Agenda of Council Meeting

Hurstville City Council – Council Meeting Wednesday, 20 April 2016

CCL127-16 29 Redgum Dr Lugarno - Alterations and Additions To Single Dwelling - New Entrance with Extension of Terraces and New Stairs to Pool

Applicant	Gelder Architects
Proposal	Alterations and additions to dwelling - new entrance, extension of terraces to rear, new access stairs to pool and extension to north
Owners	Mr D Di Stefano and Mrs V Stefano
Report Author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Mr K Kim
File	DA2015/0338
Previous Reports Referenced	No
Disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts	No
Zoning	Zone R2 - Low Density Residential
Existing Development	Three storey dwelling house and above ground swimming pool to rear
Cost of Development	$300,000
Reason for Referral to Council	Two (2) submissions received and variations to DCP1 and HLEP 2012
Planning Instruments Applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007, Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide
Hurstville Local Environment Plan Interpretation of Use	Single dwelling house and ancillary structures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, including a new entrance, extension of terraces to the rear, new access stairs to the pool and extension to the northern side of the dwelling.

2. The proposal varies Hurstville Local Environmental Plan No 1 and Development Control Plan No 1 requirements relating to the maximum ridge and external wall height for a single dwelling house. These variations mainly result from the steep fall of the land.

3. The application was notified to ten (10) neighbours/owners and two (2) submissions, including a late submission were received in relation to this application.

4. This application was deferred at the Council meeting of 6 April 2016 for a site inspection. The site inspection was held on 12 April 2016.

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, including a new entrance, extension of terraces to the rear, new access stairs to the pool and extension to the northern side of the dwelling.

HISTORY

22 Sept 15 Application lodged with Council

7 Oct 15 Application was notified for fourteen (14) days. Council received one (1) submission

19 Nov 15 Further information (clause 4.6 variation and amended plans) received by Council

2 Dec 15 Referral by Council’s Development Engineer completed

21 Jan 16 Application was re-notified for fourteen (14) days. Council received two (2) submissions

23 Feb 16 Referral by RFS NSW received by Council

6 Apr 16 Application deferred at Council meeting for a site meeting

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is located at 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno (Lot 31 DP 222455) at the south western end of the cul-de-sac and has a total site area of 948.5sqm. The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment with a curvilinear frontage of 12.19m to Redgum Drive. The site falls steeply from the street to Salt Pan Creek at the rear.

Existing on the site is a three (3) storey dwelling house and an above ground swimming pool within the rear yard. The existing dwelling house has terraces and access stairs to the rear of the dwelling, which are proposed to be extended with this application. There are two (2) existing on-site trees to the north western side of the dwelling which are proposed to be removed with this application.

The subject site does not immediately adjoin an easement for transmission lines which is located along the western side of properties on this side of the street (minimum separation of 8m from this easement). There is an existing sewer line running across the site width near the existing swimming pool.

Adjoining the site on all sides are two (2) and three (3) storey dwelling houses except for the Council owned reserve to the west. The subject is identified as a part bushfire prone (category 1) and part bushfire buffer land. The area is generally residential in character within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The proposal has also been inspected, assessed and referred to the NSW Rural Bushfire Service, in respect of Section 79BA ‘Consultation and Development Consent - Certain Bush Fire Prone Land’, as per the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 is outlined in the table below.

Clause	Standard	Assessment Under HLEP 2012
Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development	R2 Low Density Zone	The proposed residential additions are permissible in the zone
	Objectives of the Zone	The proposal complies with the objectives of the zone
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	9.5m – 10.2m (Clause 4.6 variation provided)
4.6 – Exception to Development Standards	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 (Cl 4.6 variation)	The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Heights of Buildings under the Hurstville LEP 2012 whereby the maximum height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level. A request for the variation has been provided in accordance with Clause 4.6 (see discussion below this table)
5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation	Trees to be removed are specified in DCP No1 Section 3.11 Preservation of Trees and Vegetation	Council’s Tree Management Officer raised no objection to the removal of 1 x Flame tree/Coral tree – Erythrina x sykesii and 1 x Tecoma plant to the north west of the dwelling, subject to conditions of consent relating to protection measures for the trees to be retained with this application
6.4 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area	Council cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made of the following: “(3)(a) affect the natural environment, including topography, rock formations, canopy vegetation or other significant vegetation, and (b) affect the visual environment, including the views to and from the Georges River, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places, and (c) affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville, and (d) contribute to the scenic qualities of the residential areas and the Georges River by maintaining the dominance of landscape over built form.”	The proposal will not impact on views to the foreshore, given the site topography and location of the dwelling in relation to the surrounding developments (discussed under ‘View Sharing – Planning Principle’ section of this report The proposal is not likely to result in any impacts on any significant topographical feature, environmental heritage or any significant vegetation, subject to conditions of consent The proposal retains the useable landscaped areas on site and is considered to be site responsive to the topography of the site
6.5 – Gross Floor Area of Dwelling House	> 630sqm ≤ 1000sqm (Site area – 630) x 0.3 + 346.5 Max. GFA = 442.05sqm	Site = 948.5sqm Proposed GFA = 278.5sqm
6.7 – Essential Services	The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required: * Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage * Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation * Suitable vehicular access	Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection, subject to the drainage conditions attached to the recommendation Existing driveway crossing from Redgum Drive

Detailed Assessment of Variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings Development Standard under HLEP 2012

The relevant sections of Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 establish the following.

"4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(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.

(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.”

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Maximum building heights under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 whereby the maximum height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level. A Clause 4.6 variation has been provided for the increased heights for the feature entry roof and external wall of bedroom 4 on the northern side of the dwelling.

In consideration of the Clause 4.6 variation, the applicant has provided a Clause 4.6 variation which has stated the following:

“1. Is the planning control in question a development standard?”

Applicant’s response: The development standard being varied is the Height of Buildings in Clause 4.3 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan which is a numerical control. There are two (2) small areas of non-compliance. One (1) is the rear corner of the feature entry roof which is over the existing roof and the non- compliance is 0.5m. The second is a small section of the rear of the roof over the proposed bedroom 4 which has a non-compliance of 1.2m. These non-compliances are very small areas and are due to the steep fall of the site.

DOA’s comment: The proposal seeks to vary the development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the maximum building heights whereby the maximum height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level. The percentage variation between the proposal and the development standard is 13.3%.

“2. What are the underlying objectives of the development standard?”

Applicant’s response: The stated objectives to support the maximum building heights under Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 are as follows:

“4.3(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality

(b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas and public domain, including parks, streets and lanes

(c) to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage items

(d) to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity”

DAO’s comment: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the above objectives on the following basis:

· The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be consistent with existing dwelling on the subject site and surroundings and the desired future character of the area. Although the proposal results in increased heights, the area of non-compliance is minor in nature and occurs as a result of the genuine site constraint with the natural contours and site features such as rock outcrop as well as the existing non-compliant height of the dwelling house on the site. The only additional bulk to the façade of the dwelling is the feature entry and bedroom 4 which are considered to be compatible with the existing dwelling on the site and desired future character of the area especially when viewed from the street, the façade of the dwelling complies with the building heights as the area of non-compliance occurs at the rear of the dwelling due to the steep fall of the site. For this reason the proposal is unlikely to appear excessive or dominant in the streetscape.

· The increased heights of the proposal do not generate additional impacts in terms of visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access on surroundings. This is because the area of non-compliance occurs on the northern side of the dwelling with sufficient building separation from the site boundary where there are no views through the area of non-compliance. Furthermore the subject site does not affect any heritage items and is not located in a transitional zone and the intensity of land use is compatible with the area.

