.2 Residential Areas The advertisement and advertising structure; (i) Is in character with the

dwelling house and any associated buildings and streetscape.

(ii) Does not interfere with public safety.

(iii) Does not dominate the building it is placed on.

(iv) Does not encroach on the building line setback.

The proposed advertising appears appropriate within the Liverpool Road context which supports a number of advertising signs in various formats including large pylons signs. The proposed signs are all flush to wall signs. The proposed signs are not anticipated to interfere with public safety. The illuminated wall sign proposed for the southern elevation of the building is considered suitably separated from the adjoining nearby residents so as to not cause any visual nuisance during the night and early morning.

Acceptable



1.8

Part H – ‘Waste Management’ of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005

The proposed development was accompanied by a Waste Management Plan however insufficient detail was provided.

(iii) Planning Agreements (or draft agreements):

The proposed development is not subject to a planning agreement pursuant to Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(iv) Matters Prescribed by the Regulations

Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation requires Council to take into consideration the provisions of the Government Coastal Policy and the relevant Australian Standard for the demolition of buildings in the determination of a development application.

Having regard to these prescribed matters, the proposed development is not located on land subject to the Government Coastal Policy as determined by Clause 92 (1) (a) (i) and does not involve the demolition of a building for the purposes of Australian Standard (AS) 2601 – 1991: The Demolition of Structures. (v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan:

The NSW Government projects sea levels to rise by 40cm in 2050 and by 90cm in 2100 above the relative mean sea level in 1990. These planning benchmarks are to be considered in the assessment of development applications through the applicable coastal zone management plan or alternatively the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise. Although Council is not subject to a coastal zone management plan, the sea level rise planning benchmarks have also been established in order to assess the likely increase in the frequency, duration and height of flooding and as a consequence likely property and infrastructure damage on affected and potentially affected land. Council is therefore required to consider the impact of sea level rise and resultant flooding from Powell’s Creek and Cook’s River which are tributaries of Sydney Harbour (Parramatta River) and Botany Bay respectively.

The proposed development is not located on a site that is subject to flooding attributed to either Powell’s Creek or Cook’s River and is therefore not required to be considered under the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.

(b) Likely Impacts:

The proposed use as a gymnasium is prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone applying to the land under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and thus the application cannot be supported as it fails to satisfy Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.



1.9

Notwithstanding that the proposed use is prohibited in the zone, the subject site does not provide sufficient parking and significant concern is raised over the parking shortfall and anticipated adverse impacts on the availability of existing on street parking in nearby streets.

(c) Suitability of the Site:

The proposed use as a gymnasium is prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone applying to the land and therefore the site is not considered suitable for development as a gymnasium.

(d) Submissions:

The application and plans were originally notified in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 from 16 June 2015 to 1 July 2015. The notification period was also extended to 15 July 2015 following a request originating from local residents. Five (5) written submissions and one (1) petition including (17) signatories were received.

The nature of the objections generally relate to noise pollution, impacts on local traffic, loss of privacy, air pollution, anticipated anti-social behaviour, illumination of signage, hours of operation and permissibility. Given the proposed use is prohibited in the zone and is unable to be supported a detailed response to the submissions is not warranted.

(e) Public Interest:

The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the relevant statutory instruments. As the proposed use of the site is prohibited under the under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012, approval of the application would be contrary to the public interest.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT There are no approvals required by other authorities pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. INTERNAL REFERRALS The application was not referred to other departments due to the proposed use being prohibited in the zone. CONCLUSION The proposed development is prohibited in the subject zoning in accordance with the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. Accordingly the application cannot be supported as it fails to satisfy Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. RECOMMENDATION That DA2015/052 for the fit out and use of the existing premises as an indoor recreation facility (gymnasium) at 587 Liverpool Road, Strathfield South be REFUSED for the following reason:



1.10

REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed use of the subject premises as a recreation facility (indoor) is prohibited in the R2

Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and as such cannot be approved. (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).



1.11

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Notification Map 2. Site plans and elevations. 3. Letters of objection.

A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T 1

Notification Map

Location Map

Submissions

Subject Development Site

Extent of Notification

Note: Maps are not to scale

ATTACHMENT 2

SOUTH ELEVATION

SIGN 1:

Overall Size: 12 m W x 1.2m H.

Acrylic Fabricated letters illuminated by LEDs with a 3mm opal

face and vinyl running man + black stripe to match logo. 80mm

black acrylic returns and 10mm foam PVC backs.

Mounted to powder coated purpose built box rails to house power

supply & wiring

WEST ELEVATION

SIGN 2:

Overall Size: 8 m W x 0.8m H.

Sign directly painted on the wall.

SIGN 3:

Overall Size: 2.5 m W x 2.5m H.

Sign directly painted on the wall.

ARCHISPECTRUM

External Elevation & Signage Details

587 Hume Highway, South Strathfield, NSW

Anytime Fitness Strathfield


Proposed Fitness Club

DA04 a

1:100 @ A2

MARTIN

A DA ISSUE TO COUNCIL

Suite C5, 8 Allen St, Waterloo NSW 2017

ph:(02) 8003 4074 mob: (0419) 670 108

fax: (02) 8003 9674 email: [email protected]

A.B.N. 40 966 067 144

A2

n/a

N/A N/A PRELIMINARY FOR REVISION ONLY

DRAFT ISSUE FOR COMMENT 30 Apr 2015

LIVERPOOL ROAD

HUME HIGHWAY

GOUL

D ST

REET

HEDG

ES A

VENU

E

CAVE ROAD

No. 587

commercial

location of proposed

Anytime Fitness

No. 56

residential

No. 54

residential

No. 52

residential

No. 50

residential

No. 48

residential

No. 46

residential

No. 44

residential

No. 26

residential

No. 45

residential

No. 43

residential

No. 41

residential

No. 39

residential

No. 630

commercial

No. 626

commercial

No. 622-624

commercial

Parking

parking

Parking

Parking

Parking

No. 589

No. 47

Sign 1

Sign 2

Sign 3

staff

parking

ARCHISPECTRUM

Site Plan


Anytime Fitness Strathfield


Proposed Fitness Club

DA03 a

1:500 @ A2

MARTIN

A DA ISSUE TO COUNCIL

Suite C5, 8 Allen St, Waterloo NSW 2017

ph:(02) 8003 4074 mob: (0419) 670 108

fax: (02) 8003 9674 email: [email protected]

A.B.N. 40 966 067 144

A2

n/a

N/A N/A PRELIMINARY FOR REVISION ONLY

DRAFT ISSUE FOR COMMENT 30 Apr 2015

SITE PLAN

ATTACHMENT 3


ITEM 2. DA0405/176/03 – 81-86 COURALLIE AVENUE, HOMEBUSH WEST

2.1

SUMMARY PROPERTY: Stage 1D 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West DA NO.: 0405/176/03 APPLICATION TYPE: Section 96(2) Application REPORT BY: Sophie Olsen – Senior Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUBMISSIONS: Three (3) submissions were received. ZONING: R3 – Medium Density Residential DATE APPLICATION LODGED: 7 April 2015 APPLICANT: Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd OWNER: Telmet Ventures Pty Ltd INTRODUCTION The subject modification application seeks to reconfigure the footprints of five (5) residential flat buildings which were approved as Stage 1D. The proposal has been substantially modified throughout the assessment of the subject Section 96 Application. Initially, the proposal sought to provide an additional (257) units by increasing the height of the buildings by between two (2) and four (4) storeys. In its original form, the subject application sought to provide a total of (552) residential units across the subject five (5) buildings. Following the advice of Council Officers, the applicant deleted (209) units, reducing the total number of proposed units to (343). Following the receipt of these amended plans, and in consultation with the applicant, Council Officers have further reduced the density and height of the buildings to ensure that there is no net increase to the gross floor area from that which was previously approved. As a result, the proposal now seeks consent for a total of (303) residential units across five (5) buildings, being (53) units in addition to what was previously approved under DA0405/176. The additional units are achieved by rationalising unit layout and altering the unit mix to increase the total number of units with only a marginal (41m²) increase to gross floor area. The additional 41m² of gross floor area is considered negligible given the overall scale of the development. Council’s LEP permits a maximum height of 20m, with which these modified building forms will comply. The proposed units will be distributed across five (5) buildings, which, with the exception of the six (6) storey built form of Building 4, are all four (4) storeys in height.



2.2

The modifications will modernise the development both internally and externally and will improve the articulation of each building. The modifications will retain a consistent FSR to the previous approval, with the exception of the additional 41m². The proposal also includes the introduction of an additional level of basement car parking containing (408) spaces. In total, the basement levels below buildings 2 to 6 will contain (737) spaces. These spaces are in surplus to the (337) minimum required parking spaces and it is anticipated that they will be made available to future residents of the approved buildings within the site. In the event that the applicant seeks to increase the allowable FSR and Height on the site through the submission of a Planning Proposal, these parking spaces could also be utilised to cater for future additional units, however this would be subject to a future application. The proposal is located within the Centenary Park Estate which contains a variety of housing options from single dwellings and town houses through to residential flat buildings. Included within the estate are shared community facilities such as music rooms, meeting rooms, BBQ facilities, tennis court, swimming pool, gardens, play equipment and a waterpark feature. The portion of the site which this proposal specifically relates to is located along the southern boundary, adjoining the western rail line. Development south of the western rail line comprises an industrial estate with hardstand parking and manoeuvring areas. A referral was made to Sydney Trains (Rail Corp) due to the proximity of the development to the western railway line and no objections were raised to the modified proposal. Overall, the modified proposal is considered acceptable and will modernise the appearance of the development, whilst also providing residents with an upgraded level of amenity. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located at 81-86 Courallie Avenue (formerly 78 Marlborough Road), Homebush West. The site is known as Centenary Park and has a curvilinear shape with an area of approximately 6 hectares (60,000m²) when calculated in accordance with the requirements of the SLEP 2012. The site is traversed in part by a 20-30 metre wide easement that accommodates a high voltage electricity easement over part of the site, near the gatehouse entry and buildings proposed as Stage 2. A transmission tower is located within the easement and whilst emergency access is required to be maintained to the easement and transmission tower, the applicant has entered into an agreement with Ausgrid for the use of the easement area surrounding the tower as common open space (DA2015/033). Substantial works have commenced at the site and some residential flat buildings, dwellings and townhouses within the development are now occupied. The site is bordered to the south and west by the Western Railway line, and is located between Lidcombe (1.3km) and Flemington (700 metres) Railway Stations.



2.3

PROPOSAL The application seeks to reconfigure the footprints of five (5) residential flat buildings which were approved as Stage 1D. Specifically, the proposal results in a reconfiguration of the building footprint and floor plate at each level and the introduction of an additional level of basement parking. The approved development comprised five (5) interconnecting buildings each consisting of four (4) levels with a fifth floor as an attic provided within a pitched roof form. The approved development contained a total of (235) residential units within Stage 1D. The development now comprises a total of (303) residential units across five (5) separate buildings, including a ground floor premise (future childcare centre) and a café. With the exception of Building 4 which is six (6) storeys, all of the buildings, as modified, will have a four (4) storey built form. A comparison between the approved and proposed unit mix is provided in the following table:

An overall site plan of the Centenary Park Estate is provided below showing the location of Buildings 2 to 6. A site plan and elevations are attached (2).

1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Building 2 3 0 24 30 4 0 Building 3 4 8 32 44 4 10 Building 4 6 7 27 72 7 10 Building 5 14 5 44 52 8 7 Building 6 13 8 49 44 5 6 Total 40 28 176 242 28 33

2

3

5

4

6



2.4

BACKGROUND The following applications provide a relevant background to the subject site: Remediation & Civil Works DA95/67 Development Application (DA) for substantial

remediation works to the site was approved by Council.

DA95/135

DA to implement Environmental Management Measures was approved by Council on 17 December 1996.

DA 9899/446 DA for the construction of vehicular access from Marlborough Road was approved in September 1999.

DA 9900/402 DA for earthworks and drainage works to the site including construction of a detention basin and stormwater detention tank was approved in April 2001.

Spot Rezoning The Strathfield LEP Amendment 103 to rezone the site from Industiral 4 to Residential B was gazetted on 17 January 2003.

Site Specific DCP Council resolved to adopt DCP No. 25 which contains the controls for the future development of the subject site on 1 October 2002.

DA0304/203 – Master Plan DA proposing a masterplan for the future residential development of Stage 1 of the site at 79 Courallie Avenue was approved on 20 January 2004. This Masterplan approval specifically stated that a further stage (Stage 2) would be provided to Council at a later date and would be subject to a separate application.

Stages 1D and 1E 0405/176 Approved by Council 12 June 2007.

0405/176/01 Section 96 Application to extend the lapse

date was refused by Council 13 May 2008.

0405/176/02 S96(2) to modify the Stage 1E and the design of buildings 7, 8 and 9, incorporating the additional FSR from buildings 11 and 12 which was modified under DA0405/160/03 and



2.5

DA2013/132. This application was approved on 12 December 2013.

The following Development Applications relate to the previously approved stages of the development which have already been constructed or are currently under construction: Stage 1A 0304/419

DA for Stage 1A proposing the construction of one (1) x 3 storey and one (1) x 4 storey residential flat buildings comprising (72) apartments, (14) semi-detached residencies and nine (9) detached residences with landscaping, roads and service networks was refused by Council 9 August 2005.

0304/419 A Class 1 Appeal against Council’s previous refusal of DA0304/419 was upheld by the Land and Environment Court on 15 August 2006.

0304/419/01 Section 96 Application to modify the gatehouse entry structure was approved by Council on 15 October 2007.

0304/419/02 Section 96 Application to modify Condition 4 relating to Section 94 Contributions was refused by Council on 13 May 2008.

0304/419/02 A Class 1 Appeal against the refusal of a Section 96 application to modify Condition 4 relating to Section 94 Contributions was upheld by the Land and Environment Court on 24 November 2008.

0403/419/03 Section 96 Application for the deletion of conditions of consent relating to the release of information to future purchasers in relation to the former contamination of the subject site and adjoining “Ford Site” was refused by Council on 4 March 2009. .

Stages 1B and 1C 0405/160 Refused by Council 8 May 2007

0405/160 Section 82A Review approved by Council 18

July 2007.

0405/160/01 Section 96 Application to extend lapse date refused by Council 18 June 2008.



2.6

0405/160/02 Section 96 Application to modify building 1B was approved by Council 14 March 2011.

0405/160/03 Section 96 Application to modify Stage IC including the reduction of six (6) residential flat buildings to two (2) ‘bookend’ style buildings and construction of two groups of two (2) storey townhouses was partially approved on 14 March 2011. The applicant was advised to lodge a new DA for the townhouse component of the development (refer to DA2013/132).

0405/160/04 Section 96 Application to relocate community facilities was approved by Council on 14 August 2012.

0405/160/05 Section 96 Application to modify Stage 1C was approved by Council on 14 August 2012.

Buildings 11 and 12 (townhouses) 2013/132 DA to replace previously approved residential

flat buildings totalling (94) units within Block Areas 11 and 12 of Stage 1C with (24) x three (3) storey townhouses above basement level car parking and a part (3), part (4) storey detached dwelling with at grade parking was approved by Council on 12 December 2013.

2013/132/01 S96 to reallocate the accessible dwellings to Stage 1D of the development and a correction of a minor error in relation to parking allocation was approved by Council on 4 April 2014.

ASSESSMENT - Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 The application has been assessed pursuant to the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the relevant matters described in Sub-section (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 79C have been considered within this report. (a) (i) Environmental Planning Instruments: SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land The subject site is located within an area of investigation identified in Map 2, Part K of the

Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005.



2.7

The subject site was rezoned from Industrial 4 to Residential B in 2003, following substantial remediation works which were approved under DA95/67 and DA95/135.

As part of the rezoning and remediation process, SEPP 55 required Council to consider

whether the land is contaminated and if so, whether it can be remediated for the purposes for which the land is to be zoned.

As detailed in the site history above, works were carried out to remediate the site. Works

have since substantially commenced for the residential redevelopment of the site, with several buildings now occupied. Therefore, the subject site has been deemed suitable for the proposed residential use.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) The proposal was accompanied by an Acoustic Report which considers the proximity to the

western railway line which directly adjoins Stage 1D to the south. The modified proposal has been accompanied by an Acoustic Report which indicates that

internal noise levels as a result of train noise will be acceptable subject to the construction methodology suggested within the report.

Due to the proximity to the railway line, compliance with the internal noise levels is often only

achievable with windows closed. As a result, and to ensure the development does not contravene the ventilation requirements of the BCA, a suitable condition has been recommended requiring such rooms to be mechanically ventilated.

Compliance with this ventilation requirement and the construction methodology

recommended by the Acoustic Consultant shall be enforced by way of standard conditions of consent.

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 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.

In determining development applications for residential flat buildings, the SEPP requires

Council to take into consideration the advice of a Design Review Panel, the design quality of the proposal when evaluated against the ten (10) design quality principles in the SEPP and the ‘rules of thumb’ controls of the Residential Flat Design Code.

Written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council

confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP. A design verification statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been

received from a registered Architect who guided the design of the building. It should be noted that Strathfield Council is not subject to a Design Review Panel

constituted under the SEPP however an assessment has been undertaken against the ‘rule of thumb’ controls of the Residential Flat Design Code, as presented in the table below.



2.8

Design Principle Comment Principle 1: Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The modified design is more modern in appearance than the previous approval and is reflective of current architectural trends. The flat roof, in place of the pitched roof and attic and improved separation between buildings will produce a superior aesthetic which will positively contribute to the established residential estate.

Principle 2: Scale

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.

Establishing an appropriate scale requires a considered response to the scale of existing development. In precincts undergoing a transition, proposed bulk and height needs to achieve the scale identified for the desired future character of the area.

The scale of the proposal (as amended) is acceptable and is within the 20m height limit set by Council’s LEP. The topography of the land is such that the buildings will appear to step up in height to break the scale of the development and ensure they are consistent with the buildings which have already been constructed within the site.

Principle 3: Built form Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type 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 modified development achieves a better built form. The external appearance is to be upgraded and modernised whilst the internal layout is rationalised to provide improved amenity for future residents. The retracted building footprint below building 6 provides an area of common open space (‘The Meeting Place’) for residents to congregate.

Principle 4: Density

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

The modification redistributes the approved bulk and provides a similar density to the parent application. The density is better distributed and provides an upgraded level of residential amenity through increased building separation and more efficient internal layouts.



2.9

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction.

Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

The proposal is not required to comply with the BASIX SEPP however has been designed to maximise solar access and natural ventilation to support natural heating and cooling of the residential units.

Principle 6: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbours’ amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The proposal includes an upgraded landscape design which maximises opportunities for plantings between buildings as a result of the modification to the footprint and introduction of improved separation.

Principle 7: Amenity

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

The modified unit layouts achieve a more rational and efficient use of space to support an improved level of amenity for residents.

Principle 8: Safety and security



2.10

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

The proposal will retain a good level of safety for future residents. Following recent discussions with the Flemington Police, amended conditions are recommended in relation to the design of basement storage cages and letter boxes to deter theft.

Principle 9: Social dimensions

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

The modified proposal will provide an acceptable mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units within this stage of the development. Given the variety of housing options within Centenary Park, the overall development will be able to support a varied mixture of residents. A suitable condition will be imposed requiring provision to be made for at least 15% of the units to be adaptable plus the additional four (4) units which were required to be incorporated in this stage, following an exemption for this requirement in the DA approved for townhouses (DA2013/132).

Principle 10: Aesthetics

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

The proposed modifications will upgrade the aesthetic appearance of the five (5) residential flat buildings by providing additional articulation and a more modern, flat roof form. The modified internal layouts of the development will also upgrade amenity of future residents through improvements to their design.

Residential Flat Design Code Further to the design quality principles discussed above, the proposal has been considered against the various provisions of the Residential Flat Design Code in accordance with Clause 30 (2) (c) of SEPP 65. The proposed development is generally considered satisfactory in regards to the ‘Rules of Thumb’ controls as demonstrated in the following table:

Development Standard Required Proposed Compliance Building Separation 12m

7m Improved as

buildings were previously inter-connected.



2.11

Street Setbacks Consistent with existing

Setbacks from the internal roadway remain consistent with the parent approval.

Consistent with approved.

Side and Rear Setbacks Consistent with existing streetscape patterns

The setback to the western railway line remains consistent with the parent approval.

Consistent with approved.