“3. What are the underlying objectives of the zone?”

“R2 – Low Density residential - Zone objectives are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

· To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

· To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

· To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.”

DAO’s comment: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives of R2 – Low Density Residential on the following basis:

· The proposal does not seek to alter the primary use of the dwelling and hence it is consistent with the low density character of the area.

· The proposal is unlikely to have adverse amenity impact on the surroundings subject to conditions attached to the recommendation of this report. Additional assessment on view sharing has been provided in the ‘View Sharing – Planning Principle’ section of this report.

· The proposal will provide more useable indoor and outdoor spaces and hence it provide good amenity for current and future residents of the subject property.

· The proposal has minimal impact on the existing natural environment and retains most of the existing landscaped areas on the site.

“4. Is the variation to the development standard consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012?”

DAO’s comment: The proposal is considered to be consistent with Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the following reasons:

· Given the subject site is significantly constrained by the topography of the land and rock outcrop, subsequently there are limits in area that can be built upon with the retention of the existing dwelling on the site, it is considered to be reasonable to allow flexibility for the building height standard. The proposal is considered to be a better outcome in terms of aesthetic appearance, amenity for the current and future resident of the subject property whilst having minimal impacts on the surroundings.

“5. Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?”

Applicant’s response: The height slightly exceeds the standard however, having regard to the stated objectives of the zone it is considered that strict compliance is both unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

· The proposed alterations and additions are well below the gross floor area of dwellings allowable under Part 6.5 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

· The site is limited in the area that can be built upon due to the rock outcrops and very steep fall to the rear, so there is a very limited area where the dwelling can be positioned.

· The proposed roof over bedroom 4 is matching the existing roof of the dwelling, it is not higher.

· The proposed feature entry roof is slightly higher than the existing roof although is still under 9m for the majority and is positioned in the centre of the roof, has been designed to enhance the building and as can be seen only adds a very minor amount of shadowing on the roof of No 27 at 3pm.

· The proposed alterations and additions are very minor in nature as are the areas of non-compliance with the height.

· The proposed alterations have been designed to revitalise the existing dwelling to a standard that matches surrounding dwellings.

DAO’s comment: The proposal is considered to be site/contextual responsive and appropriate use of the land, which is consistent with the zone and objectives of the development standard. Furthermore no material planning impacts are generated by this variation.

The proposed variation will allow appropriate residential additions of the existing dwelling and is unlikely to cause any unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties. For this reason there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the non-compliant height of the dwelling.

Therefore strict compliance with the maximum building height is considered to be both unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposed development.

“6. Is the objection well founded?”

DAO’s comment: The Clause 4.6 variation is considered to be well founded, and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the proposal for the reasons stated in this report. It is also noted that in supporting this Clause 4.6 variation that it is considered unlikely to generate an undesirable precedent within the area given the generally positive outcome of the proposal.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Compliance with the relevant state environmental planning policies is detailed and discussed in the table below.

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment Georges River Coastal Management Zone Plan (appropriate conditions imposed to comply with Council’s controls, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 and to mitigate impacts on the coastal area)	Yes Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Clause 45 – applies to developments carried out within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists)	Yes – there is a minimum 8m separation from the easement for transmission lines (the subject site does not immediately adjoin the easement)

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

No Draft Environmental Planning instruments affect the proposed development.

3. Development Control Plans

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

The extent to which the proposed garage complies with the car parking provisions is outlined in the table below.

Section 3.1

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.1.4.2(a) – Layout

AS2890.1 – Min. dimensions (double garage) = 5.4m x 5.4m

Garage extension (lower ground floor):

Min. 5.4m x 5.4m

Yes

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The proposal has achieved a BASIX Certificate and therefore complies with the objectives of Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1. The proposed development also complies with the solar access requirements of Development Control Plan No1 – LGA Wide.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 4.1 SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES

The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of Section 4.1 of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as shown below.

Section 4.1

Standard

Proposed

Complies

4.1.2.2 Streetscape

Must not diminish the quality of the streetscape

The proposed dwelling is considered to compatible with the existing and future desired streetscape, especially when it is compared to the existing dwelling house

Yes

4.1.3.1 – Maximum Floor Area

> 630sqm ≤ 1000sqm

(Site area – 630) x 0.3 + 346.5

Max. GFA = 442.05sqm

Site = 948.5sqm

Proposed GFA = 278.5sqm

Yes

4.1.3.2 Landscape and Open Space

Minimum width

Front Yard

Principal Private Open Space

FSPA:

25% (237.125sqm)

15sqm of landscaping to be provided in front yard

4m x 5m minimum dimensions

389.8sqm or 41% (min. width of 2m)

More than 75sqm (in front of the dwelling)

More than 4m x 5m/ Min. 4m in all directions behind the dwelling

Yes

4.1.3.3 Building Height

Ceiling height 7.2m

Ridge height 9m

Feature entry: 9.2m

First floor: 9.77m above the existing ground level (north of Bed 4)

Ground floor: 8m above the existing ground level (north west of lounge)

South (existing): complies

North (proposed):

Feature entry roof = 7.7m – 9.5m

Bedroom 4 = 8.8m – 10.2m

No (1)

No (2) – discussed in the ‘Clause 4.6 variation’ section of the report

4.1.3.4 Setbacks

Front Setback (Building Line)

Rear Setback

Front Setback (garage)

Side Boundary Setbacks

4.1.4 Alterations and additions (First floor addition)

Min. 4.5m to front wall of dwelling

Min. 6m for first floor solid rear wall

Min. 5.5m to front wall of garage or carport

* Min. 0.9m to boundary (ground floor wall)

* Min. 1.5m to boundary (first floor wall)

First floor addition to an existing dwelling house must be setback a min. 900mm from side boundary

No adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring development

Min. 8m

Min. 11m – reduced depth of the balcony (as conditioned)

Min. 13m

Garage extension: 0.9m (north)

Bedroom 4: 1.67m

Lounge: 0.9m (same setbacks as the existing northern wall of the lounge room)

New lounge wall (1.2m in length): 0.9m from the northern side boundary

Discussed under ‘Impact – Built Environment’

Yes

Yes (see below)

Yes

4.1.3.6 Balconies and Terraces

Direct access from a habitable room

Overlooking impacts can be minimised with the use of privacy screens between 1.5m – 1.8m high

Direct access to habitable rooms (extension of existing terraces)

1.5m high privacy screen (obscured glazing) used for the ground floor balcony - additional condition to reduce the depth of the balconies at lower ground and ground floor to minimise overlooking and view loss

First floor balcony (depth 1m): no privacy screening required

Yes

Yes (by condition)

4.1.3.7 Façade Articulation

Carport and Garages

Site width >12m: garage doors facing the street must not occupy more than 40% of the width of the site

Habitable room to street

Two elements of street façade of:

Entry feature/portico

Eaves/sun shading

Wall offset/balcony/ verandahs/pergolas

Double garage door of 4.1m wide. Occupies up to 35% of the frontage.

Habitable room windows and door to Redgum Drive

Wall offsets, balcony, entry feature and eaves used on the façade of the dwelling

Yes

4.1.3.9 Privacy

Visual privacy:

Windows offset by 1m

Yes – use of high light windows, privacy screen and privacy louvres for bedroom 4

Yes (acceptable)

4.1.3.10 Solar access and energy efficiency

North facing rooms receive maximum solar access

Subject and adjoining lots receive 3hrs solar access between 9am and 3pm on mid-winter equinox

Yes

4.1.3.11 Stormwater

Solutions

Gravity drainage is preferred however alternative solutions may be considered in accordance with this section of the DCP during the assessment process

It is proposed to drain by gravity to Salt Pan Creek (existing drainage system). Conditions are recommended for the installation an outfall apron or energy dissipating structure at the point of discharge to Salt Pan Creek.

Yes (by conditions)

4.1.4 Alterations and Additions to a Single Dwelling House

Building Appearance

* Scale and size: to be compatible with the existing dwelling or neighbouring dwellings

* Roof: to be integrated to complement existing dwelling’s roof form, where possible and to incorporate design elements consistent with existing dwelling

* Materials: to compliment the materials used for the existing dwelling

Yes - the proposal is considered to be compatible with the existing dwelling and surrounds

The proposal incorporates a colour scheme and roof form which will be sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounds, and the combination of materials to be used will be acceptable in appearance

Yes

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Gravity to Salt Pan Creek
Proposed Stormwater System	Gravity to Salt Pan Creek
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	Consistent
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	Yes
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	No
Discharge into same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No

(1) Maximum external wall height (northern side of the dwelling)

The applicant seeks variation to the increased wall height of the proposed additions with the following justification provided:

“The majority of the ceilings are to remain as part of this development application. The feature entry is located at the front of the building and is central so will not have any adverse effects on the adjoining dwellings and has been designed above the roof level to provide an entry feature to the existing house. The height of the proposed new ceilings matches that in the remainder of the house….this variation is due to the steepness of the site and to match the existing levels which are higher to the rear due to the site falling further towards this side of the dwelling.”

In addition to the above reasons, the proposal on its merit is considered acceptable and is recommended to be supported on the following basis:

· The increased external walls on the northern elevation are only for small sections of this side of the dwelling, which is inevitable due to the site slope constraint. The increased external walls on the northern elevation are only for the feature entry, bedroom 4 and new wall of the lounge room (1.2m length), which comply with the minimum setbacks from the northern side boundary.

· No additional privacy impact is envisaged with the proposal with the provision of high light windows and privacy screening on side elevations.

· The impact from overshadowing from the increased external walls of the proposal is considered minimal between 9.00am and 3.00pm midwinter.

· The street facing façade of the dwelling (to Redgum Drive) complies with the maximum external wall height requirement and hence it is not considered to adversely impact on the existing streetscape or to set a precedent in the area.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

Tree Management Officer has indicated that the tree removal is appropriate subject to conditions of consent relating to protection measures for the trees to be retained with this application.

Overall the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact upon the natural environment as a site/waste management plan, sediment and erosion control plan and drainage plans have been considered and addressed any potential impacts.

Built Environment

The proposal does not result in any unacceptable material built environment impacts. The Development Control Plan variations sought with this application are considered acceptable and the site has genuine site constraints with the existing rock formations and natural slope.

In respect to streetscape, the proposal is considered acceptable as it incorporates variable architectural treatments on the façade of each dwelling and provides sufficient landscaping within the front setback to soften the visual impact on the streetscape.

In terms of overshadowing, the extent of additional overshadowing by the proposal is considered to be minimal as most of the extension (increased external walls) occurs on the northern side of the dwelling. The proposal would allow a minimum of 3hrs to private open space and windows to habitable rooms on the adjoining properties as required under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide.

Overall the proposal is not considered to result in any unacceptable material built environment impacts subject to conditions of consent.

Social Impact

The proposal is for residential purpose and will not have any adverse social impact.

Economic Impact

The proposal is for residential purposes and no adverse economic impact is envisaged.

Suitability of the Site

The proposed development is considered suitable for the subject site for the reasons contained within the report.

Land and Environment Court Planning Principles

The proposed development will partially affect the view of Salt Pan Creek from the adjoining property (directly to the south east of the subject site), which is mainly from the first floor living areas to rear (ie balcony and living room).

To determine whether or not this is reasonable the four (4) step assessment as cited from the View Sharing – Planning Principle (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140) by the NSW Land and Environment Court was implemented and considered as follows.

First Step – Water view is valued more than land view.

Whole view valued more than partial view (eg water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one which is obscured.

Comment: The view in concern is a partial water view of Salt Pan Creek. The water view is mainly of through dense vegetation to the north west of this neighbouring property.

Second Step - The part of the property, that the views are obtained (eg protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front or rear boundaries).

Standing view or view from sitting position.

Expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

Comment: From the affected properties, the water view is from the first floor living areas/balconies of the objectors’ properties and it mainly concerns with the water view in a standing position rather than a sitting position (eg from a sitting position, the view is already obscured by a heavy vegetation of trees located in distance from the first floor living areas). The proposal will retain most of the water view in the distance. This is achieved by the reduced depth of the balcony/barbeque area as conditioned.

Third Step - Extent of the impact / whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected.

Impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued as more time is likely to be spent in kitchens).

Impact may be assessed quantitatively, or qualitatively (it is usually more useful to assess the view loss this way as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating).

Comment: The extent of the impact is mainly for the water view from the first floor living areas and balconies to the rear of the objectors’ properties. The impact on water view is deemed to be ‘minor’ from the areas concerned with the proposal, because most of the existing water view from this neighbouring property is retained. The water view to be lost with the proposal is a partial view through and between the trees to the north west of the view.

Fourth Step - Reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. Compliance with all planning controls would be more reasonable than one that breaches them;

a) Impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable,

b) Complying proposal, to determine whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours/ if not, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

Comment: The final design is considered to be a better outcome for the site and complies with the majority of planning controls of Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide, except for non-compliances that are considered to be acceptable for the reasons stated in the report. The partial loss of water view does not arise from the non compliance building height of the proposal.

Therefore the proposal in its current form that complies with the majority of planning controls is considered acceptable and the view sharing is considered to be reasonable.

5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

Ten (10) letters were sent to adjoining residents and given fourteen (14) days on each of two (2) separate occasions in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Two (2) submissions were received in relation to this application and raised the following concerns.

Inaccurate and misleading information submitted with this application

Concerns were raised in relation to incomplete information provided by the applicant during neighbour notification, particularly in regards to:

· Drawings do not show an outline of the significantly smaller existing building at 29 Redgum Drive

· Drawings also do not show the boundary clearly marked on the plan

Comment: Sufficient information has been submitted to undertake a thorough assessment of this application including a survey plan showing the outline of the existing building at 29 Redgum Drive and site boundary which was exhibited during the neighbour notification period. Furthermore a site inspection was carried out to ascertain the correct information relating to the site analysis of the surrounding properties and appropriate conditions are attached to address specific issues as detailed later in this section of the report.

Elevated balconies to rear - Privacy/loss of view/outlook/noise/overshadowing/height of balconies

Concerns were raised in relation to potential visual and acoustic privacy impacts, particularly in regards to:

· Potential noise impact from the new large deck on level 2 – request for a condition that a floor to ceiling clear double glazed section the length of the south (north) side of the deck be installed to reduce the loss of amenity

· Elevated balconies at lower ground and ground floor levels – loss of views to the river and bushland (originally submitted design had a 4m wide solid brick wall facing this neighbour’s property. The amended proposal includes a 1.5m high privacy screen to replace the solid brick wall), height of the additional structure, extra shadow lines to back and front of the neighbour’s property, causing privacy issues with the new first floor veranda – request to have these triangular shaped balconies flipped from east to west (from south to north) to alleviate this issue with view loss

Comment: Appropriate conditions have been included to address the above issues as follows:

· Noise impact from the ground floor deck – conditioned to require a 1m wide planter box so that the neighbour’s bedroom window is located at least 6.5m from the deck (the length of this planter box is to match the existing rear wall of the living/dining room of the dwelling on the subject site). Additionally a condition is imposed to require a 1.5m high privacy screen on this side of the ground floor deck.