Deep Soil Zones Min 25% of open space

There is no reduction to deep soil landscaping as the parent approval provided an interconnecting basement beneath buildings 2 to 6. The proposal does however provide additional opportunities for plantings through improved building separation.

Acceptable given the previous approval and improvements proposed.

Landscape Design Improve amenity, streetscape and energy efficiency

The landscape plan is modified and provides an improved level of amenity.

Yes.

Open Space Between 20-30% of site area

Residents of buildings 2 to 6 will be able to utilise the community facilities and open space throughout the site.

Yes.

Building Entry Provide physical and visual connection between building and street Provide safe entrance Provide equitable entrance

The building entries are visually identifiable, safe and equitable.

Yes.

Parking Provide underground car parking Provide bicycle parking

Additional level of underground parking provided under the subject application. Condition to be imposed.

Yes. Yes.

Pedestrian Access Barrier free access to at least 20% of dwellings

Barrier free access to all dwellings by way of lifts.

Yes.

Apartment Layout Single aspect max depth is 8m

The apartment layout is substantially improved, room

Yes.



2.12

BASIX

The parent application was lodged prior to 1 July 2004 and accordingly the savings provisions of Clause 286A of the SEPP BASIX apply to the development. Therefore, the proposal is not required to demonstrate compliance with the building and sustainability targets of BASIX.

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP), 2012 wherein development for the purposes of Residential Flat Buildings is permissible with Council consent. The proposed development also seeks consent for a café beneath Building 6 and an area capable of accommodating a childcare centre (details to be subject to a future DA) below

Min apartment size: 1 bed – 50m2 2 bed – 70m2 3 bed – 95m2

dimensions are larger and regularly shaped. The minimum apartment size requirements are satisfied.

Apartment Mix Provide an apartment mix

Acceptable mix of unit sizes

Yes.

Building Configuration Balconies have a minimum depth of 2m Ceiling Heights 2.7m habitable 2.4 non habitable Storage 1 bed – 6m3 2 bed – 8m3 3+ bed – 10m3

Min. 2m depth with smaller depth from bedrooms. No change. To be provided subject to condition.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Acoustic Privacy Like rooms together

Acoustic report submitted. Internal amenity will be preserved.

Yes.

Daylight Access 70% of units to receive 3 hours between 9am – 3pm Single aspect units limited to 10% of total

All units have a northern, eastern or western orientation to achieve the minimum solar access requirements and to orientate living areas away from the railway line.

Yes.

Natural Ventilation 60% of units to be naturally cross ventilated

All units are provided with a dual aspect.

Yes.



2.13

Building 4. A childcare centre is a permitted use in the R3 zone however the proposed café is prohibited. Whilst a café is prohibited, the provisions of Clause 5.4 permit a neighbourhood shop (up to 80m²). In this regard, a suitable condition is recommended requiring the deletion of the café and introduction of a ‘neighbourhood shop’ as permitted by Clause 5.4 the SLEP. The Stage 1 development site has a total area of 60,973m², when calculated in accordance with the Site Area requirements of the SLEP, which clearly complies with the minimum area of 1,000m² required for Residential Flat development by Clause 4.1A of the SLEP. In addition to the minimum site area, the following development standards are applicable to the site:

Development Standard Permitted Proposed Compliance Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

20m Max 19.8m (building 4) Yes.

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

1.2:1 1.52:1 No, refer to discussion.

The masterplan for the site and subsequent Development Applications for Stages 1A, 1B & C and 1D & E were approved under the provisions of the Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance (SPSO), 1969, prior to the gazettal of the SLEP in March 2013. The SPSO did not contain a height or FSR control for the site, and instead the density of development was established by a building envelope guideline and three (3) to four (4) storey control in the site specific DCP. Based on the site area of Stage 1 (60,973m²) it is understood that the approvals granted to date (Stage 1A, 1B & C and 1D & E) achieve a total FSR of 1.52:1. The five (5) buildings to which the subject application specifically relates have a total approved floor area of 29,817m². As previously discussed, subject to the changes recommended by conditions, the application will retain this approved floor area aside from a minor 41m² increase. The applicant has sought additional storeys to each of the buildings, however as previously discussed, a revised concept is recommended for approval which is reduced in scale to ensure the proposed modifications do not result in additional floor area. Aside from Building 4, which will have a six (6) storey height, each of the buildings will be four (4) storeys in scale. In total, the modified buildings will have a combined gross floor area of 29,858m² which is an additional 41m² to the approved floor area for Stage 1D on the site. Given the size of the development, an additional 41m² is negligible and will not be readily discernible. The increase in unit numbers results from the more efficient layout of the buildings and by permitting the central building, Building 4, to have a six (6) storey height, the proposal will achieve a good urban design aesthetic. The proposed floor area of each of the buildings is provided below:



2.14

Building 2 Building 3 Building 4 Building 5 Building 6 Approved

3,321m² 4 storey plus attic





Proposed 2,825m² 4 storeys

6,061m² 4 storeys

8,808m² 6 storeys

6,271m² 4 storeys

5,893m² 4 storeys

As briefly discussed in the introduction to this report, the applicant has indicated that they may consider lodging a Planning Proposal to vary the applicable Development Standards under the SLEP. This would be subject to a separate process and, if approved, may allow additional density within the Stage 1 portion of the site. This could, in the future, result in a further application to provide additional units within the site however this would be subject to a separate application. Notwithstanding this, the proposed modifications are acceptable as they generally retain the same floor area and the very marginal additional 41m² will not modify the FSR through the site. The modifications will result in improved articulation of the built form, better building separation and an upgraded level of residential amenity. Overall, the proposed development has been considered with respect to the relevant Clauses of the SLEP, 2012 and is satisfactory. Section 94 Contributions

It is noted that Section 94 Contributions equating to $562,500 for Stage 1D & 1E, to which the subject application relates, were paid on 16 June 2010. A condition of consent was also imposed on DA0405/176/02 requiring the payment of additional Section 94 Contributions for the modifications to Stage 1E, equating to $219,033. In addition to the Section 94 Contributions which have already been paid, the following additional contributions are payable for the subject application in accordance with the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030: Provision of Community Facilities $330,778.30 Provision of Major Open Space $1,592,008.70 Provision of Local Open Space $528,950.60 Provision Roads and traffic Management $54,839.00 Administration $67,776.40 TOTAL $2,574,353.00 The applicant has made a written offer to Council pursuant to Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 proposing to dedicate a community facility (proposed under DA2015/033) to Council and undertake works to construct a sculpture park and upgrade the footpath linking the site to Marlborough Road. These works are proposed to proportionately offset the Section 94 Contributions which are payable under the subject application and DA2015/033.



2.15

In order to provide sufficient flexibility for the negotiation of the VPA, a condition of consent has been recommended which indicates the S94 Direct Contributions which would be payable in the event that VPA negotiations are not successful. This will enable the VPA negotiations to occur under separate cover following approval of the subject application.


(iii) Development Control Plans:

DCP 25 – Site Specific Development Control Plan: 79 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West

The introduction to DCP 25 states that this site specific DCP contains “design guidelines which have been prepared as advice to developers in an attempt to encourage innovative and imaginative design based on sound planning principles which promote the quality of the landscape and character of the site.” Relevantly, the introduction to this DCP also provides that “the Development Concept [presented within the DCP] provides an indication of how the site might be developed…however is indicative only and Council will consider other proposals which achieve the underlying objectives of this DCP in an alternate manner.” The development which has been approved in stages 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E and each of the subsequent Section 96 modifications, differ from the Development Concept presented in the DCP, providing taller residential towers with reduced building footprints in place of wider three (3) to four (4) storey ‘walk-up’ apartment buildings. As a result, the provisions of DCP 25 have not been consistently applied to development within the Centenary Park Estate. Additionally, through Land and Environment Court Appeals, departures from the parking rates have been granted and the reduced rates provided by the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development have been utilised. Given the number of departures granted from this DCP, the controls have very little statutory weighting and it is better to consider the proposal in light of the design recommendations of the Residential Flat Design Code (with which it complies), the provisions of the BASIX SEPP and Infrastructure SEPP as they relate to environmentally sustainable design and acoustic amenity. The proposal has demonstrated compliance with these statutory provisions and accordingly, an assessment against the outdated controls of DCP 25 is not considered warranted.


Waste generated by the proposed units will be suitably collected from within the private road, as is the case currently throughout the site. Whilst it is acknowledged that Council’s preference is for underground collection of waste, the parent consent was approved prior to the commencement of Part H of the DCP.



2.16

Bins are currently collected kerbside throughout the development and, as noted by an objector, occasionally cause traffic obstruction. The applicant has proposed a hardstand collection bay under DA2015/033 which will cater for the centralised collection of bins associated with Stage 2. A condition of consent has been recommended below requiring the applicant to provide a similar centralised bin holding area within Stage 1D to improve collection efficiency and minimise impacts on residents. (iiia) Planning Agreements (or draft agreements):

As previously discussed, the proposed development is subject to a planning agreement pursuant to Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the applicant has made a written offer to Council to consider the dedication of the ground floor community facility (proposed under DA2015/033) and works to upgrade the pathway linking the site to Marlborough Road, in a proportionate exchange for the Section 94 contributions which would be payable. In order to provide sufficient flexibility for the negotiation of the VPA, a condition of consent has been recommended which indicates the S94 Direct Contributions which would be payable however which also includes an option for the developer to negotiate the terms of a VPA with Council. This will enable negotiations to occur under separate cover following approval of the subject application.


Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation requires Council to take into consideration the provisions of the Government Coastal Policy and the relevant Australian Standard for the demolition of buildings in the determination of a development application. Having regard to these prescribed matters, the proposed development is not located on land subject to the Government Coastal Policy as determined by Clause 92 (1) (a) (i) and does not involve the demolition of a building for the purposes of Australian Standard (AS) 2601 – 1991: The Demolition of Structures. (v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan:

The NSW Government projects sea levels to rise by 40cm in 2050 and by 90cm in 2100 above the relative mean sea level in 1990. These planning benchmarks are to be considered in the assessment of development applications through the applicable coastal zone management plan or alternatively the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise. The proposed development is located on a site that is not subject to flooding attributed to either Powell’s Creek or Cook’s River and is therefore not required to be considered under the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.

(b) Likely Impacts:



2.17

The modifications proposed will substantially improve the internal amenity of units by regularising the shape of rooms and providing a more efficient layout. The reconfiguration of the floor plates will also positively improve the overall appearance of the buildings through a stepped form with better articulation. The flat roof form will also help to modernise the buildings whilst the materiality will ensure consistency with other buildings within the site which have already been constructed. The proposal provides two (2) levels of basement car parking in an interconnecting basement beneath Buildings 2 to 6. The basement contains a total of (737) car parking spaces which is (400) parking spaces more than the (337) parking spaces which would be required for this stage of the development, in accordance with the RMS Traffic Generating Development rates which have been utilised throughout the Centenary Park site in accordance with a previous Land and Environment Court decision. As previously stated, it is anticipated that the applicant will lodge a Planning Proposal to modify the Height and/or FSR development standards which apply to the site under the Strathfield LEP. The surplus car parking spaces would support an increase in the density of the site, should a Planning Proposal be approved in the future, or could be sold/distributed to approved units within the site. A condition of consent will be imposed in relation to the allocation of parking spaces in accordance with the rates provided in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development being 0.6 spaces per 1 bedroom, 0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom and 1.4 spaces per 3 bedroom unit plus 1 visitor parking space per 5 units. As modified by the conditions of consent below, the five (5) buildings proposed under Stage 1D will have a combined total floor area of 29,858m², which is comparable to the total floor area previously approved by Council (29,817m²) albeit with an improved level of internal amenity and more modern external appearance. The condition of consent has been structured to clarify that the ground, top floor and roof design shall remain consistent with that shown on the plans however there shall be a reduction in the ‘typical’ floor levels in each building to achieve the four (4) storey height (Buildings 2, 3, 5 and 6) and six (6) storey form (Building 4). Subject to the preparation of amended plans in accordance with this condition, the modified development will have an acceptable height, bulk, scale and density.


The proposed modifications generally retain the gross floor area which was approved under the parent consent for Stage 1D. The modified building design will provide an improved level of internal amenity for residents whilst modernising the external appearance of the buildings. The proposal, as modified, will be suitable for the site.

(d) Submissions:

The application and plans were notified in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 from 26 May 2015 to 26 June 2015 Three (3) written submissions were received. The concerns raised in the submissions are outlined and discussed below.



2.18

1. Parking and Traffic As discussed above, the proposal provides a surplus of (400) car parking spaces within the basement below Stage 1D which will service the needs of residents and will reduce the demand for on-street parking within the Centenary Park site. The proposal, as modified by this application and the recommended conditions, will increase the total number of units by (68) which is a relatively small increase when considered in light of the overall scale of development approved to date on the site. The additional units will have very little, if any, impact on the functionality of Marlborough Road and the private road accessing the site during AM/PM peak as supported by the Traffic Impact Statement prepared in support of the application. 2. Illegal Parking

An objector raises concern in relation to illegal parking and dumped cars along the access road into the site. This access road is private property and the management of parking alongside this road is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation. 3. Open Space and Recreation Facilities The objector raises concern in relation to the availability of open space within the Centenary Park development. The proposed modifications include improvement to the building separation by deleting the connected building ‘wings’ which were previously approved. This provides opportunity for additional landscaping between buildings and will improve residential amenity. The modifications also include the provision of an area at the base of Building 6 (adjacent to the neighbourhood shop) which will be identified as ‘the meeting place’ and will provide an area of common open space for all residents within the different stages of the approved development. In conjunction with the common facilities provided in the approved stages such as tennis court, swimming pool, childrens play area, music room, BBQ area etc, the overall Centenary Park development will provide sufficient open space to support the active and passive recreation of future residents.

(e) Public Interest: Approval of the proposal is not contrary to the public interest. INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT The proposal was forwarded to Sydney Trains for comment, noting that the western railway line is located directly to the south of the proposed buildings. However, as the parent consent was reviewed and determined prior to the commencement of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, the application is not strictly ‘Integrated Development’ under Clause 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. INTERNAL REFERRALS The application was forwarded to Council’s Building Surveyor and Environmental Health Officer for comment. No objections were raised aside from the inclusion of standard conditions of consent.



2.19

The drainage of stormwater from the proposed buildings has already been approved and an On-Site Detention system constructed to manage runoff from the master planned site. The proposal will connect into the existing approved system via gully pits in the constructed roadway. CONCLUSION As discussed throughout this report, the application has undergone substantial amendments to reduce the floor area which is sought across the five (5) buildings. Initially, building heights of between seven (7) and nine (9) storeys were sought however following consultation with Council Officers, and as modified in the recommended conditions, the building heights have been reduced to four (4) and six (6) storeys. Following the preparation of amended plans in accordance with the recommended conditions below, the proposal for Stage 1D will have a floor area which is generally consistent with the previous approval, albeit the minor (41m²) increase to Building 4. As a result, the FSR within the site will not increase from that which has already been approved across Stage 1. The modified proposal will provide an improved outcome for future residents through more rationalised internal layout and will upgrade the appearance of the proposed buildings. Overall the proposal will positively contribute to the Centenary Park residential development and is therefore recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION That DA0405/176/03 for the modification to Stage 1D (Building 2 to 6) to provide a total of (303) units above two (2) levels of basement parking containing (737) parking spaces at 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF CONSENT Condition 1 shall be modified to read as follows: 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and

documents listed below, prior to the building being used or occupied, and subject to any amendments “in red” and any variation as required by conditions of this consent: Stage 1E – DA0405/176/02 Drawing No. & Issue reference 8001 S96 01 Issue A 8001 S96 04 Issue A 8001 S96 05 Issue A 8001 S96 06 Issue A 8001 S96 07 Issue A 8001 S9611 Issue A 8001 S96 12 Issue A 8001 S96 13 Issue A 8001 S96 14 Issue A 8001 S96 15 Issue A 8001 S96 16 Issue A 8001 S96 17 Issue A 8001 S96 18 Issue A 8001 S96 19 Issue A 8001 S9621 Issue A

Dated Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013



2.20

8001 S96 22 Issue A 8001 S96 23 Issue A 8001 S96 24 Issue A 8001 S96 25 Issue A 8001 S96 26 Issue A 8001 S96 27 Issue A 8001 S96 28 Issue A 8001 S96 29 Issue A 8001 S96 31 Issue A 8001 S96 32 Issue A 8001 S96 33 Issue A 8001 S96 34 Issue A 8001 S96 35 Issue A 8001 S96 36 Issue A 8001 S96 37 Issue A 8001 S96 38 Issue A 8001 S96 39 Issue A

Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013 Jul 2013

Stage 1D – DA0405/176/02 (as modified ‘in red’ and subject to condition 2 below.)

Stage 1D Basement 1 Dwg No. S96 17 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Stage 1D Basement 2 Dwg No. S96 18 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Site Overall Ground: Stage 1D Dwg No. S96 19 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Building 2 Floor Plan Dwg No. FSR 10 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Building 3 Floor Plan Dwg No. FSR 11 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Building 4 Floor Plan Dwg No. FSR 12 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Building 5 Floor Plan Dwg No. FSR 13 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Building 6 Floor Plan Dwg No. FSR 14 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Elevations Stage 1D Building 2 Dwg No. S96 30 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 29 July 2015 Elevations Stage 1D Building 3 Dwg No. S96 34 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 29 July 2015 Elevations Stage 1D Building 4 Dwg No. S96 37 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 29 July 2015



2.21

Elevations Stage 1D Building 5 Dwg No. S96 40 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 29 July 2015 Elevations Stage 1D Building 6 Dwg No. S96 43 prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 29 July 2015 Stage 1D balcony detail S96 14B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 21 July 2015 Landscape Masterplan Job No. SS14-2920 Dwg No. 100 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Landscape Plan Job No. SS14-2920 Dwg No. 101 to 107 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Landscape Details Job No. SS14-2920 Dwg No. 501 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Landscape Specification Notes & Indicative Plant Schedule Job No. SS14-2920 Dwg No. 502 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council on 7 April 2015 Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 28 November 2011 and received by Council on 7 April 2015 Stormwater Details prepared by HKMA Engineers dated 10 September 2014 and received by Council on 7 April 2015

A Construction Certificate must be obtained either from Council or a privately accredited person before commencement of any construction associated with this consent. The Principal Certifying Authority must be appointed prior to work commencing to supervise the work and authorise occupation/use of the building when completed. A copy of the endorsed stamped plans and specifications, together with a copy of the Development Consent, Construction Certificate and any approved Traffic Management Plan are to be retained on site at all times.

Condition 2 shall be modified to read as follows: 2. (1) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for Stage 1D, amended plans shall

be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority generally in accordance with the floor layouts proposed under DA0405/176/03 and as modified as follows:

(a) Buildings 2, 3, 5 and 6 shall comprise the ground floor footprint, two (2) typical

levels and the proposed top floor level retaining a flat roof form; and (b) Building 4 shall comprise the proposed ground floor footprint, four (4) typical

levels and the proposed top floor level, retaining a flat roof form; and (c) Evidence shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority demonstrating

that in total, the amended plans result in a total gross floor area of 29,858m² across buildings 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.



2.22

(2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of

Australia (BCA). (3) The building shall not be occupied or used until the development has been

completed in accordance with the conditions of this consent, construction has been completed in accordance with the Construction Certificate and an Occupation Certificate has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.

Condition 4 shall be modified to read as follows: 4. (a) An offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the ongoing

ownership and management of the community facility to be approved under DA2015/033 and for works to improve pedestrian access to the site from Marlborough Road was submitted with the application. In accordance with Section 93F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, this draft VPA is required to be publicly exhibited, submissions considered and an agreement entered into. The VPA must be finalised prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or as otherwise specified in writing by Council.

In the event that a VPA is not entered into, the Section 94 Direct Contributions for the

development provided under (b) below are required to be paid. (b) In the event that a Voluntary Planning Agreement is not reached in accordance with

5(a) above, the following contribution is required to be paid to Strathfield Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 94(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Strathfield Direct Section 94 Contributions Plan 2010-2030.

The contribution is payable in the form of cash, cheque or credit card (financial transaction fee applies) and shall be paid to Council for the following purposes:

Provision of Community Facilities $330,778.30 Provision of Major Open Space $1,592,008.70 Provision of Local Open Space $528,950.60 Provision Roads and traffic Management $54,839.00 Administration $67,776.40 TOTAL $2,574,353.00

The total amount of the contribution is valid as at the date of determination and is subject to annual indexation. If the contribution is paid after 1st July in any year, the amount of the contribution under this condition shall be indexed in accordance with clause 2.14 of the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030. The required contribution shall be paid prior to the issue of an amended Construction Certificate for Stage 1D. Note, the abovementioned amount payable is in addition to the $781,533.00 which was required to be paid under DA0405/176, DA0405/176/01 and DA0405/176/02.