· Elevated balconies at lower and ground floor levels – conditioned to reduce the depth of total balcony to a maximum depth of 2.6m (including the existing balcony depth of 1.3m) instead of the proposed triangular shaped balconies. The view sharing assessment of the view from the neighbour’s property (photo taken from this neighbour’s property) has revealed that the reduced depth of the balconies, especially the ground floor balcony/barbeque area, would retain the existing view of Salt Pan Creek from the neighbour’s living area and balcony to the rear.

Proposed tree removal - Loss of privacy, amenity and green view

Concerns were raised in relation to the proposed tree removal (one (1) x Flame tree/Coral tree – Erythrina x sykesii and one (1) x Tecoma plant to the north west of the dwelling), particularly in regards to:

· Loss of green views and a sense of seclusion with significant privacy and amenity to the neighbour’s balcony and master bedroom

· The loss of these trees will give the proposed development at 29 Redgum Drive extended water views and northern light

· Request to impose a condition not to trim or tamper with these trees in anyway and that they are surveyed in their positions at their heights prior to construction and after construction is complete

Comment: The proposed tree removal has been considered and assessed by Council’s Tree Management Officer and received no objection with the following comment:

“One tree, the larger tree is a Coral tree (Erythrina x sykesii) not covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and may be removed. The other tree cannot be exactly determined. If it is one of the palms Council consents to the removal.”

The other smaller tree has been identified as one (1) x Tecoma plant by one (1) of the submitters. This species is classified as a regionally controlled weed by the Department of Primary Industries’ document – ‘Noxious and environmental weed control handbook’. As such the proposed tree removal is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the natural environment of the area. Also a condition is recommended to require a 1.5m high privacy screen for the ground floor deck facing this neighbour’s property.

Council Referrals

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer has considered the proposal and advised that the proposal may be considered for approval subject to the drainage conditions attached to the determination.

Tree Management Officer

Council’s Tree Management Officer has advised that no objection is raised to the removal of one (1) x Flame tree/Coral tree – Erythrina x sykesii and one (1) x Tecoma plant to the north west of the dwelling, subject to conditions of consent relating to protection measures for the trees (one (1) x Norfolk Pine to the rear of the dwelling and three (3) x trees within the front yard) to be retained with this application.

External Referrals

NSW Rural Fire Service

The site falls within a Bushfire prone area and a referral was made to the NSW Rural Fire Services. No objections were received in relation to the proposed development subject to the following conditions:

“i) Asset Protection Zones - At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as far as the rear swimming pool fence as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

ii) Design and Construction – New construction on the north eastern elevation(s) shall comply with Sections 3 and 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

iii) New construction, other than the north-eastern elevation, shall comply with Sections 3 and 9 (BAL FZ) of Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas'. However, any material, element of construction or system when tested to the method described in Australian Standard AS1530.8.2 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structures Part 8.2: Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack—Large flaming sources’ shall comply with Clause 13.8 of that Standard except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber.

iv) Windows shall be completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS39592009 excluding parts (e) & (f); and the following:

a) Window frames and hardware shall be metal;

b) Glazing shall be minimum 6mm thick toughened glass or the window system shall satisfy the performance criteria of AS1530.8.1 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structure – Part 8.1 Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack – Radiant heat and small flaming sources’ for BAL 40 except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber;

c) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5; and,

d) The openable portion of the window shall be screened internally or externally with a mesh with a maximum aperture of 2mm, made from corrosion resistant steel or bronze and the frame supporting the mesh shall be metal.

v) External doors (excluding garage doors) shall be completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS3959 excluding parts (e) and (f); and shall comply with the following:

a) Doors shall be non-combustible;

b) Externally fitted hardware that supports the panel in its function of opening and closing shall be metal;

c) Where doors incorporate glazing, the glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm or the door system shall satisfy the performance criteria of AS1530.8.1 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structure – Part 8.1 Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack – Radiant heat and small flaming sources’ for BAL 40 except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber;

d) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index of no greater than 5;

e) Door frames shall be metal;

f) Doors shall be tight fitting to the doorframe and an abutting door if applicable; and,

g) Weather strips, draught excluders or draught seals shall be installed if applicable.”

The above conditions i)-v) have been appropriately conditioned as part of this report.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed under Section 79C Matters for Consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and considered to adequately satisfy the intent of the applicable planning controls as detailed within this report.

The request for a Clause 4.6 variation to the maximum building height and Development Control Plan variation to the maximum external wall height are supported for the reasons stated in this report, given the subject site is constrained with the existing rock formations and natural slope. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in any unacceptable material built environment for the reasons detailed in the report.

Two (2) submissions were received in relation to the proposal. These submissions have been discussed and addressed in the report.

Accordingly the application is recommended for approval in accordance with the conditions included below.

DETERMINATION

THAT the Clause 4.6 variation to Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 be supported.

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application DA2015/0338 for alterations and additions to dwelling - new entrance, extension of terraces to rear, new access stairs to pool and extension to north on Lot 31 DP 222455 and known as 29 Redgum Drive, Lugarno, subject to the attached conditions:

Schedule A – Site Specific Conditions

GENERAL CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that the appropriate fees and bonds are paid in relation to the development.

1. GEN1001 - Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

Reference No.	Date	Description	Revision	Prepared by
DA01	10/09/15	Survey Plan	A	Gelder Architects
DA02	19/11/15	Site Plan	B	Gelder Architects
DA03	10/09/15	Site Analysis Plan	A	Gelder Architects
DA04	10/09/15	Lower Ground Plan	A	Gelder Architects
DA05	19/11/15	Ground Floor Plan	B	Gelder Architects
DA06	19/11/15	First Floor Plan	B	Gelder Architects
DA07-DA10	19/11/15	Elevations (Schedule of Colours and Finishes)	B	Gelder Architects
DA11	19/11/15	Section	B	Gelder Architects
DA16	19/11/15	Sight Lines	B	Gelder Architects
2/1626/C03	08/15	Waste Management Plan	01	Gelder Architects

2. GEN1002 - Fees to be paid to Council - The fees listed in the table below must be paid in accordance with the conditions of this consent and Council’s adopted Fees and Charges applicable at the time of payment.

Payments must be made prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or prior to the commencement of work (if there is no associated Construction Certificate).

Please contact Council prior to the payment of Section 94 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted by Council.

Form of payment for transactions $500,000 or over - Council will only accept Bank Cheque or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for transaction values of $500,000 or over. Council must be contacted prior to payment to determine correct total amount to be paid and bank account details (if applicable)

(a) Fees to be paid:

Fee types, bonds and contributions

Fee Type

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation)

Builders Damage Deposit

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)

PCA Services Fee	$1,250.00
Construction Certificate Application Fee	$1,250.00
Construction Certificate Imaging Fee	$103.00

Fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

3. GEN1014 - Long Service Levy - Submit evidence of payment of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Levy to the Principal Certifying Authority. Note this amount is based on the cost quoted in the Development Application, and same may increase with any variation to estimated cost which arises with the Construction Certificate application. To find out the amount payable go to www.lspc.nsw.gov.au or call 131441. Evidence of the payment of this levy must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

4. GEN1015 - Damage Deposit - Minor Works - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

(a) Payment to Council of a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $1,500.00.

(b) Payment to Council of a non refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $140.00.

(c) At the completion of work Council will inspect the public works, and the damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage occurs. Otherwise the amount will be either forfeited or partly refunded according to the amount of damage.

(d) Prior to the commencement of work a photographic record of the condition of the Council nature strip, footpath and driveway crossing, or any area likely to be affected by the proposal, shall be submitted to Council

(e) Payments pursuant to this condition are required to be made to Council before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

(f) Fees and charges above are subject to change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time of payment.

SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the applicant is aware of any separate approvals required under other legislation, for example: approvals required under the Local Government Act 1993 or the Roads Act 1993.

5. APR6001 - Engineering - Section 138 Roads Act and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993

Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

A separate approval is required to be lodged and approved under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath):

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

(b) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

(d) Swinging or hoisting goods over any part of a public road by means of a lift, crane or the like;

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

(f) Pumping water from the site into the public road;

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

(i) Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (e.g. Opening the road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

(j) Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve; and

(k) Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land

(l) If any excavation is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways.

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the approval provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Hurstville City Council’s website at: www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au

For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02)9330 6222.

6. APR6004 - Engineering - Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council, in the case of local or regional roads, or from the Roads and Maritime Services, in the case of State roads, for every opening of a public road reserve to access services including sewer, stormwater drains, water mains, gas mains, and telecommunications before the commencement of work in the road.

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

These conditions have been imposed by other NSW Government agencies either through their role as referral bodies, concurrence authorities or by issuing General Terms of Approval under the Integrated provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

7. GOV1007 - Sydney Water - Quick Check - The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Care Centre to determine whether the development application will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, storm water drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s website: www.sydneywater.com.au

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

These conditions either require modification to the development proposal or further investigation/information prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate to ensure that there is no adverse impact.

8. CC2013 - Development Assessment - Bushfire Attack Level

i) New construction on the north eastern elevation(s) shall comply with Sections 3 and 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas' and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection'.

ii) New construction, other than the north-eastern elevation, shall comply with Sections 3 and 9 (BAL FZ) of Australian Standard AS3959-2009 'Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas'. However, any material, element of construction or system when tested to the method described in Australian Standard AS1530.8.2 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structures Part 8.2: Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack-Large flaming sources’ shall comply with Clause 13.8 of that Standard except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber.

iii) Windows shall be completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS39592009 excluding parts (e) and (f); and the following:

a) Window frames and hardware shall be metal;

b) Glazing shall be minimum 6mm thick toughened glass or the window system shall satisfy the performance criteria of AS1530.8.1 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structure - Part 8.1 Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack - Radiant heat and small flaming sources’ for BAL 40 except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber;

c) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index no greater than 5; and,

iv) External doors (excluding garage doors) shall be completely protected by a non-combustible and non-perforated bushfire shutter that complies with Section 3.7 of AS3959 excluding parts (e) and (f); and shall comply with the following:

a) Doors shall be non-combustible;

b) Externally fitted hardware that supports the panel in its function of opening and closing shall be metal;

c) Where doors incorporate glazing, the glazing shall be toughened glass minimum 6mm or the door system shall satisfy the performance criteria of AS1530.8.1 ‘Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and structure - Part 8.1 Tests on elements of construction for buildings exposed to simulated bushfire attack - Radiant heat and small flaming sources’ for BAL 40 except that flaming of the specimen is not permitted and there shall be no exposed timber;

d) Seals to stiles, head and sills or thresholds shall be manufactured from materials having a flammability index of no greater than 5;

e) Door frames shall be metal;

f) Doors shall be tight fitting to the doorframe and an abutting door if applicable; and,

g) Weather strips, draught excluders or draught seals shall be installed if applicable.

Full details of proposed method of compliance are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

9. CC3011 - Development Engineering - Stormwater - Energy Dissipating Structure - An outfall apron or energy dissipating structure is to be provided at the point of discharge to Salt Pan Creek, wholly contained within the development site. Outfall water is to be managed so that it does not enter neighbouring privately owned property.

Details shall be shown on the Stormwater Plan submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

10. CC2004 - Development Assessment - Design Changes - The following design changes are required and are to be incorporated into the plans to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.

(a) The submitted concept hydraulic plan shall be amended to incorporate surface inlet pits and grated drains, as required, with pipeline outlets from grated drains/pits to be a minimum 150mm diameter. These design changes are to be incorporated into the Detailed Hydraulic Plans submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate Application.

(b) The proposed balconies to the lower ground and ground floor levels at the rear of the dwelling must be reduced in depth to a maximum depth of 2.6m (including the existing balcony depth of 1.3m) and may be straightened to run parallel to the rear wall of the existing dwelling by deleting the triangular corner on the south western side of these balconies.

(c) Privacy screens shall be provided to the southern side of the lower ground and ground floor balconies to the rear. The privacy screens are to be a minimum of 1.5m high from the finished floor level of each balcony and comprise of a material that cannot be seen through, such as translucent glazing.

(d) A 1.5m high privacy screen and 1m wide planter box shall be provided to the northern side of the ground floor terrace. The privacy screen is to be a minimum of 1.5m high from the finished floor level of each balcony and comprise of a material that cannot be seen through, such as translucent glazing. The 1m wide planter box shall be placed for a distance of 3m to align with the northern side wall of the living/dining room (where the bi-fold doors are placed) to allow access to the stairs on this side of the terrace.

11. CC2002 - Development Assessment - Site Management Plan - Minor Development - A Site Works Plan detailing all weather access control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

12. CC2001 - Development Assessment - Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to ensure:

(a) Compliance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(b) Removal or disturbance of vegetation and top soil is confined to within 3m of the approved building area (no trees to be removed without approval)

(d) silt fences, stabilised entry/exit points or other devices are installed to prevent sediment from entering drainage systems or waterways

(e) all erosion and sediment controls are fully maintained for the duration of demolition, excavation and/or development works

(f) controls are put into place to prevent tracking of sediment by vehicles onto adjoining roadway

(g) all disturbed areas are rendered erosion-resistant by turfing, mulching, paving or similar

(h) Compliance with Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction (Blue Book) produced by Landcom 2004.

These measures are to be implemented before the commencement of work (including demolition and excavation) and must remain until the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

13. CC2011 - Development Assessment - BASIX Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. A227277 dated 26 August 2015, approved with the Development Consent DA2015/0338, must be implemented on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

14. CC2033 - Development Assessment - Compliance with the Swimming Pool Act 1992 - The alterations and additions to the dwelling house and/or the construction of the new dwelling house subject of this consent must not generate any non-compliances with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, Swimming Pool Regulation 2008, Building Code of Australia and/or AS 1926.1-2007 - Swimming Pool Safety. Details of compliance to be illustrated on the plans lodged with the application for the Construction Certificate.

15. CC3001 - Development Engineering - Stormwater System

Reference No.	Date	Description	Revision	Prepared by
1626 Drawing SW01	21/9/15	Concept Stormwater Plan	A	Gelder Architects

The above submitted stormwater plan has been assessed as a concept plan only and no detailed assessment of the design has been undertaken.

All stormwater shall drain by gravity to the existing drainage system, with augmentation as required once assessed for design capacity and functionality, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2003 (as amended).