Condition 10 shall be modified to read as follows:



2.23

10. In addition to the (152) car parking spaces which were previously approved to service

Stage 1E (DA0405/176 and DA0405/176/02), a total of (737) off-street parking spaces, hardpaved, linemarked, labelled and drained, shall be provided to service Stage 1D and shall be distributed as follows:

Residents 676 Visitors 61 TOTAL 737 The spaces shall be allocated at a rate of 0.6 spaces per studio/1 bedroom, 0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit and 1.4 spaces per 3 bedroom unit. The car parking spaces shall only be used for the parking of motorcycles, sedans, utilities, vans and similar vehicles up to two (2) tonne capacity.

Condition 92 shall be modified to read as follows: 92. Full compliance shall be given to the recommendations contained in the endorsed acoustic

consultant's report in order to ensure the following LAeq levels are not exceeded (as per Cl 87 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007):

(i) In any bedroom un the building – 35dB(A) at any time between 10pm and 7am;

(ii) Anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway – 40dB(A) at any time.

A consultant Acoustic Engineer shall confirm the construction methodology has achieved these minimum internal noise levels prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

In the event that the above internal noise levels are unable to be achieved with windows open, mechanical ventilation shall be provided in order to ensure the bedroom and living areas achieve the ventilation requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Condition 134 shall be inserted to read as follows: 134. The café to be constructed on the ground floor of Building 6 is a prohibited use. The area is

instead is permitted to be utilised as a ‘neighbourhood shop’ which is defined under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan as a premises used for the purposes of selling general merchandise such as foodstuffs, personal care products, newspapers and the like to provide for the day-to-day needs of people who live or work in the local area, and may include ancillary services such as a post office, bank or dry cleaning, but does not include restricted premises. The use of this tenancy shall be subject to a further Application.

Condition 135 shall be inserted to read as follows: 135. The fit-out and use of the area entitled ‘child care centre’ on the ground floor of Building 4

shall be subject to a further application to Council. Condition 136 shall be inserted to read as follows: 136. Purpose built storage compartment(s) shall be provided to and within each of the resident

car parking bays and/or associated dwellings at the following rates:



2.24

o 6m3 for each one (1) bedroom unit o 8m3 for each two (2) bedroom unit, and o 10m3 for each unit with three (3) bedrooms or more. In order to deter theft, the security compartments shall be designed in a manner to conceal from view and secure their contents i.e. through the use of dense, solid material and a shroud covered padlock (or similar). Amended plans showing the location and configuration of each of storage compartment(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for Stage 1D.

Condition 137 shall be inserted to read as follows: 137. (49) units within Stage 1D of the development shall be designed as adaptable housing for

older people or people with disabilities in accordance AS1428. Condition 138 shall be inserted to read as follows: 138. A hardstand holding area for garbage bins awaiting collection shall be provided within the

site. The bin holding area shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of 660L garbage and 240L recycling bins to service the residential units in Stage 1D and shall be configured to enable the efficient collection of bins to occur with minimal impact on parking and residential amenity. Bins shall be relocated to the basement storage areas following collection. A detailed design of the holding area shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for Stage 1D.



2.25


A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T 1

Notification Map

Location Map

Submissions




ATTACHMENT 2

KEY PLAN

B5B6

B426

2728

2930

3132

B1

B15B

B15A

B14

B2

B3

789

STAGE 1D

78 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, HOMEBUSH WEST

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

HOMEBUSH WEST

CENTENARY PARK

BUILDING 2

S96 301:200 @ A1

MRA I Michael Raad Architects Pty Limited

2A GREGORY PLACE PARRAMATTA NSW 2150

P 02 9687 0099

F 02 9687 0044

E [email protected]

DATE : 02-04-2015

KEY PLAN

B5B6

B426

2728

2930

3132

B1

B15B

B15A

B14

B2

B3

789

STAGE 1D



HOMEBUSH WEST

CENTENARY PARK

BUILDING 3

S96 341:200 @ A1



P 02 9687 0099

F 02 9687 0044

E [email protected]

DATE : 27-07-2015

KEY PLAN

B5B6

B426

2728

2930

3132

B1

B15B

B15A

B14

B2

B3

789

STAGE 1D



HOMEBUSH WEST

CENTENARY PARK

BUILDING 4

S96 371:200 @ A1



P 02 9687 0099

F 02 9687 0044

E [email protected]

DATE : 31-07-2015

KEY PLAN

B5B6

B426

2728

2930

3132

B1

B15B

B15A

B14

B2

B3

789

STAGE 1D



HOMEBUSH WEST

CENTENARY PARK

BUILDING 5

S96 401:200 @ A1



P 02 9687 0099

F 02 9687 0044

E [email protected]

DATE : 27-07-2015

STAGE 1D



HOMEBUSH WEST

CENTENARY PARK

BUILDING 6

S96 431:200 @ A1



P 02 9687 0099

F 02 9687 0044

E [email protected]

DATE : 02-04-2015

KEY PLAN

B5B6

B426

2728

2930

3132

B1

B15B

B15A

B14

B2

B3

789

ATTACHMENT 3


ITEM 3. DA2015/033 – STAGE 2B – 81-86 COURALLIE AVENUE, HOMEBUSH WEST

3.1

SUMMARY PROPERTY: 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West DA NO.: 2015/033 APPLICATION TYPE: Residential Flat Building REPORT BY: Sophie Olsen – Senior Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUBMISSIONS: Four (4) written submissions were received. ZONING: R3 – Medium Density Residential DATE APPLICATION LODGED: 7 April 2015 APPLICANT: Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd OWNER: Telmet Ventures Pty Ltd INTRODUCTION Approval is sought for the construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with ground floor community centre and two (2) neighbourhood shops. The subject site forms part of the wider Centenary Park development known as 81-86 Courallie Avenue (formerly 78 Marlborough Rd), Homebush West for which a Master Plan (site specific DCP) was approved in 2005. The Master Plan approved a three (3) to four (4) storey building envelope for the site and an indicative layout for the footprints of the residential redevelopment but did not specify a Floor Space Ratio. Approvals for the Stage 1 redevelopment of the site were issued prior to the gazettal of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 which introduced an FSR of 1.2:1 and maximum height control of 20m across the site. Notwithstanding these numeric controls, in total, the development approved under Stage 1 equated to an FSR of 1.52:1. An approval for Stage 2A of the proposal was issued by Council in December 2014. Stage 2A comprises one (1) x 6 storey residential flat building and one (1) x 5 storey residential flat building above basement parking. These two (2) buildings are located adjacent to the entry into the site and at the south-western end of the Courallie Avenue cul-du-sac. As discussed in the previous report prepared for Stage 2A, the Master Plan approval only related to the works under Stage 1 and did not include the area identified as Stage 2. The master plan approval (DA0304/203) clearly states that it only relates to Stage 1 and that the development of Stage 2 of the site would be subject to separate Development Application(s). The subject application follows on from the approval granted by Council for Stage 2A in December 2014. Stage 2 (comprising the previous approval for Stage 2A and the subject proposal for Stage 2B) will have a total site area of 8,695m² and FSR of 1.07:1 (9,433m²) and will comply with the



3.2

permitted building height of 20m and Floor Space Ratio of 1.2:1 (10,434m²) provided by Clause 4.4 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012. Stage 2B of the proposed development incorporates a sculpture park, community facility and two (2) neighbourhood shops which will enhance the amenity of residents within Centenary Park and the wider Homebush West precinct. The applicant has put forward a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the transfer of ownership of the community facility to Council in exchange for the Section 94 Direct Development Contributions which would be payable for the proposal. Overall the proposed development is considered to appropriately address the applicable statutory controls and the constraints of the site, including the proximity to the western railway line and an existing electrical easement. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located at 81-86 Courallie Avenue (formerly 78 Marlborough Road), Homebush West. The overall Centenary Park Estate has a curvilinear shape and has an area of approximately 6.9 hectares. The portion of the overall site to which the proposal relates is located at the southern end of the Courallie Avenue cul-du-sac and has an overall area of 8,695m². A number of residential flat buildings and townhouses within the development have been constructed and are now occupied. The development also includes shared community facilities such as a water park, swimming pool, community rooms and a tennis court. The site is bordered to the south and west by the western railway line, and is located approximately halfway between Lidcombe (1.3km) and Flemington (700 metres) Railway Stations. The immediately surrounding area comprises industrial development with low and medium density residential development to the east. An aerial photograph of the subject site is provided below followed by a map demonstrating the various staged approvals throughout the site.



3.3

Image 1: Aerial photograph of the subject site.

Image 2: Map of the site demonstrating the various Stage 1 and 2 approvals



3.4

PROPOSAL The application seeks Council approval for the construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with ground floor community centre and neighbourhood shop. The development specifically comprises:

Ground Floor: o Two (2) x neighbourhood shops of 50m² and 41m² with shared access to one (1)

accessible toilet and one (1) WC; o A community facility of 73m² with one (1) accessible toilet and one (1) WC. This

facility is proposed to be subject to a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council in exchange for the Section 94 Direct Development Contributions payable, subject to endorsement of the VPA by Council;

o Residential bin storage area, lobby, lift and fire stair; o A publically accessible sculpture park within the easement area surrounding the

existing electrical tower; o A hardstand parking area for ten (10) vehicles and two (2) loading areas is also

proposed within the easement area; Level 1 to 5:

o Each level contains one (1) x studio and two (2) x 2 bedroom units. i.e. In total, the proposal will comprise five (5) x studio and ten (10) x 2 bedroom units.

Parking for the residential portion of the development has been provided within the basement parking area approved under Stage 2A, which included (62) surplus parking spaces. A site plan and elevations are attached (2). BACKGROUND A number of approvals for the staged development exist on the subject site. The following provides a brief history of the site, as relevant to the subject application. On 1 October 2002 a site specific DCP (DCP No 25) was endorsed by Council for the residential redevelopment of the subject site. This DCP contained a “development concept” which demonstrated how the site could be developed in the future. Section 3.2.1 of this DCP indicated that proposals may depart from the development concept where it could be demonstrated that a better outcome is achieved. On 20 January 2004 DA0304/203 proposing a master plan for the residential redevelopment of the site was approved. This Master Plan departed from the “development concept” cited in the DCP, however was accompanied by urban planning and urban design justifications for the altered road layout and reduced building footprints, in place of higher residential towers. It is relevant to note that this Master Plan specifically indicated that:

“This DA does not cover the land known as lots 81, 83 and 86 and will be considered under a future separate DA.”

The subject application (and Stage 2A) have therefore been assessed separately to the Master Plan and approvals granted for Stage 1 of the development.



3.5

The following applications are also relevant to the history of the site: Remediation, Site Works DA95/67 Development Application for substantial

remediation works to the site was approved by Council.

DA95/135

Development Application to implement Environmental Management Measures to the old tip to ensure the environment is protected was approved by Council on 17 December 1996.

DA 9899/446 Development Application for construction of vehicular access from Marlborough Road was approved in September 1999.

DA 9900/402 Development Application for earthworks and drainage works to the site including construction of a detention basin and stormwater detention tank was approved in April 2001.

Spot Rezoning The Strathfield LEP Amendment 103 to rezone the site from Industrial 4 to Residential B was gazetted on 17 January 2003.

Site Specific DCP Council resolved to adopt DCP No. 25 which contains the controls for the future development of the subject site on 1 October 2002.

ASSESSMENT - Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 An assessment of the proposal under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and the application has been considered against the following relevant statutory policies:

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 Strathfield Development Control Plan No. 25 – 79 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005: Part H – Waste Management and

Part L – Notification of Development Applications The proposal is generally consistent with these statutory provisions as detailed in the assessment below:



3.6

(a) (i) Environmental Planning Instruments: SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land The subject site is located within an area of investigation identified in Map 2, Part K of the

Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005. The subject site was rezoned from Industrial 4 to Residential B in 2003, following substantial

remediation works which were approved under DA95/67 and DA95/135. As part of the rezoning and remediation process, SEPP 55 required Council to consider

whether the land is contaminated and if so, whether it can be remediated for the purposes for which the land is to be zoned.

As detailed in the site history above, were carried out to remediate the site and subsequent

approvals and building works have substantially commenced for the residential redevelopment of the site, with several buildings now occupied. Therefore, the subject site has been deemed suitable for the proposed residential use.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) The proposal was accompanied by an Acoustic Report which considers the proximity of the

subject site to the railway line and industrial development. The Acoustic Report provides a detailed construction methodology which will ensure a

suitable level of internal amenity is provided to residential units likely to be affected by rail noise or industrial operations. Full compliance with this acoustic report will be enforced by way of standard conditions of consent.

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 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.

In determining development applications for residential flat buildings, the SEPP requires

Council to take into consideration the advice of a Design Review Panel, the design quality of the proposal when evaluated against the ten (10) design quality principles in the SEPP and the ‘rules of thumb’ controls of the Residential Flat Design Code.

Written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council

confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP. A design verification statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been

received from a registered Architect who guided the design of the building. It should be noted that Strathfield Council is not subject to a Design Review Panel

constituted under the SEPP however an assessment has been undertaken against the ‘rule of thumb’ controls of the Residential Flat Design Code, as presented in the table below.



3.7

Design Principle Comment Principle 1: Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The proposal is responsive to it’s immediate context and the wider Centenary Park development and the character of residential flat buildings within Courallie Avenue. Where possible, the proposal orientates the living areas of units away from the electrical easement and railway line in order to improve residential amenity. The provision of ground floor neighbourhood shops, the sculpture park and a community facility will ensure the proposal positively contributes to the wider locality.

Principle 2: Scale

Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.


The proposal is appropriate in scale and corresponds to the permitted bulk, height and scale permitted by the SLEP 2012.

Principle 3: Built form Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type 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 built form of the proposal is restricted by the shape of the electrical easement which traverses through the southern portion of the site. In order to break the overall appearance of the proposal, a variety of finishes are proposed which will work to visually articulate the development.

Principle 4: Density

Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents).

Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

The proposed development is of an acceptable density granting consideration to the minimum recommended unit sizes within the RFDC, the permitted FSR under the SLEP and the availability of open space within the wider Centenary Park estate.

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

The proposal meets the requirements of BASIX and will achieve an appropriate standard of



3.8

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction.

Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

energy and water efficiency.

Principle 6: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.

Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character.

Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbours’ amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The proposed development is located adjacent to an easement area which is proposed to be utilised as a public sculpture garden. Introducing sculptures in the area surrounding the electrical easement will positively improve the public domain and contribute to an appropriate landscaped setting for the proposed development.

Principle 7: Amenity

Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.

Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

All of the 2 bedroom units within the proposal are orientated either north-east or north-west and are designed with a dual aspect to receive compliant solar access and cross ventilation. The 2 bedroom units comprise 67% of the development. The proposal will provide an acceptable level of amenity to future residents by way of compliant solar access, cross ventilation, unit sizes, balcony sizes and an appropriate construction methodology to shield noise sensitive areas from rail, vehicle and industrial noise.

Principle 8: Safety and security

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public

The proposal provides opportunities for the passive surveillance of the proposed public sculpture park through the orientation of balconies and living areas. Appropriate



3.9

domain.

This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

conditions will be imposed in relation to the lighting of common access areas and pathways to further enhance residential security.

Principle 9: Social dimensions

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

The Centenary Park estate provides a good mixture of residential dwelling options including 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, townhouses and freestanding dwellings. This variety will help to sustain a good residential mix within the Centenary Park community and the wider Homebush West precinct.

Principle 10: Aesthetics

Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

The proposed development has an acceptable aesthetic appearance which responds to the palate of development which has been previously approved within the Centenary Park Estate and within Homebush West.

Residential Flat Design Code Further to the design quality principles discussed above, the proposal has been considered against the various provisions of the Residential Flat Design Code in accordance with Clause 30 (2) (c) of SEPP 65. The proposed development is generally considered satisfactory in regards to the ‘Rules of Thumb’ controls as demonstrated in the following table:

Development Standard Required Proposed Compliance Building Depth Max 10m – 18m

Departures acceptable where solar access is achieved.

32m along its elongated side and max 7m across the width of the property.

Acceptable due to the irregular shape of the site.

Building Separation 12m

Approx. 6m to the residential dwelling (R3 zoning) located north of the site.

Acceptable given the undersized nature of the



3.10

site. Street Setbacks Consistent with existing

4m ground floor, reducing to 2.3m above. Front setback is acceptable given the location of the property at the end of the cul-du-sac and the ground floor neighbourhood shops and community facility which are proposed adjacent to the proposed sculpture garden.

Acceptable, will create a book-end building to development in Courallie Avenue.

Side and Rear Setbacks Consistent with existing streetscape patterns

Side setback to the south follows the line of the easement and varies from nil to 5m. Northern side setback of 3m Nil rear setback

Acceptable given that the southern side setback is controlled by the easement. Acceptable given the internal layout of the building which orientates living areas east and west. Acceptable as the rear of the property adjoins a car park and storage facility operated by Sydney Trains.


The outdoor gallery area and sculpture park provide 552m² of deep soil open space which will supplement areas of open space throughout the Centenary Park estate which have been approved in Stage 1.

Yes.


The embellishment of the sculpture park will contribute to a good level of amenity for future residents.

Yes.

Open Space Between 20-30% of The 550m² area of Yes.



3.11

site area common open space which will form the sculpture park directly adjacent to the site along with other common facilities throughout the site will provide areas for passive and active recreation by residents.

Building Entry Provide physical and visual connection between building and street Provide safe entrance Provide equitable entrance

The entry to the building is on the southern elevation and is readily identifiable through architectural framing of the building’s form. The entry is safe and equitable.

Yes.

Parking Provide underground car parking Provide bicycle parking

The proposal will utilise the (62) surplus parking spaces which have been constructed in the Stage 2A building located on the south-western corner of the cul-du-sac.

Yes.

Pedestrian Access Barrier free access to at least 20% of dwellings

Barrier free access to all dwellings via the lift.

Yes.

Apartment Layout Single aspect max depth is 8m Min apartment size: 1 bed – 50m2 2 bed – 70m2 3 bed – 95m2

Max 6m depth. Studio – min 35m² 2 bed – min 71m²

Yes. Yes.


Apartment mix throughout the Centenary Park estate is acceptable.

Yes.

Building Configuration Balconies have a minimum depth of 2m Ceiling Heights 2.7m habitable 2.4 non habitable Storage 1 bed – 6m3 2 bed – 8m3 3+ bed – 10m3

Min 2m. 2.7m Condition to be imposed.

Yes. Yes. Yes.


Common walls share similar uses.

Yes.



3.12

BASIX

In accordance with the BASIX SEPP all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction.

A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. In the event of an approval, an appropriate condition of consent could be imposed to ensure future compliance with these targets.

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density Residential under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP), 2012 wherein development for the purposes of a Residential Flat Building is permissible with Council consent. The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone which seek to provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment. As previously discussed, the Centenary Park Development provides a mixture of townhouses, detached dwellings and residential flat buildings, thus satisfying the requirement to provide a variety of housing types. It is important to note that the masterplan for the site and subsequent Development Applications for Stages 1A, 1B & C and 1D & E were approved under the provisions of the Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance (SPSO), 1969, prior to the gazettal of the SLEP in March 2013. The SPSO did not contain a height or FSR control for the site, and instead the density of development was established by a building envelope guideline and three (3) to four (4) storey control in the site specific DCP. The proposal is a continuation of Stage 2, with Stage 2A having been approved in December 2013. The portion of the site designated as Stage 2 has a total area of 8,695m², which is separate to the 6.9 hectares upon which Stage 1 has been approved and constructed. An assessment of the proposed development comprising Stage 2B is provided below:

Development Standard Permitted Proposed Compliance Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

20m 19.8m Yes.


1.2:1 1.07:1 Comprising Stage 2A FSR (8,259m²) PLUS Stage 2B FSR (1,309m²)

Yes.

Daylight Access 70% of units to receive 3 hours between 9am – 3pm Single aspect units limited to 10% of total

66% of units (all of the 2 BR units) receive 3 hours solar access. The studio units are south facing and receive approximately 2 hours in the afternoon.

Acceptable.


100% of units are able to naturally cross ventilate.

Yes.



3.13

The proposal complies with the relevant development standards applicable to the site and is compatible with the zoning. Therefore, the proposed development has been considered with respect to the relevant Clauses of the SLEP, 2012 and is satisfactory. Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions are applicable to the proposed development in accordance with the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030 as follows: Provision of Community Facilities $13,919.00 Provision of Major Open Space $77,159.00 Provision of Local Open Space $25,702.00 Provision Roads and traffic Management $2,610.00 Administration $3,344.00 TOTAL $122,734.00


(iii) Development Control Plans: DCP 25 – Site Specific Development Control Plan: 79 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West

The introduction to DCP 25 states that this site specific DCP contains “design guidelines which have been prepared as advice to developers in an attempt to encourage innovative and imaginative design based on sound planning principles which promote the quality of the landscape and character of the site.” Relevantly, the introduction to this DCP also provides that “the Development Concept [presented within the DCP] provides an indication of how the site might be developed…however is indicative only and Council will consider other proposals which achieve the underlying objectives of this DCP in an alternate manner.” The development which has been approved in stages 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E and each of the subsequent Section 96 modifications, differ from the Development Concept presented in the DCP, providing taller residential towers with reduced building footprints in place of wider three (3) to four (4) storey ‘walk-up’ apartment buildings. While some of the criteria contained in DCP 25 has not been consistently applied to development within the Centenary Park Estate, the development of the site has been considered in light of the objectives of the DCP with the original design concept altered to achieve a more contemporary design outcome with larger pockets of communal open space. Additionally, through Land and Environment Court Appeals, departures from the parking rates have been granted and the reduced rates provided by the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development have been applied. Given the departures from this DCP, it is reasonable to consider the proposal in light of the design recommendations of the Residential Flat Design Code (with which it complies), the provisions of the BASIX SEPP and Infrastructure SEPP as they relate to environmentally sustainable design and acoustic amenity.



3.14

The proposal has demonstrated compliance with these statutory provisions and accordingly, an assessment against the somewhat outdated controls of DCP 25 is not appropriate given the evolving nature of this development of a period extending more than ten (10) years.


The proposed development includes a bin holding area which is accessible from the private access handle which provides vehicular access to and from Centenary Park. This is an appropriate area for the collection of waste which will not interfere with residential amenity, public safety or the overall appearance of the development as seen by pedestrians.

(iiia) Planning Agreements (or draft agreements):

The proposed development is subject to a planning agreement pursuant to Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the applicant has made a written offer to Council to consider the exchange of the ground floor community facility for the Section 94 contributions which would be payable for this development and a separate Section 96 Application which is currently under assessment. In order to provide sufficient flexibility for the negotiation of the VPA, a condition of consent has been recommended which indicates the S94 Direct Contributions which would be payable, however which also includes an option for the developer to negotiate the terms of a VPA with Council. This will enable negotiations to occur under separate cover following approval of the subject application.



Having regard to these prescribed matters, the proposed development is not located on land subject to the Government Coastal Policy as determined by Clause 92 (1) (a) (i) however does involve the demolition of a building for the purposes of Australian Standard (AS) 2601 – 1991: The Demolition of Structures.

(v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan:

The NSW Government projects sea levels to rise by 40cm in 2050 and by 90cm in 2100 above the relative mean sea level in 1990. These planning benchmarks are to be considered in the assessment of development applications through the applicable coastal zone management plan or alternatively the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.

The proposed development is located on a site that is not subject to flooding attributed to either Powell’s Creek or Cook’s River and is therefore not required to be considered under the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.



3.15

(b) Likely Impacts:

Parking and Traffic As previously discussed, following the Land and Environment Court decision under DA0304/419 in August 2005, departures have been granted from the parking rates recommended by DCP 25 in place of the rates recommended by the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development. As these reduced parking rates have been utilised throughout the development, their continued application for Stage 2B is appropriate. The following table provides an assessment of the proposal against the parking rates recommend by the RMS and utilised throughout Centenary Park.

The two (2) residential flat buildings approved under Stage 2A of the development provided a surplus of (62) parking spaces which will be designated for use by residents of the subject building. Given the restricted area of the subject portion of the property (450m²) the provision of basement parking, including sufficient area for vehicle manoeuvring, would be difficult and the allocation of parking spaces within the larger stage 2A building is a more efficient and practical option given the connectivity of the proposed development with the Centenary Park residential development. The applicant has also included ten (10) at grade parking spaces, plus two (2) loading bays within the easement area adjacent to the building. These spaces will accommodate visitors to the community facility and neighbourhood shops which are located on the ground floor of the development. The proposed development is appropriate for the site given its location within the Centenary Park Estate and the wider Homebush West precinct. Architecturally, the building will sit in harmony with existing medium density development in Courallie Avenue and Malborough Road, and the residential flat buildings previously approved by Council under Stage 2A. The proposed sculpture park, community facility and neighbourhood shops will positively contribute to the amenity of residents both within Centenary Park and the wider Homebush West precinct. Overall, the proposal is considered suitable for the site, will provide future residents with a good level of amenity and is therefore recommended for approval.


The proposed development is consistent with the character of other development approved within Centenary Park and the wider Homebush West precinct. The proposal accords with the relevant development standards within Council’s LEP and will support the provision of

Unit Size Units Proposed

RTA rates for high density development

Required parking spaces

Studio 5 0.6 3 2 bedroom 10 0.9 9 Total 12



3.16

additional housing within an established medium density area which is within walking distance of Flemington Railway Station. The proposed development is therefore considered suitable for the subject site.

(d) Submissions:

The application and plans were notified in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 from 7 July 2015 to 7 August 2015. Four (4) written submissions were received. The concerns raised in the submissions are outlined and discussed below. 1. Traffic and Parking As discussed above, the demand for parking by residents of the proposed development will be able to be accommodated within the surplus parking spaces below Stage 2A of the development. The at-grade parking and loading facility adjacent to the building will further provide short-stay parking for customers of the ground floor neighbourhood shop and the community facility. Overall, the proposal will be unlikely to adversely impact the availability of on-street parking within Marlborough Road and the Centenary Park Estate. 2. Construction Impacts Short term construction impacts will be managed throughout the development by way of standard conditions of consent. 3. Privacy The proposal has been designed in order to minimise opportunities for overlooking the dwelling adjoining the site at 84 Courallie Avenue. Balconies are orientated east and west away from the dwelling and a side setback of 3m is provided. The separation of the development to the northern boundary and internal configuration of living areas away from the adjoining property will ensure an acceptable level of privacy is retained for the future residents. 4. Garbage Collection Area The proposed development has been amended following the public notification of the proposal and now provides an at-grade bin holding area for the storage and collection of bins to minimise the impact on on-street parking within the Centenary Park estate. 5. Community Facility As discussed above, the applicant has indicated that they wish to enter into a voluntary planning agreement with Council for the transfer of the community facility to Council in exchange for the Section 94 Contributions which would be payable under the subject application and a Section 96 Application which is currently being assessed by Council.



3.17

The final use of this ground floor facility, including matters such as hours of operation, will be subject to a further application in order to minimise impacts on residents of the subject site and adjoining properties. 6. Neighbourhood Shops

The proposed neighbourhood shops located on the ground floor of the development are permitted in the zone under Clause 5.4 of the SLEP 2012. The initial occupation of these tenancies, including matters such as hours of operation, deliveries and employee numbers will be subject to a further application.


The development will provide additional residential density within a planned residential community which will meet the housing needs of future residents, whilst ensuring appropriate access to parking, public transport, community facilities and active and passive recreation options. Overall, it is considered that approval of this development would not be contrary to the public interest.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT There are no approvals required by other authorities pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. INTERNAL REFERRALS The application was forwarded to Council’s Development Engineer, Drainage Engineer and Building Surveyor for comment. No objections were raised aside from the imposition of standard conditions of consent. CONCLUSION The proposed development will provide additional residential density within the previously approved master planned site, Centenary Park. The development corresponds well with the site constraints and will provide future residents with a good level of amenity. The sculpture garden, community facility and neighbourhood shops will positively enhance the availability of services within the wider Homebush West precinct and will positively support an improved level of residential amenity. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable for the site and is therefore recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION That DA2015/033 for the construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with ground floor community centre and two (2) neighbourhood shops at 81-86 Courallie Avenue, Homebush West be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:



3.18

CONDITIONS PART B - OTHER CONDITIONS Plans 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and

documents listed below, prior to the building being used or occupied, and subject to any amendments “in red” and any variation as required by conditions of this consent: Site Plan/Context Plan Dwg No 103 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 15 May 2015 Ground Floor Plan Dwg No 201 Issue D prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Level 1 Floor Plan Dwg No 202 Issue C prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Level 2 Floor Plan Dwg No 203 Issue C prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Level 3 Floor Plan Dwg No 204 Issue C prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Level 4 Floor Plan Dwg No 205 Issue C prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Level 5 Floor Plan Dwg No 206 Issue C prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Roof Plan Dwg No. 207 Issue A prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 7 April 2015 External Material Finishes and Colours Dwg No 302 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 North and South Elevation Dwg No 401 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 East and West Elevation Dwg No 402 Issue B prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Substation Section and Details Dwg No 801 Issue A prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 31 July 2015 Unit Plan Dwg No. 501 Issue A prepared by Michael Raad Architects Pty Ltd received by Council 7 April 2015 BASIX Certificate No. 613847M_02 issued 23 March 2015



3.19

General Notes Dwg No. C00.01 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Sediment & Erosion Control Plan Dwg No. C01.01 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Roof Stormwater Drainage Plan Dwg No. C02.01 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Ground Stormwater Drainage Plan Dwg No. C03.01 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Stormwater Details Sheet 1 Dwg No. C03.02 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Stormwater Details Sheet 2 Dwg No. C03.02 Rev B prepared by Engineering Studio received by Council 3 August 2015 Acoustic Report Project No. 20111049.4 Revision 1 prepared by Acoustic Logic received by Council 7 April 2015

2. A Construction Certificate must be obtained either from Council or a privately accredited person before commencement of any construction associated with this consent.

3. The Principal Certifying Authority must be appointed prior to work commencing to supervise the work and authorise occupation/use of the building when completed.

4. A copy of the endorsed stamped plans and specifications, together with a copy of the Development Consent, Construction Certificate and any approved Traffic Management Plan are to be retained on site at all times.

Special Condition 5. (a) An offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the ongoing

ownership and management of the community facility included in the subject application was submitted with the application. In accordance with Section 93F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, this draft VPA is required to be publicly exhibited, submissions considered and an agreement entered into. The VPA must be finalised prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or as otherwise specified in writing by Council.

In the event that a VPA is not entered into, the Section 94 Direct Contributions for the

development provided under (b) below are required to be paid. (b) In the event that a Voluntary Planning Agreement is not reached in accordance with

5(a) above, the following contribution is required to be paid to Strathfield Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 94(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Strathfield Direct Section 94 Contributions Plan 2010-2030.

The total amount of the contribution is valid as at the date of determination and is

subject to annual indexation. The contribution is payable in the form of cash, cheque



3.20

or credit card (financial transaction fee applies) shall be paid to Council for the following purposes: Provision of Community Facilities $13,919.00 Provision of Major Open Space $77,159.00 Provision of Local Open Space $25,702.00 Provision Roads and traffic Management $2,610.00 Administration $3,344.00 TOTAL $122.734.00

The required contribution shall be paid prior to the issue of a Construction

Certificate. General

6. The buildings shall not be occupied or used until the development has been completed in

accordance with the conditions of this consent, construction has been completed in accordance with the Construction Certificate and an Occupation Certificate has been issued by the Principal Certifying Authority.

7. A Works Permit shall be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre at least 48 hours prior to undertaking any works on public/Council-controlled areas. The permit must be retained on site at all times.

8. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, photographs documenting any existing

damage to the kerb and gutter and footpaths adjacent to the property shall be submitted to the consent authority. In the absence of this documentation, the applicant is liable for all damage that occurs to Councils’ assets.

9. The applicant or any contractors carrying out works in public or Council controlled lands

shall have public liability insurance cover to the value of $10million and shall provide proof of such cover to Council prior to carrying out works.

Financial Matters

10. A security payment of $4,127.00 in the form of cash, bank guarantee, cheque or credit card

(financial transactions fees apply) shall be paid to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The security payment is GST inclusive and comprises the following:

Refundable works bond $4,000.00 Non-refundable administration fee ($127/bd) $127.00 TOTAL $4,127.00

The security payment covers the following matters and will be released upon satisfactory completion of these items: (a) road and stormwater drainage works in roadways and public areas; (b) connection to Council’s stormwater drainage system; (c) installation and maintenance of sediment control measures for the duration of

construction activities;



3.21

(d) Ensuring no damage occurs to or building debris/materials are left on Council land including footpath, nature strip, kerb and gutter. The security bond may be used to recover the costs incurred by Council in cleaning and restoring the land to its original condition.

11. Fees are payable where Council is appointed as principal certifying authority to carry out

the post-approval inspections. A quotation for the fees can be obtained by contacting Council and the fees shall be paid prior to the carrying out of any of the inspections.

Any re-inspection which is necessary due to site access not being available, defective work, or the matter not being ready for inspection will be charged in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges Policy. Council will advise in writing if an additional re-inspection is required and the re-inspection fee shall be paid prior to release of the damage deposit. If the additional fee is not paid it will be deducted from the damage deposit.

Parking/Traffic Matters 12. A total of (15) off-street parking spaces, hardpaved, linemarked, labelled and drained, shall

be provided in accordance with the approved plans and distributed as follows: Residents 12 Visitors 3 TOTAL 15 The car parking spaces shall be located below Building 2, approved in Stage 2A (DA2013/120) so that they are readily accessible to visitors and residents of the subject development. The spaces shall be allocated at a rate of 0.6 spaces per studio and 0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit. The car parking spaces shall only be used for the parking of motorcycles, sedans, utilities, vans and similar vehicles up to two (2) tonne capacity.

13. The vehicle spaces must not be enclosed with walls or meshed security screens without

the prior approval of Council.

14. All redundant vehicular crossings shall be removed and replaced with kerb and gutter and footpath at no cost to Council.

15. The footpath, kerb and gutter shall be reconstructed to Council’s specifications for the full

frontage of the development site at the completion of all building works.

16. Purpose built storage compartment(s) shall be provided to and within each of the resident car parking bays and/or associated dwellings at the following rates:

o 6m3 for each one (1) bedroom unit o 8m3 for each two (2) bedroom unit, and o 10m3 for each unit with three (3) bedrooms or more. In order to deter theft, the security compartments shall be designed in a manner to conceal from view and secure their contents i.e. through the use of dense, solid material and a shroud covered padlock (or similar).



3.22

Amended plans showing the location and configuration of each of storage compartment(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Drainage/Stormwater 17. Stormwater runoff from all roof and paved surfaces shall be collected and discharged by

means of a gravity pipe system to the new trunk drainage system on Courallie Avenue via the onsite stormwater detention system and as depicted on the stormwater drainage concept plans PREPARED BY ENGINEERING STUDIO SHEETS NO.1,2,3,4,5 & 6 OF 6 ISSUE B DATED 03.08.2015.

18. Details of the proposed method of stormwater disposal shall be prepared by a suitably

qualified professional civil engineer in accordance with the endorsed concept plans AND the requirements of Council’s Stormwater Management Code.

In this project the above engineering plans are satisfactory as Concept plans. The

assessment authority, (either (a) Council, or (b) a Private Certifier), is to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the above plans for the purposes of Construction. They are to independently determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Where a Private Certifier issues the Construction Certificate a copy must be provided to

Council, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

19. On-site stormwater detention storage shall be provided in conjunction with the stormwater disposal system. The storage system shall be designed in accordance with the endorsed concept stormwater plans AND/OR Council’s Stormwater Management Code. Details of the storage system shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

20. Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate/use of the building, written verification

from a suitably qualified professional civil engineer shall be obtained, stating that all stormwater drainage and related work has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

In addition, detailed works-as-executed plans, prepared and signed by a registered

surveyor, shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. Where changes have occurred the plans shall be marked-up in red ink and shall include levels and location for all drainage structures and works, buildings (including floor levels) and finished ground and pavement surface levels.

21. Temporary measures shall be provided and regularly maintained during demolition,

excavation and construction to prevent sediment and polluted waters discharging from site. Plans showing such measures in accordance with the NSW Department of Housing, Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Manual dated August 1998 shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

22. For drainage works within public land or connecting to Council’s stormwater drainage

system the following inspections will be required:-



3.23

(a) After the excavation of pipeline trenches. (b) After the laying of all pipes prior to backfilling. (c) After the completion of all pits and connection points. A minimum of 48 hours’ notice shall be given to Council to inspect works. Inspections may be arranged by telephoning Council’s Engineering Works and Services section on 9748-9999 during office hours. Work is not to proceed until the works are inspected and approved by Council.

23. All pits shall be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS3500.3.

24. All subsoil drainage must be designed to meet the requirements of AS3500;

25. All surface inlet drains upstream of the on-site detention basin must be designed so that

there is no overflow before the storage is full. 26. Overflow paths shall be provided to allow for flows in excess of the capacity of the

pipe/drainage system draining the site, as well as from any on-site stormwater detention storage.

27. Allowance shall be made for surface runoff from adjacent properties, and to retain existing

surface flow path systems through the site. Any redirection or treatment of these flows shall not adversely affect any other properties.

28. Boundary fencing shall be erected in such a manner as not to interfere with the natural flow

of ground and surface water to the detriment of any other party. 29. A Positive Covenant under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act shall be created on the

title of the property detailing the:

(a) On-site stormwater detention system AND (b) All Water Sensitive Urban Design components

incorporated in the development. The wording of the Instrument shall be submitted to, and

approved by Council prior to lodgement at Land & Property Information NSW. The Instrument shall be registered and a registered copy of the document shall be submitted to and approved by the consent authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate/use of the building.

The positive covenant is required to prevent future modification or alteration without the

written consent of the consent authority, and to ensure suitable maintenance is carried out. 30. A detailed design of the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) components (stormwater

treatment measures) shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and shall include, but not be limited to: Batters, levels, underdrains, high flow bypass details, clean out points, filter media details, mulching details, material specification, planting details, inlet scour protection areas, maintenance access ramps and maintenance schedule(s).



3.24

The design shall be prepared by a suitably qualified professional engineer experienced in Water Sensitive Urban Design in accordance with the approved plans, conditions of consent, Strathfield Council’s Development Control Plan Part N - Water Sensitive Urban Design 2005, Strathfield Council WSUD Reference Guideline and WSUD Technical Design Guidelines for South East Queensland (SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership) Version 1 June 2006 or subsequent updated versions.

31. All approved stormwater works are required to be carried out in accordance with the

conditions of consent, approved construction certificate plans, “Strathfield Council WSUD Reference Guideline” and the Construction and Establishment Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention Systems and Wetlands (SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership) Version 1.1 April 2010 or subsequent versions that may be updated.

32. A suitably qualified Engineer is required to inspect and certify the proposed development at

the completion of each of the following construction phases(if any): (i) Installation of the overflow pit and bulking out/trimming profiling; (ii) Installation of under drainage;

(iii) Installation of cleanout points;

(iv) Installation of drainage layer;

(v) Installation of transition layer;

(vi) Installation of filtration media;

(vii) Laying of geofabric protection for build-out phase;

(viii) Laying of turf temporary protection layer, and

(ix) Final planting.

33. An Operational Management and Maintenance Report is required to be submitted to the

Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate outlining the proposed long term operational management and maintenance requirements of the stormwater system on the site.

A schedule or timetable for the proposed regular inspection and monitoring of the devices, maintenance techniques, reporting and record keeping requirements and associated rectification procedure shall be included in the report.

34. The pipe in Courallie Avenue shall be 375mm in diameter, class (3) reinforced concrete spigot and socked with rubber ring joints.

35. Three hard copies of the plan and long section of the proposed drainage line within the road reserve and structural details of drainage pits shall be prepared by a suitably qualified professional civil engineer to scale of 1:100 on A1 sheet and submitted for approval of Council’s Manager Engineering Works and Services

36. Utility services within the area of effect of the proposed drainage works in Courallie Avenue (i.e. gas, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, etc) and class of pipe shall be shown on the long section of the drainage line.

37. The proposed lintel inlet pit in Courallie Avenue shall be located a minimum of 1m clear from the wing of the layback of 84 Courallie Avenue.