Design details and certification shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application.

The design of this proposed drainage system must be prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) and be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate application

16. CC5002 - Trees - Tree Protection and Retention - The following trees shall be retained and protected:

(a) One (1) x Norfolk Pine tree located to the rear of the dwelling

(b) One (1) x Liquidamber styraciflua, one (1) x Jacaranda minusifolia and one (1) x Callistemon spp located within the front yard

All trees to be retained shall be protected and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site. The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist (AQF Level 4 or above in Arboriculture) and must be retained thorough all stages of construction.

17. CC5003 - Trees - Tree Removal and Replacement - Private Land - Permission is granted for the removal of the following trees:

(a) Two (2) x on-site trees marked to be removed as per the approved site plan, numbered DA02-Rev B, dated 19/11/2015 and prepared by Gelder Architects.

18. CC3004 - Development Engineering - Stormwater Drainage Plans - Stormwater drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) in accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany the application for the Construction Certificate.

19. CC7004 - Building - Structural details - Structural plans, specifications and design statement prepared and endorsed by a suitably qualified practising structural engineer who holds the applicable Certificate of Accreditation as required under the Building Professionals Act 2005 shall be submitted along with the Construction Certificate application to the Certifying Authority for any of the following, as required by the building design:

(a) piers

(b) footings

(d) columns

(e) structural steel

(f) reinforced building elements

(g) retaining walls

(h) stabilizing works

(i) structural framework

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND EXCAVATION)

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all pre-commencement matters are dealt with and finalised prior to the commencement of work.

20. PREC2001 - Building regulation - Site sign - Soil and Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition and excavation), the durable site sign issued by Hurstville City Council in conjunction with this consent must be erected in a prominent location on site. The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions relating to erosion and sediment controls. The sign must remain in a prominent location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

21. PREC6001 - Engineering - Dial before your dig - The applicant shall contact “Dial Before You Dig on 1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate. The sequence number obtained from “Dial Before You Dig” shall be forwarded to Council’s Engineers for their records.

22. PREC7001 - Building - Registered Surveyors Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

(a) Completion of Floor Slab Formwork - Before pouring of concrete/walls construction, detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent boundaries and floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved plans. In multi-storey buildings a further survey must be provided at each subsequent storey.

(b) Completion of any Roof Framing - Before roof covered detailing eaves/gutter setback from boundaries.

(c) Completion of all Work - Detailing the location of the structure (including eaves/gutters) relative to adjacent boundaries and its height relative to the datum shown on the approved plans. A final Check Survey must indicate the reduced level of the main ridge.

Work must not proceed beyond each stage until the Principal Certifying Authority is satisfied that the height and location of the building is proceeding in accordance with the approved plans.

DURING WORK

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that there is minimal impact on the adjoining development and surrounding locality during the construction phase of the development.

23. CON2001 - Development Assessment - Hours of construction, demolition and building related work - Any work activity or activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity shall be permitted to be performed on any Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day or any Public Holiday. A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

In addition to the foregoing requirements, construction work on all buildings (except that on single dwelling houses and associated structures on the site of a single dwelling house) shall be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays on weekends adjacent to a public holiday.

24. CON2002 - Development Assessment - Ground levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment boundary, except where indicated on approved plans or approved separately by Council.

25. CON6001 - Engineering - Cost of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on Council property. Care must be taken to protect Council's roads, including the made footway, kerbs, etc, and, where plant and vehicles enter the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered at their ends. This construction shall be maintained in a state of good repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

26. CON6002 - Engineering - Obstruction of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins, or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act and/or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Penalty Infringement Notices may be issued for any offences and severe penalties apply.

27. CON8001 - Waste - Waste Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt whatsoever or in association with the work on site. Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such materials shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy provided to the Manager Environmental Services, Hurstville City Council.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all works have been completed in accordance with the Development Consent prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

28. OCC3002 - Development Engineering - Works as Executed and Certification of Stormwater works - Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the stormwater drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the approved design and relevant Australian Standards.

A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Hurstville City Council, from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Consultant/Engineer.

This Plan and Certification shall confirm that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system satisfies the conditions of development consent and the Construction Certificate stormwater design details approved by the Certifying Authority.

The works-as-executed drainage plan must prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer in conjunction with a Registered Surveyor and the works-as-executed plan must include the following details:

(a) The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes.

29. OCC2004 - Development Assessment - BASIX Compliance Certificate - A Compliance Certificate must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX Certificate No. A227277 dated 26 August 2015, and in the plans approved with the Development Consent/ Construction Certificate, before issue of the Occupation Certificate.

ONGOING CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the use or operation of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood or environment.

30. ONG2004 - Development Assessment - Swimming Pools - Resuscitation Notice - An expired air resuscitation warning notice complying with the Swimming Pools Act, 1992 must be affixed in a prominent position adjacent to the pool.

31. ONG4038 - Health - Swimming Pools and Spas - Maintenance - Swimming and spa pools must be maintained:

(a) in compliance with the NSW Health “Public Swimming Pool and Spa Pool Guidelines” in force at that time,

(b) in compliance with AS 1926.3-2003 - Swimming pool safety - Water recirculation and filtration systems (as amended),

(c) with backwash being discharged to the sewer in compliance with clause 10.9 (Figure 10.2) of AS/NZS 3500.2.2:1996 - National Plumbing and Drainage - Sanitary plumbing and drainage - Acceptable solutions (as amended), and

(d) with a timer that limits the recirculation and filtration systems operation such that it does not emit noise that can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises (regardless of whether any door or window to that room is open):

before 8am or after 8pm on any Sunday or public holiday, or

before 7am or after 8pm on any other day.

32. ONG4040 - Health - Swimming Pools and Spas - Operation - The operation of the pool/spa is to comply with the requirements of the:

(a) Public Health Act 2010 (as amended),

(b) Public Health Regulation 2012 (as amended),

(d) Australian Standard AS3633-1989 - Private Swimming Pools - Water quality (as amended).

33. ONG2003 - Development Assessment - Maintenance of Landscaping - All trees and plants forming part of the landscaping must be maintained on an ongoing basis. Maintenance includes watering, weeding, removal of rubbish from tree bases, fertilizing, pest and disease control and any other operations required to maintain healthy trees, plants and turfed areas.

34. ONG4018 - Health - Amenity of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

No vegetation, article, building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt whatsoever or in association with the work on site.

ADVICE

This advice has been included to provide additional information and where available direct the applicant to additional sources of information based on the development type.

35. ADV2003 - Development Assessment - Asset Protection Zones - At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the entire property shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as far as the rear swimming pool fence as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

36. ADV2002 - Development Assessment - Site Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with WorkCover Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

For more information visit www.workcover.nsw.gov.au

37. ADV2008 - Development Assessment - Register your swimming pool - Have you registered your Swimming Pool? All swimming pools in NSW are required to be registered. Fines apply for pools that are not registered. To register please visit: www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au/inspection

38. ADV2009 - Development Assessment - Security deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or part) as a consequence of its investment.

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond amount per annum.

Interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking facility rate as at 1 July each year. Council will accept a bank guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full satisfaction of the fee.

Schedule B – Prescribed Conditions

Prescribed conditions are those which are mandated under Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and given weight by Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Detailed below is a summary of all the prescribed conditions which apply to development in New South Wales. Please refer to the full details of the prescribed conditions as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which prescribed conditions apply.