3.25

38. Approval of Council’s Manager Community Land and Services must be obtained for the proposed outlet pipe adjacent to Council’s street tree.

39. A copy of the approved drainage plans must be collected together with Works Permit from Council’s Customer Service Centre prior to commencement of drainage work in Courallie Avenue.

Landscaping/Tree Matters 40. All noxious weeds on the site shall be removed and destroyed as per their classification

under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

41. One (1) street tree shall be provided within Council’s nature strip in Courallie Avenue in accordance with the following:

(a) Trees are to conform to the NATSPEC guide and Guide for assessing the quality of

and purchasing of landscape trees by Ross Clarke, 2003. (b) Replacement trees shall be minimum 50 litre container size. Trees are to be true to

type, healthy and vigorous at time of delivery and planting, shall be pest and disease free, free from injury and wounds and self supporting. Supplied trees are to have an appropriate stem taper. Roots shall generally grow in an outwards (radial) or downwards direction.

(c) Replacement trees must be Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum). (d) All trees are to be staked and tied with a minimum of three (3) hardwood stakes. Ties

are to be hessian and fixed firmly to the stakes, one tie at half the height of the main stem, others as necessary to stabilise the plant.

(e) Root deflection barriers having a minimum depth of 600mm are to be installed adjacent to all footpaths and driveways.

(f) Apply soil conditioner/fertilizer/moisture retention additive/s in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, and mix into the backfilling soil after planting tree/s.

(g) Minimum 75mm depth of organic mulch shall be placed within an area 0.5m from the base of the tree.

42. General maintenance of Council’s nature strip adjoining the development site, including

regular lawn mowing, edging, irrigation of the lawn and street trees and restricting the storage of materials, rubbish and parking or driving of vehicles on the nature strip, must be carried out during the full period of all approved works (including any demolition and excavation).

43. All common and private landscape areas including all planters are to have full coverage by a fully automatic irrigation system. The design, materials and installation are to be in accordance with Sydney Water Codes and all relevant Australian Standards.

Construction Matters 44. The proposed development shall comply with the National Construction Code and details

demonstrating compliance shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

45. Footings shall be designed in accordance with the soil classification of H, or Highly Reactive (unless determined to the contrary by a suitably qualified person).



3.26

46. If the soil conditions require it retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of

a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided, and adequate provision must be made for drainage.

47. Certification shall be obtained from a registered surveyor at the following stage(s) of

construction confirming that the building has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans including any approved amendments (S.96 approvals) and plans and details required by Council as conditions of development consent: (a) footings excavation prior to placement of concrete; (b) car park/garage level prior to placement of concrete or pavement; (c) ground floor and first floor levels; (d) roof ridge height; (e) all floors of the building, roof eaves and all roof ridges; (f) wall setbacks from property boundaries and street alignment; (g) dimensions and areas of balconies/courtyards; (h) vehicular ramp gradients.

Copies of the surveyor’s certificates must be submitted to and accepted by Council at the stages nominated above.

48. All construction, demolition and excavation work shall be restricted to 7am and 5pm

(Eastern Standard Time) on Mondays to Saturdays (inclusive) and prohibited on Sundays and public holidays.

49. All excavations and backfilling associated with the approved works must be executed

safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards. All excavations must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

50. The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work

carried out, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land.

51. Certification of the structural adequacy of the sign shall be prepared by a suitably qualified

person and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

52. The common access pathways, letterboxes and entry doorways to the building shall be

provided with suitable low level artificial lighting systems to ensure safe and convenient access at night. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

53. To maintain pedestrian safety in common areas suitable lighting is to be provided on the

development site adjoining each street frontage and near pedestrian main entrances to the site. Details shall be submitted and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the installation thereof.



3.27

Building Matters

54. Identification numbers are to be clearly displayed at the front of the premises and be easily visible from the street.

Sustainability

55. Water heating systems to multi-unit residential developments shall be located so as not to

be visible from public places and the ground level of adjoining properties. Details (type and location) of the water heaters shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Fire Safety Measures

56. Upon completion of works a final fire safety certificate is to be issued from a properly

qualified person in respect of each essential fire safety measure installed within the building and specified in the fire safety schedule. The final fire safety certificate shall be provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

57. Each 12 months after the installation of essential fire or other safety measures, the owner

of a building must submit an Annual Fire Safety Statement for the building to Council. In addition a copy of the statement must be given to the NSW Fire Commissioner and a copy displayed prominently in the building.

Subdivision 58. The strata subdivision of the approved development shall be subject to a separate

application.

Disabled Access 59. Access to the building for persons with disabilities shall be in accordance with the

requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the relevant standards. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

60. Carparking spaces for persons with disabilities shall be provided in accordance with the

Building Code of Australia and the relevant standards. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Waste Management 61. Full compliance must be given to the endorsed Waste Management Plan submitted for the

proposed development. Copies of any weighbridge receipts from all approved waste disposal facilities shall be retained for presentation to the Principal Certifying Authority upon request.

62. Residential garbage bins are to be relocated from the ground floor to the bin holding area the evening prior to collection. Bins are to be returned to the storage area within the building as soon as practical following collection.



3.28

Ausgrid Matters

63. Prior to any development being carried out, the approved plans must be submitted to Ausgrid’s local customer service office for approval to determine whether the development will affect Ausgrid’s network or easements.

64. The applicant must check the location of underground cables by using Dial Before You Dig

and comply with the requirements of NS156: Working Near or Around Underground Cables (Ausgrid, 2010).

65. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the applicant must provide to council and

Ausgrid a noise assessment report. The report must address, in relation to the adjacent substation, the requirements of the amenity or intrusive criteria in section 2.4 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000)

66. The development must comply with both the Reference Levels and the precautionary requirements of the Draft Radiation Protection Standard for Exposure Limits to Electric and Magnetic Fields 0 Hz – 3 kHz (ARPANSA, 2006).

67. The development must be carried out in accordance with ENA EG1-2006: Substation

Earthing Guide (Energy Networks Association, 2006).

Sydney Trains

68. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant is to engage an Electrolysis Expert to prepare a report on the Electrolysis Risk to the development from any stray currents. The Applicant must incorporate in the development all the measures recommended in the report to control that risk. A copy of the report is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with the Application for a Construction Certificate.

69. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant is to submit to Sydney Trains a plan showing all crane and other aerial operations for the development and must comply with all Sydney Trains requirements. The Principal Certifying Authority shall not issue the Construction Certificate until written confirmation has been received from Sydney Trains confirming that this condition has been satisfied.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

70. In order to deter mail theft, the required letter boxes for the development shall be integrated into the façade of the building so that they meet the requirements of Australia Post whilst providing residents with secure access to the letter box contents from within the building.

71. Warning signs should be strategically posted around the perimeter of the property and throughout the sculpture park to warn intruders of security measures in place.



3.29


A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T 1

Notification Map

Location Map

Submissions




ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3


ITEM 4. DA2015/065 – 153 PARRAMATTA ROAD, HOMEBUSH

4.1

SUMMARY PROPERTY: 153 Parramatta Road, Homebush

Lot 13, 14 and 15 in Deposited Plan 7876 Sec B DA NO.: 2015/065 APPLICATION TYPE: Mixed Use Development REPORT BY: Sophie Olsen – Senior Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL SUBMISSIONS: Three (3) written submission was received. ZONING: B4 Mixed Use DATE APPLICATION LODGED: 25 June 2015 APPLICANT: GM Architects Pty Ltd OWNER: Homebush Constructions Pty Ltd INTRODUCTION Approval is sought for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a (13) storey mixed use development containing two (2) ground floor commercial tenancies, (72) residential units comprising (26) x 1 bedroom, (44) x 2 bedroom and two (2) x 3 bedroom units above three (3) levels of basement car parking with associated landscaping. The overall bulk, height and scale of the development exceeds Council’s numeric controls applicable to the site under Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2012 and does not sufficiently substantiate the departures through the provision of a Clause 4.6 Objection. The proposal seeks to develop up to the Height and FSR development standards which are contained within Clause 4.3A and 4.4A, being 42m and 2.95:1 respectively. These controls would only apply in the instance that the Key Site consolidation pattern for Key Site 16 is achieved. As the proposal does not conform to the consolidation pattern for Key Site 16, these controls are not relevant to the proposal and the base height and FSR are limited to 20m and 1.8:1 respectively. The application was forwarded to the RMS for comment under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, as the site has a frontage to Parramatta Road, a Classified Road, and seeks to provide vehicular access via a driveway crossover to Parramatta Road. As Parramatta Road is under the authority of Council, the proposal is not Integrated Development under Clause 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, however the comments of RMS were sought. It is noted that RMS have withheld comment on the proposal due to inaccuracies within the Traffic Impact Statement. As the proposal seeks a significant and unsubstantiated departure from the applicable height and FSR controls under the SLEP and the proposal has failed to satisfy the requirements of the RMS



4.2

and Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) the proposal is unable to be supported and is therefore recommended for refusal. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the northern side of Parramatta Road in Homebush and is legally defined as Lots 13, 14 and 15 in Deposited Plan 7876 Section B. The subject site comprises three (3) allotments with frontages to Parramatta Road which formerly contained a car sales yard and mechanical repair business. The site has a frontage of 30m to Parramatta road with a skewed northern boundary and overall area of 1,756m². The surrounding streetscape presents a precinct which is undergoing transition from low density residential and light industrial and commercial uses primarily characterised by car sale yards and mechanical workshops, to medium to high density residential development with some ground floor commercial uses. A number of medium to high density residential flat buildings are already constructed or have been recently approved within close proximity of the subject site. PROPOSAL The application seeks Council approval for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of three (3) lots into one (1) site and construction of a (13) storey mixed use development containing two (2) ground floor commercial tenancies, (72) residential units comprising (26) x 1 bedroom, (44) x 2 bedroom and two (2) x 3 bedroom units above three (3) levels of basement car parking and associated landscaping and subdivision. A site plan and elevations are attached (2). BACKGROUND DA2013/075 was approved by Council on 19 November 2013 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of one (1) x six (6) storey residential flat building fronting Hillcrest Street and one (1) x (13) storey mixed use development fronting Parramatta Road, comprising a total of (70) residential units and five (5) commercial tenancies above three (3) levels of basement parking. The original application incorporated the subject site (153 Parramatta Road) and an adjoining residential allotment (16 Hillcrest Street). Together, these sites form Key Site 16 with vehicular access to the basement provided via Hillcrest Street. It is understood that the owners of the subject site and 16 Hillcrest Street no longer wish to undertake the works approved under DA2013/075 as a joint venture and instead wish to redevelop their sites separately. ASSESSMENT - Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 An assessment of the proposal under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and the application has been considered against the following relevant statutory policies:



4.3

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 Strathfield Development Control Plan No. 20 – Parramatta Road Corridor Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005: Part H – Waste Management and

Part L – Notification of Development Applications The following provides an assessment of the proposal against the SLEP firstly, followed by the remaining relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and DCP controls. As the proposal fundamentally fails to satisfy the requirements of the SLEP and the SEPP (Infrastructure), it is unable to be supported. Accordingly, only a brief assessment of the proposal against the remaining statutory provisions has been undertaken. (a) (i) Environmental Planning Instruments: Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned B4 – Mixed Use under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP), 2012 wherein a mixed use development is permissible with consent. The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the B4 – Mixed Use zone which seek to provide a mixture of compatible landuses within close proximity of transport nodes. The following numeric controls are applicable to the proposed development:

Development Standard Required Proposed Compliance Clause 4.1A – Minimum Site Area

1,000m² 1,756m² Yes.

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

22m 44.7m No.


1.8:1 2.93:1 No.

Section 79C(1)(a) of the EP&A Act states that it is essential for a proposal to satisfy the provisions of any relevant Environmental Planning Instrument. As demonstrated in the table above, the proposal seeks significant departures from the height and FSR controls that are permitted under the SLEP. The applicant has prepared an Objection under Clause 4.6 of the SLEP seeking to justify the proposed departures from these controls however this objection is not considered to be well founded as it does not clearly address the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the SLEP and recent Land and Environment Court decisions. A copy of the justification submitted by the Applicant has been provided at attachment 4. In summary, the applicant seeks to rely upon the bulk, height and scale of the previously approved development (DA2013/075) and argues that whilst the incentive height and FSR provisions of Clause 4.3A (44m) and 4.4A (2.95:1) do not strictly apply to the site, approval of the proposed development would not create any additional environmental impacts. Notwithstanding this merit-based planning argument, the numeric departures equate to an



4.4

additional 22.7m in height (variation of 103%) and an additional 1.13:1 in FSR (variation of 63%) beyond the numeric development standards. In considering whether to grant a departure from the numeric controls of the LEP, it must be established that the variation from the standard would be consistent with the objectives of the particular standard, the objectives of the zone and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The proposal does not achieve the consolidation pattern required for Key Site 16, however seeks to access the Key Site incentive height and FSR contrary to the objectives of these controls which seek “to encourage a consolidation pattern that leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area” (Cl.4.3(b)) and “to encourage a sustainable consolidation pattern that optimises floor space capacity in the corridor” (Cl. 4.4(1)(f)). As the applicant has not established that the proposed departures from the numeric controls would result in a development which is consistent with the objectives of the height and FSR development standards, the application is unable to be supported. Therefore, as the proposal is unable to be supported under the provisions of the SLEP 2012, a full assessment against the remaining EPI’s and DCP provisions is not warranted. Notwithstanding this, in order to provide an overview of the proposal, a brief assessment has been provided below. SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to consider whether the site is suitable in its current state, contaminated state or following the completion of remediation works for the purposes for which development consent is being sought. The application has been accompanied by a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment which indicates that the site is capable of accommodating the proposed residential use however has recommended a number of conditions be imposed relating to the classification of excavated soil taken from the site and an advisory note regarding the encountering of any unexpected material or odour during works. In the event of approval being granted for the proposal, appropriate conditions could be recommended. SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 The subject site has a frontage to a classified road (Parramatta Road) and accordingly the requirements of Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) are relevant to the application. Clause 101(2) states that: “The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a) where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and (b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:



4.5

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or (ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or (iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land.”

The proposal was accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment which includes a number of inaccuracies in relation to the site description and does not follow the best practice requirements provided by the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development. The Traffic Impact Statement suggests that the subject site includes the property at 16 Hillcrest Street however this is incorrect. The proposal was referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services as vehicular access to the basement is to be provided via Parramatta Road, a Classified Road under the Roads Act. Correspondence was received from RMS requesting additional information including:

- A revised traffic report addressing the impacts of an access point on Parramatta Road and including a full SIDRA analysis;

- Detailed plans demonstrating the driveway crossover and access point including the location of any utilities (power poles, pits etc) within the road reserve; and

- Swept paths of longest vehicle entering the site from Parramatta Road. As the bulk, height and scale of the proposal is not supported, this additional information has not been requested. Accordingly, comments from RMS remain outstanding and the proposal has not satisfied the requirements of Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. BASIX

In accordance with the BASIX SEPP all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction.

A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. In the event of an approval, an appropriate condition of consent could be imposed to ensure future compliance with these targets. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings The proposal retains the same appearance as the previously approved mixed use tower which was assessed against the provision of SEPP 65 and was deemed satisfactory. A reassessment of the proposal against the Design Quality objectives of SEPP 65 and the recommendations of the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) is therefore not considered necessary. Section 94 Contributions

In the event of an approval of the proposed development, Section 94 Contributions would be applicable in accordance with the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030.



4.6


(iii) Development Control Plans: Development Control Plan No. 20 – Parramatta Road Corridor DCP 20 – Parramatta Road Corridor Area is currently under review as it contains a number of development controls which have been superseded by the gazettal of the SLEP, 2012. Notwithstanding, an assessment of the proposal against the parking provisions of DCP 20 which remain relevant to the proposal is provided below:

Section Development

Control Required Proposed Compliance

2.12 Vehicle Access and Car Parking

Car parking to be provided on the following basis: Residential Up to 2 bed – 1 space (70) spaces required 3 bed - 1.5 spaces required (3) spaces required Visitor – 1 space per 5 units (14) spaces required PLUS Commercial 1 space per 50m² (9) spaces required TOTAL (96) spaces

PROPOSED (105) spaces

Yes.


The proposed development includes on-site waste collection facilities in the form of a loading dock which is located behind the ground floor commercial tenancies, adjacent to the basement entry ramp. Subject to the submission of turning circles which will demonstrate waste collection vehicles entering/exiting the site, these waste facilities are considered to be generally acceptable in light of the recently revised requirements of Section 3.3 of Part H of the SCDCP 2005.




Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation requires Council to take into consideration the provisions of the Government Coastal Policy and the relevant



4.7

Australian Standard for the demolition of buildings in the determination of a development application. Having regard to these prescribed matters, the proposed development is not located on land subject to the Government Coastal Policy as determined by Clause 92 (1) (a) (i) and does not involve the demolition of a building for the purposes of Australian Standard (AS) 2601 – 1991: The Demolition of Structures.


The NSW Government projects sea levels to rise by 40cm in 2050 and by 90cm in 2100 above the relative mean sea level in 1990. These planning benchmarks are to be considered in the assessment of development applications through the applicable coastal zone management plan or alternatively the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise. The proposed development is located on a site that is not subject to flooding attributed to either Powell’s Creek or Cook’s River and is therefore not required to be considered under the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.

(b) Likely Impacts: As discussed throughout this report, the proposed development retains the same overall bulk, height and scale of the previously approved mixed use development on the site however disregards the maximum permitted height (22m) and FSR (1.8:1) provided by Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the SLEP 2012 and instead, proposes a height of 44.7m and FSR of 2.93:1. Whilst the ‘impacts’ of the proposal may remain similar to the previously approved development in relation to height, density, overall appearance and overshadowing, the proposed numeric departures from Council’s controls are contrary to the objectives of the height and FSR development standards. Therefore, the development is unable to satisfy the relevant provisions of the SLEP 2012, which is fundamental to the proposal. As discussed above, the proposal has also importantly failed to address the requirements of Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) as it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will not adversely impact the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of Parramatta Road. Should the applicant wish to pursue the redevelopment of the subject site to achieve the height and FSR which would be applicable to Key Site 16, the appropriate course of action would be to submit a Planning Proposal to modify the Key Site consolidation pattern.


The proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of the SLEP 2012 in that it is contrary to the numeric controls and objectives of the height and FSR development standards. The proposal has also failed to demonstrate that the vehicular entry and exit to the site will not impact the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of Parramatta Road in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. As the application has failed to satisfy the relevant requirements of these Environmental Planning Instruments, the proposed development is not suitable for the subject site.



4.8

(d) Submissions:

The application and plans were notified in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 from 7 July 2015 to 7 August 2015 and three (3) objections were received raising the following matters: 1. Referral to RMS As discussed previously, the application was forwarded to the RMS for comment under the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, as Parramatta Road is a Classified Road. The Objector notes that a referral to RMS is required and urges RMS to consider their requirements under the relevant provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure) and the Roads Act 1993. The Objector also notes the numerous inaccuracies within the Traffic Report, which include references to the site including the allotment at 16 Hillcrest Street and statements to suggest that the site has a secondary frontage. In the instance that the departures from Council’s LEP were able to be supported, further information in relation to the Traffic Impact Assessment would have been sought by Council Officers and referred to RMS for comment. 2. The proposed development seeking the FSR and Height benefits associated with

Key Site 16, when the subject development no longer involves a Key site.

The proposed development seeks to utilise the Key Site provisions under circumstances where they do not apply under Council’s LEP. The concerns raised by the objector are considered to be valid and have already been addressed earlier in this report. The benefits associated with sites that have been consolidated to take advantage of the Key Site incentives, can only be applied to Key Sites. 3. The Clause 4.6 variation is unfounded.

As previously discussed, Council Officers are of the view that the Clause 4.6 objection is not well founded. 4. Waste collection.

Waste collection has previously been addressed. 5. Poor commercial activation of the Parramatta Road frontage.

If the development were to be approved and vehicular access to the site only made available via Parramatta Road, the ability of the site to provide a ground level commercial interface along Parramatta Road would be limited. This is not so much an issue of the design of the development, but more so a site constraint. 6. If the current DA were to be approved in its current form, the previous approval (DA

2013/075 approved by Council’s Planning Committee on 19/11/13) would have to be surrendered.



4.9

The surrender of DA 2013/075 would not be required in the event that the current application is approved. The approval previously granted by Council is lawful and involves Key Site 16 specifically. Council would be within its rights to issue a new consent should it choose to do so in relation to the current application, given that the application before Council is for a different and new proposal. 7. The application fails to comply with various parts of Council’s DCP No. 20 –

Parramatta Road, Corridor.