39. PRES1001 - Clause 97A – BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to which the development relates.

40. PRES1002 - Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989 - Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. In the case of residential building work to which the Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of insurance to be in force before any work commences.

41. PRES1003 - Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign. The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name and contact details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the Principal Contractor.

42. PRES1004 - Clause 98B – Home Building Act 1989 - If the development involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to Council. The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

43. PRES1007 - Clause 98E – Protection & support of adjoining premises - If the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any damage.

Schedule C – Operational & Statutory Conditions

These conditions comprise the operational and statutory conditions which must be satisfied under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. Please refer to the full details of the Act and Regulations as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent to determine which operational and statutory conditions apply.

44. OPER1001 - Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent authority) or an accredited certifier.

An application form for a Construction Certificate is attached for your convenience.

45. OPER1002 - Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority - The erection of a building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent has:

(a) appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner-Builder.

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an Owner-Builder, then the beneficiary of the consent must:

(a) appoint a Principal Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the details of any such appointment; and

(c) notify the Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

An Information Pack is attached for your convenience should you wish to appoint Hurstville City Council as the Principal Certifying Authority for your development.

46. OPER1003 - Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2) days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

(a) the consent authority and the Council (if not the consent authority) of his or her appointment; and

(b) the beneficiary of the development consent of the critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

47. OPER1004 - Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent must give at least two (2) days’ notice to the Council and the PCA of their intention to commence the erection of a building.

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for your convenience.

48. OPER1007 - Critical Stage Inspections - The last critical stage inspection must be undertaken by the Principal Certifying Authority. The critical stage inspections required to be carried out vary according to Building Class under the Building Code of Australia and are listed in Clause 162A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

49. OPER1008 - Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the principal certifying authority at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to be carried out.

Where Hurstville City Council has been appointed PCA, forty eight (48) hours’ notice in writing, or alternatively twenty four (24) hours’ notice by facsimile or telephone, must be given to when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

50. OPER1009 - Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has been issued in relation to the building or part.

Only the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

An Occupation Certificate Application Form is attached for your convenience.

If you need more information, please contact the Development Assessment Officer, below on 9330-6222 during normal office hours.

For video relating to 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno, click here

APPENDICES

Appendix View1	Location map - 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno
Appendix View2	Photos - 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno
Appendix View3	Architectural plans - 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno
Appendix View4	Redact - floor plan - 29 Redgum Drive Lugarno
Appendix View5	View assessment - photo from No 27 Redgum Drive Lugarno
Appendix View6	Shadow Diagrams 12pm - 29 Redgum Dr Lugarno
Appendix View7	Shadow Diagrams 3pm - 29 Redgum Dr Lugarno
Appendix View8	SAI Global information - applicant - 29 Redgum Dr Lugarno (Confidential)
Appendix View9	Company extract - applicant - 29 Redgum Dr Lugarno (Confidential)

Hurstville City Council – Council Meeting Wednesday, 20 April 2016

CCL128-16 8 Lily St Hurstville - Demolition and Construction of a Part Two Part Three Storey Dwelling with an Attached Secondary dwelling and Detached Garage and Pool

Applicant	Evzen Burda
Proposal	Demolition of existing structures and construction of part two/part three storey dwelling with attached secondary dwelling, detached garage, swimming pool and front fence
Owners	Mrs X Liu
Report Author/s	Senior Development Assessment Officer, Ms T Gizzi
File	DA2014/1131
Previous Reports Referenced	CCL735-15 - 8 Lily St Hurstville - Demolition of Existing and Construction of part two and part three storey dwelling with secondary dwelling and swimming pool in basement - Council - 01 Jul 2015 7:00pm
Disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts	No
Zoning	Zone R2 - Low Density Residential
Existing Development	Single Dwelling House
Cost of Development	$600,000.00
Reason for Referral to Council	Slopes to the rear
Planning Instruments Applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide
Hurstville Local Environment Plan Interpretation of Use	Single Dwelling House, Secondary Dwelling, Swimming Pool

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new part two (2)/part three (3) storey dwelling with attached secondary dwelling, swimming pool and detached garage.

2. The application was reported to the Council meeting held on 1 July 2015 with a recommendation for refusal. Council resolved to defer the application for a redesign. Amended plans have now been received and subject of this report.

3. The amended proposal has been assessed against the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments, Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and the relevant Development Control Plan. A number of variations are sought, and for the reasons provided in this report, are not supported.

4. The amended design was notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan and one (1) submission was received in relation to this application.

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons included in the report.

REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Development consent is sought for the construction of a part two (2)/part three (3) storey dwelling house with granny flat, swimming pool and detached garage.

The building layout is proposed to comprise the following:

Basement Level

· Granny black comprising master bedroom with ensuite, second bedroom, study, kitchen and living room, and second bathroom.

· Undercroft/semi basement swimming pool.

Ground Floor Level

· Three (3) bedrooms (two (2) with ensuite)

· Study

· Living room

· Kitchen

· Main bathroom

· Single garage with access from Lily Street.

· Rear balcony

First Floor Level

· Bedroom with walk in robe and ensuite

· Study

· Family/living room

· Bar

· Front and rear balconies

The building also contains a lift for access at each level.

A second single garage is proposed to be located at the rear of the site, detached from the main building with vehicular access from Lily Lane.

HISTORY

11 Nov 14 Development application lodged.

26 Nov 14 Application notified.

1 Jul 15 Application referred to Council with a recommendation for refusal. The Council resolved to defer the application for a redesign.

30 Oct 15 Amended plans received.

29 Feb 15 Amended plans renotified.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site has a 12.19m frontage to Lily Street and a secondary frontage of 12.19m to Lily Lane at the rear. The site has a total area of 490.3sqm and has a fall of 3.56m to the rear.

Currently occupying the site is a single storey dwelling house with vehicular access to the rear. There is no significant vegetation present on the site.

The site is directly opposite Station Lane which provides access to Allawah train station. The site is adjoined by part one(1)/part two (2) storey dwelling houses on either side, and opposite Lily Lane to the rear are also single dwelling houses. The area is characterised by low density residential development.

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

The extent to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 is outlined in the table below.

HLEP 2012 Clause	Standard	Proposed	Complies
Part 2 Permitted or Prohibited Development	R2 Low Density Zone	The proposal is defined as a dwelling house and secondary dwelling. Both dwelling houses and secondary dwellings are permissible in the zone.	Yes
	Objectives of the Zone	The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone	No See discussion below
2.7 Demolition	Requires consent or can be under SEPP (Exempt and Complying Codes)	The proposed demolition can be supported with standard demolition conditions of consent	Yes
4.3 Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	8.5m	Yes
4.4 Floor Space Ratio	0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map 294.18sqm	0.59:1 290.7sqm	Yes
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	In accordance with Cl. 4.5	Yes
4.6 – Exception to Development Standards	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 (Cl 4.6 variation)	N/A	N/A
5.4(9) Secondary dwellings floor space	Floor area not exceed the greater of 60sqm or 10% of total floor area of principal dwelling whichever is greater	60sqm	Yes
6.5 Gross Floor Area of a Dwelling House	For site area < 630sqm Max. GFA = Site area x 0.55 = 269.67sqm	0.43:1 (213.5sqm)	Yes
6.7 Essential Services	The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required: Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation Suitable vehicular access	Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are already available to this land Stormwater is to discharge by gravity to the street gutter in Lily Lane Suitable vehicular access is available to the garage at the rear of the site from Lily Lane. However, a compliant vehicular crossing cannot be achieved across the road reserve from Lily Street to the front garage. As such, suitable vehicular access is not available for the development as proposed.	Yes Yes No

Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

The amended development remains contrary to the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone for the following reasons:

· The proposed development would compromise the amenity of adjoining properties.