Compliance with the applicable standards contained in DCP No. 20 has previously been addressed in this report. 8. Concerns raised when a comparison between DA 2013/075 and the current

proposal are made.

Providing a comparison between the previous DA and the current application is not a relevant consideration as Council Officers have assessed the application before it, as made. 9. Concerns in relation to the content and arguments made in the Statement of

Environmental Effects (SEE) submitted with the application.

The objector raises a number of matters relating to the arguments made in support of the proposal. For example, the SEE argues that property No. 16 Hillcrest Street, the residual lot required to form Key Site 16, is not required for the current application to be approved. Whilst variations to the base height and FSR provisions of Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 may be able to be granted, Council Officers agree that in order for the Key Site provisions to be enacted, a Key Site must in the first instance be created in accordance with Council’s LEP. The issues as raised by the objector are therefore considered to have substance.


The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the relevant statutory provisions of Environmental Planning Policies and Development Control Plans. The proposal fails to meet the height and FSR numeric standards and objectives provided by the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan and the matters relating to development with a frontage to a Classified Road provided by Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure). Accordingly, approval of the application would be contrary to the public interest.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT There are no approvals required by other authorities pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. As previously discussed, the NSW Roads and Maritime Service responded to Council’s referral and indicated that the proposed development is not ‘Integrated Development’ as the portion of Parramatta Road adjacent to the subject site is under the control and authority of Strathfield Council.



4.10

INTERNAL REFERRALS The application was forwarded to Council’s Development Engineer, Drainage Engineer and Building Surveyor for comment. No objections were raised aside from the imposition of standard conditions of consent which could be imposed in the event of the application being approved. CONCLUSION Whilst the proposed development is permissible in the subject zoning, it has fundamentally failed to satisfy the provisions of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. The departure proposed from the height and FSR development standards of the SLEP is substantial and the objection seeking flexibility in the application of these controls under Clause 4.6 is not considered to be well founded. The proposal has also failed to satisfy the requirements of RMS and Clause 101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) as the Traffic Impact Assessment provided with the application is inaccurate and incomplete. As the proposal has failed to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 it is unable to be supported and is therefore recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION That DA2015/065 for the demolition of existing structures, lots consolidation and construction of a (13) storey mixed use development containing two (2) ground floor commercial tenancies, (72) residential units comprising (26) x 1 bedroom, (44) x 2 bedroom and two (2) x 3 bedroom units above three (3) levels of basement car parking and associated landscaping and subdivision at 153 Parramatta Road, Homebush be REFUSED for the following reasons: REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed development has an overall height of 44.7m which is an excessive departure

from the maximum permitted height of 22m provided by Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

2. The proposed development has an Floor Space Ratio of 2.93:1 which is a substantial

departure from the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio of 1.8:1 provided by Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

3. The proposed development does not achieve the consolidation pattern for Key Site 16 and

therefore fails to meet the objectives of Clause 4.3(b) and Clause 4.4(1)(f) of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 which seek to encourage a sustainable consolidation pattern which is commensurate with the height and density of development (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

4. The proposed development has not satisfied the requirements of Clause 101 of the SEPP

(Infrastructure) as insufficient information has been submitted to determine that the operation



4.11

of Parramatta Road will not be adversely impacted by the proposal. Further, due to the insufficient and incomplete nature of the Traffic Impact Assessment, the NSW Roads and Maritime Service has not yet provided concurrence to the proposal under the provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure). (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

5. The Traffic Impact Assessment which accompanied the proposed development fails to take

into consideration the best practice guidelines of the RMS ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Development’, contains numerous inaccuracies and does not provide a true and proper indication of the impact of the development on the functionality of Parramatta Road. (Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).



4.12

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Notification Map

2. Site plans and elevations.

3. Letters of objection.

4. Clause 4.6 Objection.

A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T 1

Notification Map

Location Map

Submissions




ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

0635 – 153 Parramatta Road Homebush 55

APPENDIX A – CLAUSE 4.6 BUILDING HEIGHT

In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, this request for an exception to Clause 4.3 Height of Building development standard is submitted to Strathfield Council in support of the subject Development Application. In considering the proposed non-compliance, it is necessary to consider the objectives of the standard, the objectives of the zone, the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and to consider the impact of the departure and what public benefit, if any, there shall be from the development. This consideration will determine whether or not it is unreasonable or unnecessary for the proposed development to comply with the relevant standard, and whether a compliant development would result in a better planning outcome. The objectives of Clause 4.6 are addressed as follows: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. Comment: In accordance with Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Height of Building standard is 22 metres or 7 storeys. If the site were to be consolidated as a Key Site, then under Clause 4.3A of the Strathfield LEP 2012 the height of building standard would be 42 metres. The applications seeks consent for a 13 storey building that is 44.7 metres in height. Irrespective of the above Development Standard, the site has already been granted approval for a height of 44.7 metres or 13 storeys under DA 2013/075. It is noted that this approval relied upon a consolidated site to form Key Site 16 and therefore was eligible for the key site bonus provisions. However, Key Site 16 was formed by land owned by two different companies which were proposing to undertake the project as a joint venture. This is no longer the case due to commercial reasons. Therefore, the subject application merely removes 16 Hillcrest Street from the ‘key site’, and seeks to undertake the development in a manner which is consistent with the original approval in terms of the built form, land use, intensity of development and general apartment layout. The removal of 16 Hillcrest Street will not isolate 16 Hillcrest, as it has a frontage to Hillcrest Street, and can be developed on its own. The applicant has already sold 61 apartments ‘off-the-plan’ based upon a 13 storey tower that comprises 72 apartments. Therefore, there are financial and legal obligations for the applicant to complete the development. This application seeks to remedy these obligations by obtaining approval for a 13 storey tower upon the land owned by Homebush Constructions Pty Ltd, so that it can move forward with constructing the project. It would be unreasonable to not support the subject application, as the site already has an approval, and the subject application remains substantially the same. This is a unique circumstance, and the termination of the joint venture has resulted in this situation.


From a town planning position, there is sufficient merit to provide flexibility to vary the height, given the variation will retain compliance with the objective of the standard; objective of the zone and given the unique circumstance of the matter. Strictly applying the height control under Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the variation would equate to 22.7 metres. The height under Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.3A is illustrated in the following extract of the architectural plans. It is considered that an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying the Height of Building standard is warranted in this instance, as the vision under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the Parramatta Road Corridor envisages a 13 storey tower for the site that will be reflective the emerging desired future character for this precinct. A 7 storey tower would not reflect this emerging character, and therefore the variation to permit 13 storeys would be consistent with this intent. Furthermore, the applicant has already sold 61 apartments ‘off-the-plan’ based upon a 13 storey tower that comprises 72 apartments. A refusal to this application would result in severe financial hardship to the applicant. This is a matter for consideration under the objects of the ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’, in terms of the orderly and economic use and development of land. This Clause 4.6 Exception establishes that while the proposal departs from the numerical development standard, the proposal is considered to be compliant with the non-numerical objectives of the standard and therefore establishes that there is planning merit in permitting the numerical departure. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is merit in applying a degree of flexibility to the Height of Building control to the subject proposal, given it will achieve a better outcome for the site.

Image 32: Park Road frontage – 22 metre height shown in red (Source: GM Architects)

42 metre height control shown in red

22 metre height control shown in red


(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. Comment: The proposal seeks consent for a Height of Building of 44.7 metres or 13 storeys. In accordance with Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Height of Building standard is 22 metres or 7 storeys. If the site were to be consolidated as a Key Site, then under Clause 4.3A of the Strathfield LEP 2012 the height of building standard would be 42 metres. On this basis the proposed departure equates to 22.7 metres. This clause allows Council to grant consent to such a numerical departure. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Comment: Compliance with the Height of Building development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as compliance with the standard would not necessarily result in a better planning outcome and the proposed departure does not result in any discernible impacts to the site, streetscape or adjoining properties. In accordance with the Strathfield LEP 2012, the maximum Height of Building is 22 metres. The proposal results in a height of 44.7 metres, equivalent to a departure of 22.7 metres above the height standard. Irrespective of the above Development Standard, the site has already been granted approval for a height of 44.7 metres or 13 storeys under DA 2013/075. It is noted that this approval relied upon a consolidated site to form Key Site 16 and therefore was eligible for the key site bonus provisions. Therefore, the subject application merely removes 16 Hillcrest Street from the ‘key site’, and seeks to undertake the development in a manner which is consistent with the original approval in terms of the built form, land use, intensity of development and general apartment layout, however only relies upon the land at 153 Parramatta Road. It is noted that GM Architects designed the approved development to the east at Key Site 18 which has a podium height of 7 storeys and a tower height of 11 storeys. The design of the adjacent development by the one architect allows for a uniformed presentation that enhances the streetscape and provides a harmonious built form. In establishing the merit for this Clause 4.6 Exception, consideration is given to applicable case law. His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded. The same approach has been held by the Land and Environment


Court to be appropriate in assessing a clause 4.6 request (see for example Geeves V Marrickville Council (2013) NSW LEC 1117 per Commissioner O’Neill). His Honour Preston CJ sets out the following 5 alternative criteria:

a. Establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

b. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

c. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

d. Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

e. Establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary...

In the circumstances of this application, strict numerical compliance with the Height control would be unnecessary and unreasonable under criterion (a) in Wehbe. This is discussed below. Wehbe Criterion (a)

Test in relation to item (a):


The objectives of the Height standard are:

(a) to ensure that development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area, (b) to encourage a consolidation pattern that leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area, (c) to achieve a diversity of small and large development options.

Objective (a) The vision under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the Parramatta Road Corridor envisages a 13 storey tower for the site that shall penetrate above the 7 storey podium. The 7 storey podium forms a consistent street wall along Parramatta Road. The 13 storey tower component shall provide a built form that acts as a marker along Parramatta Road and provides visual interest and relief, providing a development that sits harmoniously the adjoining development. Therefore, the emerging desired future character for this precinct is of a built form that includes a 13 storey tower on the subject site, and an 11 storey tower on the eastern side, which is compatible with the appearance of the area. The non-provision of this, is that the site will be a 7 storey podium building with no setback, articulation, or tower. This height would not be compatible with the appearance of the area and would not be consistent with the desired future character. This height would not result in a better planning outcome for the site. Therefore, it is reasonable to grant a variation to the height in this instance, as the 13 storey building would be compatible with the character of the area.


The proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area, as it is of a form, style and design that is consistent and complimentary with adjoining medium to high density residential development. The building mass is considered contextually appropriate when considering the adjoining structures within the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the proposal does not unduly increase the height or scale of the building, beyond what would be reasonably contemplated for the site given the available controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012. As such, the 44.7 metre height will improve the appearance of the area and provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies objective (a). Objective (b) Objective (b) refers to the need to encourage a ‘consolidated pattern’ to deliver a ‘sustainable capacity height for the area’. As detailed in this report, the application relies upon part of the land to form Key Site 16. However, in this unique circumstance, it is unreasonable to not permit the development to achieve the maximum height under Clause 4.3A of the Strathfield LEP 2012, given an approval already exists under DA 2013/075 and the applicant cannot proceed with a consolidated key site due to commercial reasons. The non-inclusion of 16 Hillcrest Street does not compromise compliance with objective (b), as 16 Hillcrest Street is not isolated and it can be developed on its own, in accordance with the Key Site provisions, via lodgement of its own Development Application. This would essentially result in the same development under DA 2013/075, albeit, in the form of two separate Development Applications. Therefore, the redevelopment of the site to a height of 44.7 metres on its own will not compromise Objective (b), and retains consistency with the overall vision and objective of the Strathfield LEP 2012 for the Parramatta Road corridor. As such, the proposal can deliver the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area. In this regard, the proposal satisfies objective (b). Objective (c) In relation to objective (c), the proposal will deliver a high density development option for the site that is consistent with the zone provisions. The site complies with the minimum site area requirement and is a large development option. The additional height does not result in privacy or amenity impacts to adjoining properties. Specifically, the proposal retains the same height as has been previously approved. Therefore, the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the standard. Additionally, consideration is given the objectives of the zone. The height departure occurs within the B4 Mixed Use zone. The objectives of this zone are:

• To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • 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.


• To facilitate mixed use urban growth around railway stations and transport nodes and corridors, commercial centres and open space. • To provide local and regional employment and live and work opportunities.

In response, the proposal delivers a mixed use development along the Parramatta Road frontage. This provides an integrated mixture of land uses within an accessible location that will encourage public transport usage by future residents. The proposal will allow for the continued urban growth of the locality, which is part of the Parramatta Road corridor. The proposal provides 72 new dwellings for the community within a high density residential locality. This delivers on the requirements of the first objective. The development includes a mix of apartments that includes 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. This provides a variety of housing types and housing choice to meet the needs of the community. The proposed mixed use development is permissible in the zone. Notwithstanding, the site is in proximity to local services and facilities, such as Homebush shops and public transport services that can meet the needs of residents. Therefore, the proposal complies with the objectives of the zone. Additionally, the proposed numerical departure retains compliance with the relevant objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, being the objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii):

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

The proposal facilitates the orderly and economic use and development of the site and the numerical non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of State or Regional planning significance. As detailed earlier, the applicant has already sold 61 apartments ‘off-the-plan’ based upon a 13 storey tower that comprises 72 apartments. A refusal to this application would result in severe financial hardship to the applicant and would not comply with the objectives of the ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’, in terms of the orderly and economic use and development of land. In addition, in establishing the justification for the numerical departure, consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposal in terms of bulk, scale, height and amenity impact. An assessment against the Land and Environment Court planning principles on the assessment of height, bulk and scale (Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428) and (Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472) are as follows:

Are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls?

How does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk desired under the relevant controls?

Does the area have a predominant existing character and are the planning controls likely to maintain it?

Does the proposal fit into the existing character of the area? Is the proposal consistent with the bulk and character intended by the planning controls? Does the proposal look appropriate in its context?

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/ca287f32f3b3f233ca2573160012ee01?OpenDocument


The numerical non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance as the component of height that is above the standard is not adjacent to low density dwellings and is wholly located within a high density precinct. Therefore, the additional height sits comfortably within the surrounding context. The proposed additional height does not result in privacy or amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The orientation of the site and the positioning of the height allows for any impact to be mitigated. Further, the proposal retains the same height that was previously approved by Council. The proposed height and bulk of the proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area and is reflective of the character intended by the planning controls, which is a high density mixed use and residential precinct. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal sits harmoniously with the surrounding built form and represents a contextually good fit that is consistent with the desired future character of the area. The enhancement of the streetscape is as a result of the bulk, scale and height of the development, and therefore the non-compliance with the height results in an enhancement, rather than a detraction for the streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the planning principles on the assessment of height, bulk and scale as detailed in Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428) and (Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472. In summary, compliance with the height standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary, given the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard, and therefore the proposal is equivalent to or, put simply, the same as a development that would strictly comply with the numerical height standard. Therefore, strict compliance with the height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance and the proposal meets the requirements of test (a) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827. Therefore, in balancing the extent of the departure, with the impacts it shall generate and the benefit from the new streetscape presentation, it is considered that the development is superior and the impact from the proposal, as outlined in this report, is minimal and acceptable. Further, the proposed height departure retains compliance with the objectives of the building height standard, and can be supported. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: The proposed development is in the public’s interest as it results in a development that is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Building development standard. This Clause 4.6 is in the public interest as it results in a development that is consistent with the objectives of the height development standard. The development is of a height that is compatible with the future appearance of the area or better described as the desired future appearance of the area, which is that of a high density mixed use

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/ca287f32f3b3f233ca2573160012ee01?OpenDocument


and residential area. The proposal will deliver a residential flat building that is of a height consistent with the height controls. Further, the proposal will deliver a mixed use development that shall improve the streetscape presentation of the site. This Clause 4.6 Exception has established that the proposal retains compliance with the objectives of the height standard and compliance with the numerical standard is considered unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. This Clause 4.6 Exception has considered relevant Planning Principles of the Land & Environment Court in adequately addressing the matters required under sub-clause (3). Concurrence from the Director-General is not required in this instance. The subject clause 4.6 is considered to be well founded. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. Comment: The proposed variation to the development standards does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional planning. The variation is also not contrary to any state policy of ministerial directive. There is no public benefit of maintaining the development standard in this instance as the site represents an opportunity to provide an accentuated building form that addresses the orientation of the site and improves the streetscape whilst delivering additional housing opportunities for the locality. The design exhibits a high quality design response which is a public benefit and provides high levels of residential amenity for the occupants and maintaining residential amenity to the adjoining dwellings. The design exhibits a high quality design response and provides high levels of residential amenity for the occupants, whilst maintaining a reasonable level of residential amenity to the adjoining dwellings. It is therefore considered acceptable that an exception to the maximum Height of Building development standard is granted in this instance for the following reasons:

The purpose of the standard is being achieved and the development complies with the non-numerical objectives of Height of Building controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

The underlying objective and purpose of the standards would be thwarted if compliance

was required.

The development maintains compliance with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

A compliant height would not result in a better planning outcome for the site.

The non-compliance enables compliance with the objects and purpose of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of state or regional planning significance.

Retains consistency with the approval under DA 2013/075 for a 13 storey building.


Delivers a height and bulk that has a good contextual fit that sits harmoniously with

adjoining approved development and future development, resulting in a uniform streetscape presentation.

Enhances the streetscape presentation and public domain of along Parramatta Road. The aims of the LEP are to establish controls that encourage good quality urban design,

high residential amenity and environmental sustainability. The subject application represents a high quality orderly and economic use and development of the site, achieving an appropriate building form consistent with the changing nature of the precinct.

The variation to the development standard is in the public interest as the responds to the

site constraints, provides an exceptional design response and maintains a high level of residential amenity for the occupants and adjoining properties.

Conclusion The proposed variation to the Height of Building development standard is considered to have sufficient planning merit and justification. The vision for this site is to have a 13 storey building. The proposal delivers on this vision and retains compliance with the objectives of the standard, whilst generating minimal impacts. Therefore, the additional height does not unduly increase the bulk or scale of the building, beyond what would be reasonably contemplated for the site given the controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The proposed departure shall facilitate the delivery of housing opportunities that complies with the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and State Planning Instruments. On this basis, it is considered appropriate and acceptable to vary the numerical Height of Building standard.


APPENDIX B – CLAUSE 4.6 BUILDING HEIGHT In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, this request for an exception to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio development standards is submitted to Strathfield Council in support of the subject Development Application. The proposal results in a departure from the FSR development standard. The provisions of Clause 4.6 are addressed as follows: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. Comment: In accordance with Clause 4.4 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Floor Space Ratio standard for the site is 1.8:1. If the site were to be consolidated as a Key Site, then under Clause 4.4A of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Floor Space Ratio standard for the site (to form Key Site 16) would be 2.95:1. The proposal seeks consent for an FSR of 2.93:1 or Gross Floor Area of 5104 Therefore, strictly applying the FSR of 1.8:1, the proposal results in a departure which is equivalent to 1,942.3sqm in gross floor area. It is considered that the provision of an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying the FSR development standard is warranted in this instance, particularly given the site already has an approval with an FSR of 2.93:1.

This exception establishes that while the proposal results in a departure from the numerical development standard, the proposal is compliant with the non-numerical objectives of the standard and therefore establishes that there is planning merit in permitting the numerical departure. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is merit in applying a degree of flexibility to the floor space ratio control to the subject proposal, given it will achieve a better outcome for the site. (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. Comment: In accordance with Clause 4.4 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Floor Space Ratio standard for the site is 1.8:1. If the site were to be consolidated as a Key Site, then under Clause 4.4A of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Floor Space Ratio standard for the site (to form Key Site 16) would be 2.95:1. The proposal results in an FSR of 2.93:1. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply the numerical floor space standard, however by virtue of this clause, Council can grant consent to such a numerical departure.


(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Comment: Compliance with the floor space ratio development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as compliance with the standard would not necessarily result in a better planning outcome, and it is considered that the positive social outcomes of the proposal attributed to the delivering of additional housing opportunities far outweigh the numerical non-compliance, when balancing the outcomes of the proposal against the numerical compliance with the standard. His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded. The same approach has been held by the Land and Environment Court to be appropriate in assessing a clause 4.6 request (see for example Geeves V Marrickville Council (2013) NSW LEC 1117 per Commissioner O’Neill). It is noted that the five alternatives considered in Wehbe are not exclusive (Liberty Investments Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2009] NSWLEC 7 per Sheahan J).


b. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

c. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

d. Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

e. Establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary...

In the circumstances of this case, the provision of a strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable on the basis that that the proposal is compliant with item (a) of the test in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827. This is discussed below. Test in relation to item (a):


The objectives of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard under Clause 4.4 of the Strathfield LEP 2012 are:

http://www.westlaw.com.au/maf/wlau/app/document?&src=rl&docguid=I274d28759dbe11e0a619d462427863b2&hitguid=If79019839d7711e0a619d462427863b2&snippets=true&startChunk=1&endChunk=1&isTocNav=true&tocDs=AUNZ_CASE_TOC&extLink=false#anchor_If79019839d7711e0a619d462427863b2


(a) to ensure that dwellings are in keeping with the built form character of the local area, (b) to provide consistency in the bulk and scale of new dwellings in residential areas, (c) to minimise the impact of new development on the amenity of adjoining properties, (d) to minimise the impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

The proposal results in a 13 storey mixed use development with an FSR of 2.93:1. Objective (a) and (b).

Notwithstanding the numerical departure, the proposed is compliant with the objectives of the standard, given the proposal is consistent with the desired built form character of the area.

Whilst the proposal represents a departure from the FSR control, the proposal is of a density, bulk and scale that is envisaged by the planning controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The planning controls envisage a 13 storey building with a density of up to 2.95:1. The proposal delivers a built form that aligns with this character and therefore, it of a form that is in keeping with the desired future character for the area.

The site will provide acceptable density within an accessible location in proximity to Homebush train station, and the Homebush Town Centre. Therefore, given the site’s accessible location, it is acceptable to provide increased density, without resulting in impacts to adjoining properties or the streetscape.

The proposal will create an interesting play of materials and articulation that will provide a suitable streetscape presentation. The resulting bulk of the development is of a medium to high density residential flat building that is compatible with the locality and of an acceptable density when viewed from the street and adjoining properties.

It is established, based upon the land use zone and development standards under the Strathfield LEP 2012 that the desired future character for the locality will remain a medium to high density residential locality.

On this basis, the proposal is reflective and consistent with the desired future character of the area and that the minor numerical departure will not compromise the attainment of the objective (a) and (b) of the standard. The proposed development is of a form that is consistent with a high density mixed use/residential locality. The development maintains compliance with the objectives of the ‘R4 High Density Residential’ zone and the future direction of the surrounding Parramatta Road Corridor locality.

Accordingly, the proposal satisfies objective (a) and (b) of the FSR standard. Objective (c) In relation to objective (c) of the FSR standard, consideration is given to the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining properties. It has been established that the proposal is of an appropriate height and represents a high quality architecturally designed building that is well articulated to minimise resulting impacts from bulk and scale and is of an acceptable streetscape presentation. The proposal does not result in any adverse overshadowing, amenity, privacy or acoustic impacts on adjoining properties.

Objective (d) is not applicable to the subject development.

In summary, compliance with the FSR standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary, given the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard, and therefore the proposal is equivalent or, put simply, the same as a development that would strictly comply with the numerical FSR standard. Therefore, strict compliance with the FSR standard is unreasonable or unnecessary


in this instance and the proposal meets the requirements of test (a) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827. Accordingly, the proposal is also considered to be well founded. (4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: The proposed development is in the public’s interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard. This has been discussed in this Clause 4.6.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the area as established through the permissible uses in the zone and recently approved development in the immediate vicinity. The building mass is considered contextually appropriate when considering the adjoining structures within the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposal includes measures to ensure that the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties is retained and the building has been designed to be compatible with the bulk and scale of the future character of the locality. The proposal provides an appropriate streetscape impact and results in positive public domain presentation that will generate visual interest and aesthetic façade presentation. Further, as established under Clause 3 of the FSR standard, the proposal attains compliance with objectives (a), (b) and (c) of the FSR development standard. Objective (d) is not applicable to the subject development. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the non-numerical objectives of the Floor Space Ratio control and compliance with the numerical standard is considered unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. Comment: The proposed variation to the FSR standard does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional planning. The variation is also not contrary to any state policy of ministerial directive. There is no public benefit of maintaining the development standard in this instance as the site represents an opportunity to provide an accentuated building form that addresses the orientation of the site and improves the streetscape whilst delivering additional housing opportunities for the locality. The subject site plays a vital role in delivering a building for the Homebush locality, and the proposal is considered to be in the public interest. It is therefore considered acceptable that an exception to the maximum floor space ratio development standard is granted in this instance for the following reasons:


The purpose of the standard is being achieved and the development complies with the

non-numerical objectives of FSR standard under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

The proposal delivers a better planning outcome for the site.

The proposal results in a density, bulk and scale, that would be reasonably contemplated

for the site.

The resulting impacts from the numerical non-compliance are considered to be minimal.

The underlying objective and purpose of the standards would be thwarted if compliance was required.

The non-compliance enables compliance with the objects and purpose of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of state or regional planning

significance.

The aims of the LEP are to establish controls that encourage good quality urban design,

high residential amenity and environmental sustainability. The subject application represents a high quality orderly and economic use and development of the site, achieving an appropriate building form consistent with the changing nature of the precinct.

The variation to the development standard is in the public interest as the responds to the

site constraints, provides an exceptional design response and maintains a high level of residential amenity for the occupants and adjoining properties.


ITEM 5. DA2014/067/02 – 2-6 BEDE STREET, STRATHFIELD SOUTH

5.1

SUMMARY PROPERTY: 2-6 Bede Street, Strathfield South

Lot B in Deposited Plan 365481 Lot C in Deposited Plan 365481 Lot D in Deposited Plan 365481

DA NO.: 2014/067/02 APPLICATION TYPE: S96 (2) Modification - Residential Flat Building (RFB) REPORT BY: Kathryn McGovern – Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL SUBMISSIONS: Two (2) written submissions were received. ZONING: R3 Medium Density Residential DATE APPLICATION LODGED: 30 April 2015 APPLICANT: Omar Abdul-Rahman OWNER: Mr. O. Abdul-Rahman Mrs. T. Abdul-Rahman

Mr. MM. Abdul-Rahman INTRODUCTION Approval is sought to modify the basement layout and access ramp, fire escape stairs, various internal and external modifications, including an additional parking space, the partial removal of rooftop communal open space and the provision of an additional three (3) bedroom unit. The majority of the proposed works forming the basis of this application have already been undertaken, with this application seeking retrospective approval. A Building Certificate application for the unauthorised works has also been lodged with Council and is currently under assessment. The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) including the 0.5:1 bonus which is allowed under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Due to the location of the additional unit, the building has a height of 11.8m where a maximum permitted building height of 9.5m is permitted under Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP 2012) and does not achieve an appropriate stepped built form towards Anselm Street as envisage by Councils built form controls. The proposal has not made the appropriate provisions to retain at least 15% of the units as adaptable dwellings in accordance with relevant Australian Standards and the requirements of Part C of the Strathfield Development control Plan 2005 (SDCP). The proposal is therefore unsatisfactory having regard to the applicable Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), development controls and fails to address the specific constraints to the site and is therefore recommended for refusal.



5.2

It is also recommended that Councils Planning Committee endorse the actions of Council Officers in legally pursuing the unauthorised work which has been undertaken. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the corner of Bede Street and Anselm Street, Strathfield South and comprises three (3) residential allotments legally identified as Lots B, C and D in Deposited Plan 365481. The frontage of the site extends for a length of 67.52m along Bede Street and 19.94m along Anselm Street and has an overall area of 1,334m². The site falls gradually from the northern boundary to the southern boundary with Anselm Street and is currently developed with a three (3) storey residential flat building including one (1) level of basement parking. Development west of the site mostly comprises low density residential dwellings whilst directly north of the site a recently approved residential flat building containing (33) units, fronting Liverpool Road is currently under construction. The property to the east of the site contains a three (3) storey multi-unit development of (12) units with balconies orientated west toward the common boundary with the subject site. The surrounding streetscape is undergoing transition from low density dwellings to medium density development, which is consistent with Council’s desired future character for the area expressed by the zoning, height and density (FSR) controls applicable under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Figure 1: View of the existing site and building including the proposed additional unit.



5.3

Figure 2: View of the existing residential flat building from the corner of Bede Street and Anselm Street PROPOSAL The application seeks Council approval for various modifications to DA2014/067 as listed below: Basement

Reconfigure the basement layout including the modification of the fire escape stairs, bicycle rack and communal bin room:

The bicycle rack area has reduced the number of racks by three (3) and now provides a

total of five (5) racks:

An additional car parking space has been provided: and

The basement access ramp has been modified and shifted 1.651m from the eastern boundary.

Ground Floor

Modification of the unit sizes and balcony sizes of all units:

Modification of the location and configuration of the southern fire escape stairs:

Hydrant booster relocated along the Bede Street frontage:

Modification of some of the ground floor units so that they are no longer adaptable units: and

Modification of the communal open space as a result of the southern fire escape stairs.



5.4

First Floor and Levl 2


Modification of the location and configuration of the southern fire escape stairs:

The external walls to the bedrooms with an orientation to Bede Street have been modified to align flush with the balconies provided along the Bede Street elevation: and

The vertical louvers to be provided along the Bede Street elevation have been modified to

correspond with the external modifications to the built form as detailed above. Level 3


The addition of a three (3) bedroom unit across the roof area previously approved as Communal Open Space: and

A significant reduction in rooftop communal open space.

A site plan and elevations are attached (2). BACKGROUND DA2014/067 was approved on 19 August 2014 for the demolition of three (3) existing dwellings and associated structures and construction of a new infill affordable housing residential flat building with a total of (21) units comprising two (2) x studio apartments, one (1) x 1 bedroom and (18) x 2 bedroom units above one (1) level of basement parking. Construction of the building commenced in late 2014, however as evidenced by the modifications sought under this application, construction has not occurred strictly in accordance with the approved plans and an additional three (3) bedroom unit has been constructed.

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (2) Other modifications.

A consent authority may modify the consent if: (a) It is satisfied that the development to which the consent (as modified) relates is

substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted, before that consent was modified (if at all), and

(b) It has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the

meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed on the consent as a requirement of a concurrence or in accordance with the General Terms of Approval and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and



5.5

(c) It has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) The regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) A development control plan, if the consent authority is a Council that has made a

Development Control Plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) It has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within

the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Comment: With regard to sub-clause (a), the proposed development (as modified) is substantially

the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted in that the proposal results in a three (3) storey residential flat building with one (1) level of basement parking. The proposed development as amended will retain the main components of the development as approved and primarily seeks to introduce an additional unit on the topmost floor building.

With regard to sub-clause (b), the proposed development was not defined as Integrated Development and accordingly concurrence is not required. In relation to sub-clauses (c) and (d), the Application is a Section 96(2) and has been notified for a period of (14) days in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan 2005.

ASSESSMENT - Pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 The application has been assessed pursuant to the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the relevant matters described in Sub-section (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 79C have been considered within this report. (a) (i) Environmental Planning Instruments:

The following Environmental Planning Instrument’s (EPI) are applicable in the assessment of the subject application:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat

Buildings State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index - BASIX)

2004 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030

An assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of each of these EPI’s is provided below.



5.6

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires Council to consider whether the site is suitable in its current state, contaminated state or following the completion of remediation works for the purposes for which development consent is being sought. Consideration was given to SEPP 55 under the original application in which it was established that the site was suitable in its current state for the purposes of constructing a new residential flat building with a total of (21) units above one (1) level of basement parking. State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 The proposed development has been lodged under Part 2, Division 1 of the ARH SEPP which relates to the provision of ‘infill affordable rental housing’. For the purpose of this Environmental Planning Instrument, affordable rental housing is defined as follows:

“Housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households.” A household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household:

(a) Has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or

(b) Is eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.

In order for the proposal to be considered as ‘infill affordable housing’, the development site is required to be located within an ‘accessible area’ which is defined under Clause 10 of the ARH SEPP as land that is within:

(a) 800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or

(b) 400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or

(c) 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

The subject site meets the abovementioned requirement as it is located approximately 125m and 180m from two (2) regularly serviced bus stops on the northern and southern side of Liverpool Road, respectively.



5.7

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the ARH SEPP, the applicant may choose the percentage of Gross Floor Area (minimum 20%, maximum 50%) which will be designated and retained as affordable housing for a minimum period of ten (10) years in order to receive the associated ‘bonus’ or ‘incentive’ floor space ratio (FSR). In the original application, the applicant nominated 40% of GFA (translating to eight (8) units or 661m²) as affordable rental housing. In the current application, the applicant continues to nominate 40% of the units as affordable housing, although with the additional unit which has been constructed, the total GFA would be beyond the maximum which is permitted.

Council’s controls designate a varied height (9.5m to 11m) and FSR (1.2:1 to 0.65:1) across the three (3) allotments. The intent of these varied controls is to step the bulk of anticipated medium density development down from the intersection of Bede Street and Liverpool Road toward the interface with low density development on the southern side of Anselm Street. The following table provides a breakdown of the proposed gross floor area and FSR across all three allotments.

FLOOR SPACE RATIO TABLE

Street Address No. 6 Site Area: 446.7m2

No. 4 Site Area:444m2

No. 2 Site Area:443.8m2

Permitted FSR + Incentive @ 50% or 0.5:1

1.15:1 (513.705m2)

1.15:1 (510.6m2)

1.7:1 (754.46m2)

Proposed FSR and GFA (m2)

0.84:1 388.35

1.62:1 731.55

1.48:1 680.98

Compliance Complies

No, exceeds the maximum permitted FSR by 220.95m2 or 0.47:1

Complies

As demonstrated in the table above, the proposal seeks a departure to the FSR over the central allotment (4 Bede Street) where the new three (3) bedroom unit has been constructed. The proposal provides a total FSR of 1.62:1 or 731.55m2 for No. 4 Bede Street which is 220.95m2 more than the permitted FSR of 1.15:1 or 510.6m2 as required by Clause 13 of the Affordable Housing SEPP.

The variation from the development standard is significant, resulting in unacceptable bulk and scale impacts when viewed from Bede Street and Anselm Street. Further, the proposal is contrary to the objective of Councils FSR and height development standards which seeks to step the bulk of the building toward the interface with low density development on the southern side of Anselm Street.

An assessment of the development against the remaining controls of the ARH SEPP is presented in the table below. The modified proposal seeks a depature from the landscaping and deep soil requirements of the ARH SEPP. Note that the ARH SEPP states that Council is unable to refuse an application where it complies with the minimum standards provided by Clause 14 (refer to shaded section of table).



5.8

Clause Development Control

Required Proposal Compliance

10 Permissibility Permissible under SLEP 2012

Residential flat buildings are permissible in the R3 – Medium Density zone under the SLEP 2012.

Yes.

Note: Unable to refuse based on compliance with these provisions 14

Site area Landscaping Deep Soil Solar Access Parking Dwelling size

Min 450m² Min 30% (400m²) Min 15% (200m²) Preferably to the rear of the site 70% of living rooms receive a minimum of 3 hours solar access at the winter solstice. Studio – nil 1 bed – 0.5 spaces 2 bed – 1 space 3 bed – 1.5 Proposal is: 2 x studio 1 x 1 bed 18 x 2 bed 1 x 3 bed = 20.5 spaces Studio 35m² 1 bed 50m² 2 bed 70m² 3 bed 95m2

1,334m² 22.95% (306.10m²) 8.63% (116.13m²) Access to solar access remains unchanged with 100% of units receiving a minimum of 3 hours as all units are provided with a northerly or westerly orientation. 21 residential car parking spaces provided plus 4 visitor spaces Total 25 spaces Studio – 46.61m² 1 bed – 67.29m2 2 bed – 72.81m2 3 bed – 105.95

Yes. No, refer to discussion. No, refer to discussion. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

16 Design requirements

SEPP 65 compliant Refer to detailed SEPP 65 analysis below.

Discussed in detail below.

16A Character Compatible with character of local area.

The subject modifications include alteration to the building to remove the recesses provided to the bedrooms fronting Bede Street and Anselm Street. As a result, the external vertical louvers have been modified and the articulation of the building has been reduced.

Yes.



5.9

Clause Development Control


In addition to the reduced articulation and modified louvers, the additional unit which has been constructed without Council approval on the topmost floor of the building is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.

17 Affordable housing

Must be used as affordable housing for 10 years from the issue of an Occupation Certificate Must be managed by a registered community housing provider 88E instrument

In the event of an approval, a Condition will be imposed requiring an 88E instrument to be registered on title in order to ensure units G01, G02, G03, 102, 103, 104, 202, 203, 205, 206, 302 and 303 are retained as affordable rental housing for 10 years. These units equate to 50% of GFA.

In the event of an approval, a condition of consent would be imposed or modified in this instance.

18 Subdivision May be subdivided with consent.

Strata subdivision of the development is not proposed under the subject application.

Not applicable.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 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. In determining development applications for residential flat buildings, the SEPP requires Council to take into consideration the advice of a Design Review Panel, the design quality of the proposal when evaluated against the ten (10) design quality principles in the SEPP and the ‘rules of thumb’ controls of the Residential Flat Design Code. Written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP. A design verification statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been received from a registered Architect, Ghazi Al Ali of Ghazi Al Ali Architects Pty Ltd and it is noted that Strathfield Council is not subject to a Design Review Panel constituted under the SEPP. The following assessment of the proposal against the ten (10) design quality principles and the numeric controls of the ‘Residential Flat Design Code’ and is considered unsatisfactory.



5.10

Principle Proposed Context Good design responds and contributes to its

context. Context can be defined as the key natural and built features of an area. Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of a location’s current character or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, the desired future character as stated in planning and design policies. New buildings will thereby contribute to the quality and identity of the area.

The building is modern in appearance with feature areas of facebrick. The materials selected are responsive to the existing character of development in Anselm and Bede Street, however the height of the building and additional bulk of the unauthorised unit which is beyond the permitted FSR and height creates a building that is contrary to the character desired by Councils controls. The inclusion of the additional unit on the topmost floor of the building results in a significant departure from the building height control under the SLEP 2012 and fails to respond to the strategic context of the site and the envisaged built form of the immediate locality which is mirrored on the opposite side of the street. In the event that the properties on the western side of Bede Street are developed, there will be a visual disparity between the built forms and densities of development on opposite sides of the street.

Scale Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of the bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and the surrounding buildings.


The additional unit proposed for the third floor of the building is considered inconsistent with the scale of development anticipated for lots 4 and 6, with the proposal seeking a considerable departure from both the FSR and building height under the ARH SEPP and SLEP 2012 respectively.

Built Form Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose, in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type 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 setbacks provided by the additional unit on the topmost floor of the building are considered insufficient to ameliorate the impacts of exceeding the FSR and building height provisions established under the ARH SEPP and the SLEP 2012. The additional unit is visually prominent from Bede Street and does not meet the objectives of the built form controls, in particular building height and FSR.

Density Good design has a density appropriate for a site and its context, in terms of floor space yields (or number of units or residents). Appropriate densities are sustainable and consistent with the existing density in an area or, in precincts undergoing a transition, are consistent

The modification is excessive in density, with the proposal seeking a departure from the maximum FSR under the ARH SEPP. The subject application is considered inconsistent with Councils desired future



5.11

Principle Proposed with the stated desired future density. Sustainable densities respond to the regional context, availability of infrastructure, public transport, community facilities and environmental quality.

density as the application seeks a considerable variation from both the FSR and the bonus afforded under the ARH SEPP.

Resource, Water and Energy Efficiency

Good design makes efficient use of natural resources, energy and water throughout its full life cycle, including construction. Sustainability is integral to the design process. Aspects include demolition of existing structures, recycling of materials, selection of appropriate and sustainable materials, adaptability and reuse of buildings, layouts and built form, passive solar design principles, efficient appliances and mechanical services, soil zones for vegetation and reuse of water.

The proposal demonstrates compliance with the requirements of SEPP BASIX by incorporating a variety of measures which will reduce the environmental footprint of the building. Such measures include a water reticulation (recycling) system, low energy lighting and water efficient taps.

Landscape Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain. Landscape design builds on the existing site’s natural and cultural features in responsible and creative ways. It enhances the development’s natural environmental performance by co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy and habitat values. It contributes to the positive image and contextual fit of development through respect for streetscape and neighbourhood character, or desired future character. Landscape design should optimise useability, privacy and social opportunity, equitable access and respect for neighbours’ amenity, and provide for practical establishment and long term management.

The application has not been accompanied with a landscape plan to support the proposed modifications to the landscaped area including deep soil areas.

Amenity Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development. Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

The proposed additional unit provided on the topmost floor of the building is provided with a good level of amenity, achieving at least three (3) hours of solar access at mid-winter. However, the additional density resulting from this unauthorised unit accompanied by the reduction in communal open space and landscaping will compromise the amenity of future residents.

Safety and Security

Good design optimises safety and security, both internal to the development and for the public domain.

The proposal has a well-defined pedestrian entrance to Bede Street which remains unchanged and is separated from the vehicular entrance to



5.12

Principle Proposed This is achieved by maximising overlooking of public and communal spaces while maintaining internal privacy, avoiding dark and non-visible areas, maximising activity on streets, providing clear, safe access points, providing quality public spaces that cater for desired recreational uses, providing lighting appropriate to the location and desired activities, and clear definition between public and private spaces.

the site, which is from Anselm Street. The entrance is defined through the use of projecting fin walls which frame the façade. The modified balconies at each level including the new balcony to Unit 303 are orientated to overlook the public domain in Bede Street and Anselm Street.

Social Dimensions

Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities. New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

In the event of an approval, the proposal would provide a good social mix through the variety of unit layouts and sizes, and the provision of twelve (12) units as affordable housing. The proposed modifications result in a reduction to the communal open space provided at ground level and seek to increase the density of the site through the introduction of the additional unit. The communal open space provided on the topmost floor of the building is considerably reduced as a result of the additional three (3) bedroom unit which has been constructed without Council consent.

Aesthetics Quality aesthetics require the appropriate composition of building elements, textures, materials and colours and reflect the use, internal design and structure of the development. Aesthetics should respond to the environment and context, particularly to desirable elements of the existing streetscape or, in precincts undergoing transition, contribute to the desired future character of the area.

Whilst the materiality of the building is acceptable and generally consistent with the original approval, the additional bulk and height which results from the unauthorised unit constructed on the top floor detract from the positive contribution the building could have on the streetscape.

Residential Flat Design Code Further to the design quality principles discussed above, the proposal has been considered against the various provisions of the Residential Flat Design Code in accordance with Clause 30 (2) (c) of SEPP 65. A full assessment is presented in the table below:

Development Guideline

Required Proposed

Compliance

Building Depth Max 10m – 18m

13.7m Yes.


The modifications result in a reduction of deep soil area as a result of the modified basement access ramp and southern fire stairs.

Yes.



5.13


Required Proposed

Compliance

The proposal provides 17.24% (230m²) of the site as deep soil which forms 77% amount of the open space provided. Refer to the deep soil discussion under the ARH SEPP.


The level of amenity afforded to residents through the landscape treatment of the site is reduced as a result of the reduction in landscaped area and communal open rooftop.

No, compromised amenity resulting from reduced landscaping and communal open space.

Open Space Between 20 -30% of site area (Min. 266.8m2)

350.29m2 or 26% of the site provided as common open space, inclusive of the rooftop terrace.

Complies, however the reduction to the rooftop area in exchange for an additional unit will compromise residential amenity.

Building Entry Provide physical and visual connection between building and street Provide safe and equitable entrance

The building entry under the subject modification remains unchanged.

Yes.

Parking Provide underground car parking Provide bicycle parking.

Basement parking provided for vehicles and bicycles.

Yes.

Vehicle Access Max width of driveway is 6m Located vehicle entry away from pedestrian entry

The width of the basement ramp provided off Anselm Street has been widened to 5.263m and is sufficiently separated from the Bede Street entrance of the site.

Yes.

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 – 95m2

Maximum 7.9m There are no long and narrow units and all units are wider than 4m. Studio – 46.61m² 1 bed – 67.29m2 2 bed – 72.81m2 3 bed – 105.95m2

Yes. Yes. Yes.



5.14


Required Proposed

Compliance


The apartment mix remains largely unchanged. Acceptable mix of studio, one (1) bedroom, two (2) bedroom and three (3) bedroom units.

Yes.

Building Configuration

Balconies have a minimum depth of 2m.

2m minimum depth achieved.

Yes.


The bedroom to the new unit 303 adjoins the living room to unit 301. A condition was imposed on the original development application to ensure compliance with NCC (BCA) which would ensure suitable construction methodology is used. This condition will remain unchanged in the event of an approval.

Yes.

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

100% of units receive at least 3 hours solar access during mid-winter as a result of northerly and westerly orientated living rooms.

Yes.


The additional unit provided on the topmost floor of the building is naturally cross ventilated.

Yes.

BASIX

In accordance with the BASIX SEPP all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction. A modified BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application, which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. In the event of an approval, an appropriate condition of consent would be imposed to ensure future compliance with these targets.

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (SLEP), 2012 wherein development for the purposes of a Residential Flat Building is permissible with Council consent. The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone which seek to meet the needs of the community within medium density precincts that are well connected by existing public transportation routes.

As previously discussed, the minimum allotment size and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) requirements applicable under Clauses 4.1A and 4.4 of the SLEP, 2012 are overridden by



5.15

the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. Refer to the discussion under the Affordable Housing SEPP. The height controls applicable to the site under Clause 4.3 of the SLEP, 2012 remain relevant to the assessment of the proposal. The subject modifications result in no change to the building height over lots 2 and 6, however a variation to the building height over lot 4 is requested where the new three (3) bedroom unit is positioned. The subject modifications seeks a variation of 2.3m from the maximum building height of 9.5m as demonstrated in the below table.

Property Permitted Height (SLEP) Proposed Compliance 2 Bede Street 11m 11m Unchanged 4 Bede Street 9.5m 11.8m No 6 Bede Street 9.5m Max 9.55m Unchanged

Although not required for Section 96 applications, an objection to the Height of Building Control has been prepared by the Applicant in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the SLEP 2012. This Objection encourages Council to use flexibility in the application of this numeric development standard on the basis that the proposal can satisfy the qualitative objectives of the development standard and R3 Medium Density zone. The relevant objective of the building height development standard is to ensure development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area. The significant variation to the building height standard is not compatible with other development in the area and the application fails to demonstrate how the variation to the building height will contribute to the appearance of the existing area. Furthermore, the variation to the building height fails to respond to the slope of the land, exacerbating the bulk and scale of the development from Bede Street. The variation from the FSR control coupled with the variation to the building height results in the overdevelopment of the site and is not supported.

Overall, the proposed development has been considered with respect to the relevant Clauses of the SLEP, 2012 and the departure from the maximum permitted height is not supported. Therefore the proposal has failed to satisfy the requirements of the SLEP 2012.

Section 94 Contributions Section 94 Contributions are applicable to the proposed development in accordance with the Strathfield Direct Development Contributions Plan 2010-2030 for the additional three (3) bedroom unit as follows:

Provision of Community Facilities $1,391.90 Provision of Major Open Space $6,699.10 Provision of Local Open Space $1,193.50 Provision Roads and traffic Management $162.00 Administration $285.20 TOTAL $9,731.70



5.16

In the event of an approval being granted, a condition of consent requiring the payment of these additional Section 94 contributions would be imposed.


(iii) Development Control Plans:

Part C – ‘Multiple-Unit Housing’ of the Strathfield Consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005

Section Development Standard


2.3 Dwelling Unit and Building Design

15% of the development is required to be designed as adaptable housing for older people or people with disabilities. 22 x .15 = 3.3 units

While four (4) units provided on the ground floor of the development are noted as adaptable, it appears that several units have door openings and circulation spaces less than that required under the AS1428.1.

No.





Having regard to these prescribed matters, the proposed development is not located on land subject to the Government Coastal Policy as determined by Clause 92 (1) (a) (i) and does not involve the demolition of a building for the purposes of Australian Standard (AS) 2601 – 1991: The Demolition of Structures.


The NSW Government projects sea levels to rise by 40cm in 2050 and by 90cm in 2100 above the relative mean sea level in 1990. These planning benchmarks are to be considered in the assessment of development applications through the applicable coastal zone management plan or alternatively the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise. Although Council is not subject to a coastal zone management plan, the sea level rise planning benchmarks have also been established in order to assess the likely increase in the frequency, duration and height of flooding and as a consequence likely property and



5.17

infrastructure damage on affected and potentially affected land. Council is therefore required to consider the impact of sea level rise and resultant flooding from Powell’s Creek and Cook’s River which are tributaries of Sydney Harbour (Parramatta River) and Botany Bay respectively.

The proposed development is located on a site that is not subject to flooding attributed to either Powell’s Creek or Cook’s River and is therefore not required to be considered under the provisions of the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise.

(b) Likely Impacts:

Character As previously discussed, the proposal exceeds the maximum FSR including the 0.5:1 bonus afforded under the ARH SEPP and the maximum building height under Clause 4.3 of the SLEP 2012. As a result of the additional unauthorised unit which has been constructed, the proposal does not achieve an appropriate stepped built form towards Anselm Street as envisage by Councils controls. The inclusion of the additional unit on the topmost floor of the building results in a significant departure from the building height control under the SLEP 2012, which fails to respond to the strategic context of the site and the envisaged built form of the immediate locality which is mirrored on the opposite side of the street. In the event the properties on the western side of Bede Street are developed, there will be a visual disparity in the building height of the development on both sides of the street. Whilst the materiality of the building remains largely unchanged, the additional bulk and height which results from the unauthorised unit constructed on the top floor detracts from the positive contribution the building could have on the Bede Street streetscape.

Having regard to the above, the proposal is unable to be supported as it fails to meet a number of fundamental development standards under the ARH SEPP and SLEP 2012.

Landscaped Area The proposal results in a departure of 93.9m2 from the landscaped area control established under Clause 14 of the Affordable Housing SEPP, which requires 30% or 400m2 of the site to be provided as landscaped area. Further, the proposal results in a departure of 83.87m2 from the deep soil control also established under Clause 14 of the Affordable Housing SEPP, which requires 20% or 200m2 of the site to be provided as deep soil area.

The reduction in landscaping resulting from the modifications to the fire escape stairs coupled with the reduction in the area of rooftop communal open space and the introduction of additional density in the unauthorised unit, the modified proposal would compromise the amenity of future residents.


The additional density proposed in the subject application will result in an unacceptable appearance which is contrary to the statutory provisions of the ARH SEPP and SLEP 2012 and therefore is not suitable for the site.



5.18

(d) Submissions: The application and plans were notified in accordance with Part L of the Strathfield Consolidated DCP 2005 from 12 May 2015 to 27 May 2015. Two (2) written submissions were received. The submissions raised no objection to the subject modifications but rather queried certain aspects of the application and existing building.

1. Concern was raised that the proposed additional unit may have already been

constructed. Comment: The additional unit has been constructed without Council consent. Notwithstanding this, a Section 96 application can grant retrospective approval, however as discussed within this report, the additional unit is not supported on planning grounds. 2. Concern was raised over the height of the southern wall. Comment: The height of the southern wall remains unchanged under the subject application. 3. The objector noted that the southern façade, as currently constructed, does not

support any of the façade treatments as originally approved.

Comment: The plans at the time of notification sought the modification of the southern façade and the deletion of the approved metallic vertical louvers.

The applicant has since been advised that the deletion of the vertical louvers is considered unacceptable and accordingly the applicant has submitted amended plans that have reinstated the vertical louvers in a similar fashion to that as originally approved


The public interest is best served by the consistent application of the relevant statutory environmental planning instruments. As the proposed development results in a significant variation from the FSR and building height provisions under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, approval of the application would be contrary to the public interest.

INTERNAL REFERRALS The application was forwarded to Council’s Stormwater Drainage Engineer for comment. No issues were raised subject to conditions which would be included in the event of approval being granted. CONCLUSION The proposed development is permissible in the subject zoning but fails to comply with the FSR and building height provisions under the ARH SEPP and SLEP 2012 respectively. The proposal does not meet the Design Principals of SEPP 65 in terms of context, scale, built form, density, landscaping, aesthetics and amenity. The proposal is excessive in density and represents an overdevelopment of the site. As a result, the proposal departs from the FSR, landscaped area, and deep soil area and fails to meet the character



5.19

test under the requirements of the ARH SEPP and the building height development standard provided under Clause 4.3 of the SLEP 2012. The height departure (2.3m) as a result of the additional unit is also considered contrary to the objectives of the development standard of the SLEP 2012. The modified building is contrary to the character (height and density) of development sought in Bede Street and is also considered unsatisfactory in terms of the provision of adaptable units. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the applicable Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), development controls and the specific constraints of the site and is therefore recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that:

(A) Section 96 modification application DA2014/067/02, proposing changes to the basement layout and access ramp and the addition of a three (3) bedroom unit on the topmost floor of the building at 2-6 Bede Street, Strathfield South, be REFUSED for the reasons shown below: and

(B) The legal action being instigated by Council Officers in relation to the unauthorised work,

including the already constructed three (3) bedroom unit, modifications to the basement layout and access ramp, be endorsed.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposal is excessive in density and has an FSR of 1.62:1 over 4 Bede Street which is

contrary to the maximum floor space ratio of 1.15:1 permitted by Clause 13 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

2. The proposal provides a landscaped area of 306.10m2 and fails to comply with the minimum

landscape area of 400m2 permitted by Clause 14 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, reducing the level of amenity afforded to the residents. (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

3. The proposal fails to comply with the Design Principles of context, scale, built form, density,

landscape, amenity and aesthetics of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings as the modified development is contrary in respect of providing a development that responds to its context, results in a suitable scale, built form and density, landscaping and amenity. (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

4. The proposal has a height of 11.8m over 4 Bede Street and fails to comply with the maximum

building height of 9.5m permitted by Clause 4.3 of the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 and thereby fails to meet the objectives of the standard that seek to ensure that development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area and therefore is inconsistent with the built form envisaged for the site. (s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).



5.20

5. The proposal is excessive in height and density and is incompatible with the character of the streetscape and is therefore contrary to Clause 16A of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the context of the desired future character for development within the immediate locality and is unsuitable for the site (s.79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

6. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the units nominated as ‘adaptable’ are capable of

meeting the requirements of Australian Standard 1428. Therefore, the proposal is not in the public interest (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

7. The proposed development results in a number of departures from the relevant Environmental

Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans. The development is incompatible with the streetscape and will provide a compromised level of amenity to future residents contrary to that previously approved. Accordingly, the proposed development is not in the public interest (s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).



5.21


AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

1

Notification Map

Notification Map

Location Map

Submissions




ATTACHMENT 2

GSPublisherEngine 0.10.100.61

PROJECT:

2-6 BEDE STREET, STRATHFIELD STHCLIENT:

OMAR ABDUL-RAHMANSCALE: DATE: CAD FILE NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED 1: CHECKED 2: APPROVED:

1:200

DRAWING NAME

ROOF PLAN

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

BS96 1205

DRAWING NUMBER

S96JU GA

21/07/2015

33.1

3

M0

BCA: PLANNING: ARCHITECT:

ACCESS SOLUTIONS DISABILITY ACCESS CONSULTANTSa: PO Box 282, Hamilton, NSW 2303m: +614 11824183 [email protected]

ACCESS:

ACOUSTIC CONSULTING ENGINEERS PTY LTDa: PO Box 3450 Putney NSW 2112t: +612 80065560 f: +612 [email protected]

ACOUSTIC:

82 Bridge Street, Lanecove NSW 2066t: +612 89646045 f: +614 31480980www.geoenvironmental.com.au

GEOTECH ENGINEER:

Thermal Energy Assessorp: +614 20312721e: [email protected]: www.sustainablethermalsolutions.com.au

BASIX:

a: suite 113, Bldg A, Level 1, 20 Lexington Drive, Bella Vista, NSW 2153 |PO Box 7855, Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153t: +612 88834239 f: +612 96726977 w: www.sgce.com.au

HYDRAULIC :QUANTITY SURVEYOR:

a: Suite 7 Level 2. 1-17 Elsie St. Burwood NSW 1805t: +612 97152555 f: +612 97152333w: www.viclili.com.au

a: Suite 103 \ 155 Avoca Street, Randwick, NSW 2031t: +612 93996500 f: +612 93996555w: www.willana.com.au

TRAFFIC:

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

a: PO Box 550 Hurstville NSW 1481p: +612 95579833m: +614 17280249e: [email protected]

ML Traffic Engineersa: Suite 195, 79-83 Longueville Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066p: +612 80042434e: [email protected]

0 1 2 5 10M

SCALE 1:200

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize

A3 © COPYRIGHTFOR S96

PURPOSES ONLYNOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

F O R S 9 6

DO NOT SCALE DWGS. USEDIMENSIONS ONLY. REFERANY DISCREPANCIES TOARCHITECT PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.

THESE DRAWINGS ARESUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT.

UNIT 2H 9-13 R E D M Y R E R DSTRATHFIELD NSW 2135

T. +612 8065 1544 | E . o ffi c e @ ghazia.c o mA C N : 67167131848

FOR

S96

7/04

/20

15A

AS

PER

COU

NCI

LSCO

MM

ENTS

21/0

7/2

015

B

BUILDING LINES BELOW

SETBACK SETBACK

AN

SELM

STR

EET

BEDE STREET

B O U N D A R Y

B O U N D A R Y

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

B O U N D A R Y

BO

UN

DA

RY

B O U N D A R Y

36.99

LIFTOVERRUN

2° ROOF PITCH 2° ROOF PITCH

ROOF PLANSCALE 1:200

SUBJECT TO S96


PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

ELEVATIONS

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

BS96 1500

DRAWING NUMBER

S96JU GA

21/07/2015

33.1

3

M0



ACCESS:


ACOUSTIC:


GEOTECH ENGINEER:


BASIX:





TRAFFIC:




0 1 2 5 10M

SCALE 1:200

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R S 9 6





FOR

S96

7/04

/20

15A

AS

PER

COU

NCI

LSCO

MM

ENTS

21/0

7/2

015

B

6,600

5,192

+24.70

+33.55

+36.51 +36.51LIFT OVERRUN

MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT 9.5M

MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT 11M

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

ANSELMSTREET

PCA/BCA REQUIREMENTS

3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

G

1

2

3

R RL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05

RL 24.05 G

1

2

3

R

MAIN ENTRYGROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVELRL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05

RL 24.05GROUND FLOOR

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL3,

000

3,00

02,

900

3,00

03,

000

2,90

0

+36.51 +36.51LIFT OVERRUN


MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT 11M


BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

NATURAL GROUND LINEANSELMSTREET

NATURAL GROUND LINE


3,00

0

3,00

0COMMUNAL AREA

G

1

2

3

RRL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

G

1

2

3

R RL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

SUBJECT TO S96

SUBJECT TO S96

EAST ELEVATION @ 1:200

WEST ELEVATION @ 1:200

SUBJECT TO S96

AS PE

R DA 2

014/

067

AS PE

R DA 2

014/

067

AS PE

R DA 2

014/

067

AS PE

R DA 2

014/

067


PROJECT:




1:200

DRAWING NAME

ELEVATIONS

PRO

JECT

NU

MBE

R

ISSUE

BS96 1501

DRAWING NUMBER

S96JU GA

21/07/2015

33.1

3

M0



ACCESS:


ACOUSTIC:


GEOTECH ENGINEER:


BASIX:





TRAFFIC:




0 1 2 5 10M

SCALE 1:200

N

Issu

eD

ate

Des

crip

tion

Dra

win

g O

rigin

al S

ize



CONSTRUCTION

F O R S 9 6





FOR

S96

7/04

/20

15A

AS

PER

COU

NCI

LSCO

MM

ENTS

21/0

7/2

015

B

3,0003,010 LIFT OVERRUN

BDY BDY

BEDE STREET

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

NATURAL GROUND LINE

RAMP 1:14

COMMUNAL AREA


3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

G

1

2

3

RRL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

G

1

2

3

R RL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

3,0003,000

24.05

+33.55

+36.51

+36.04

+36.99

BEDE STREET

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY


3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

3,00

03,

000

3,00

02,

900

RL 24.05 G

1

2

3

RRL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

G

1

2

3

R RL 35.95

RL 33.05

RL 30.05

RL 27.05


LEVEL 01

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 03

ROOF LEVEL

SUBJECT TO S96

NORTH ELEVATION @ 1:200

SOUTH ELEVATION @ 1:200

SUBJECT TO S96

AS PE

R DA 2

014/

067

ATTACHMENT 3

planning committee meeting - strathfield council committee meeting – 21 july 2015 minutes 4...

Documents