· The proposal does not provide adequate parking for the development compromising the amenity of the area.

· The development provides a poor level of amenity for future occupiers.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

Clause 7(1)(a) of SEPP 55 requires the Consent Authority to consider whether land is contaminated. Council records indicate that the subject site has been used for residential purposes for a significant period of time with no prior land uses. In this regard it is considered that the site poses no risk of contamination and therefore, no further consideration is required under Clause 7(1)(b) and (c) of SEPP 55 and the land is considered to be suitable for the residential land use.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

No amended BASIX certificate has been provided to reflect the amendments to the development.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

No draft environmental planning instruments affect the proposed development.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

An assessment of the proposed works against the relevant controls of the Hurstville Development Control Plan is provided below.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

Section 3.1

Standard

Proposed

Complies

3.1.4.2(a) – Layout

AS2890.1 – Min. dimensions (double garage) = 3m x 5.4m

Both garages 3m x >6.5m

Yes

3.1.4.4 – Ramps, Transitions and Driveways

AS2890.1 – Max. driveway gradient = 1 in 5 (20%)

The amended plans have been considered by Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer who has raised an objection to the proposed driveway access from Lily Street. See comments under referrals later in this report.

Rear garage accessed from Lily Lane complies.

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal does not comply with Section 3.1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Section 3	Standard	Proposed	Complies
3.4 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design	Development is to be designed and maintained to enhance safety and improve observation of public and private places	The development has been designed to provide opportunities for casual surveillance to and from the street	Yes

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with Section 3.4.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

An amended BASIX Certificate has not been provided, as such the development does not comply with the objectives of Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1.

Amended shadow diagrams were not provided so it is unclear if sufficient solar access to neighbouring properties will be achieved. As the building has reduced in size, it is likely the development will still comply, however due to a minor reduction in the first floor setback, this is not certain. Therefore, in the absence of an amended shadow diagram, compliance with the solar access requirements of Development Control Plan No 1 cannot be determined.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 - LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.8 FENCES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC ROADS

The proposed front fence is up to 1.8m high but is a primarily open structure. The fence includes one (1) solid section with a width of 4.2m to a maximum height of 1.2m. Given the proximity of this site to Allawah Station, this section of Lily Street is very busy, and the higher fence is considered to be acceptable in this location.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT

The application is accompanied by a waste management plan which is consistent with the objectives and requirements of Development Control Plan No.1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.1 SINGLE DWELLING HOUSES

Section 4.1	Standard	Proposed	Complies
4.1.2.2 Streetscape	Must not diminish the quality of the streetscape	Acceptable	Yes
4.1.3.1 Maximum Floor Area	For site area < 630sqm Max. GFA = Site area x 0.55 = 269.67sqm	0.43:1 (213.5sqm)	Yes
4.1.3.2 Landscaped Areas and Private Open Spaces	20% to be landscaped area (min. width of 2m)	21%	Yes
	15sqm of landscaped area to be provided in the front yard	Min.15sqm	Yes
	Principal Private Open Space Min. dimension of 4m x 5m	> 4m x 5m	Yes
4.1.3.3 Building Height	Max. ridge height = 9m	8.5m	Yes
4.1.3.3 Building Height	Max. ceiling height = 7.2m	7m	Yes
4.1.3.4 Setback Controls	Front Setback (Building Line): 4.5m to front wall of the dwelling 5.5m to garage	5.5m 5.5m	Yes Yes
	Side Boundary Setbacks: 900mm to ground floor level 1.2m to first floor level	900mm – 1.8m Min.1.2m	Yes Yes
	Rear Setback: Ground floor level – 3m First floor level – 6m	14m 19.5m	Yes Yes
	Rear balconies – 6m	19.5m	Yes
4.1.3.5 Basements and Attics	Must not protrude more than 1m above existing ground level	1.85m	No (1)
	Floor to ceiling height Min. 2.1m – Max. 2.7m	2.65m	Yes
	Where excavation exceeds 1.5m, a geotechnical report must be submitted.	2m excavation. No geotechnical report provided	No (1)
4.1.3.6 Balconies & Terraces	Direct access from a habitable room	All proposed balconies are accessed from habitable rooms	Yes
4.1.3.6 Balconies & Terraces	Overlooking impacts can be minimized with the use of privacy screens between 1.5m-1.8m high	Walls provided along balcony edges with an openable window in each. A condition is recommended requiring the window to have a minimum sill height of 1.5m which will generally preserve privacy.	Yes, subject to condition
4.1.3.7 Façade Articulation	Garage must be setback 5.5m	5.5m from Lily Street	Yes
	Garage doors facing the street must occupy less than 40% for sites greater than 12m wide	< 40%	Yes
	Dwellings must have a front door or window to a habitable room fronting the street	Windows and a first floor level door front the street	Yes
	Dwellings must incorporate multiple building elements	Front porch and balcony provides articulation	Yes
4.1.3.8 Car Parking	3 bedrooms or more, 2 spaces to be provided	Only 1 space provided. See discussion below.	No (2)
	Garages must not extend further towards the front boundary than the front wall	Garage matches the setback of the front wall	Yes
	Max. driveway crossing width: 2.7m and 4.5m	3m	Yes
	AS2890.1 – Max. driveway gradient = 1 in 5 (20%)	Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer has advised that 2 driveways will not be supported	No (2)
4.1.3.9 Visual Privacy	Windows to be offset by 1m. Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed living areas.	Unreasonable privacy impacts on adjoining properties	No (3)
4.1.3.10 Solar Design	Principal private open space of both the subject lot and adjoining lot must receive a minimum of 3hrs direct solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (June).	3hrs direct solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter (June) achievable	Yes
4.1.3.11 Stormwater	Stormwater is to drain by gravity to Council’s drainage system	See stormwater assessment table below	Yes

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Gravity to street
Proposed Stormwater System	Gravity to street
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	Consistent
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	Yes (to Lily Lane)
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	Yes
Discharge into same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No

(1) Basements and Attics

The proposed basement is up to 1.85m above natural ground level along the north western boundary. Even though the wall height complies, the basement projection presents as a third storey and the north western elevation is excessively bulky and overbearing when viewed from the adjoining properties as a result.

Separate pedestrian access is provided to the basement level external building requiring up to 1m excavation outside of the building footprint which is also undesirable.

A Geotechnical Report has also not been provided with the application to support the proposed excavation in accordance with the Development Control Plan.

(2) Car Parking

Two (2) single garages are proposed to be provided. One (1) is to be accessed from Lily Street and the other one (1) is to be accessed from Lily Lane at the rear. Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer has advised that driveway access from Lily Street would not be granted. As such, the Lily Street garage is inaccessible. Given that only the Lily Lane garage may be used, only one (1) parking space is provided contrary to the control.

(3) Privacy

Even though there are limited openings within the side elevations of the adjoining properties, the proposed development would result in significant privacy impacts.

The extensive windows within the side elevations of the proposed development have the potential to overlook the adjoining properties. Both the ground and first floor levels are significantly elevated above natural ground level impacting on neighbour privacy.

The ground floor and first floor rear terraces are between 2.35m and 4.7m above natural ground level. The terraces have been reduced in size, but still have a depth of up to 4m along the south eastern elevation. Although the terraces are still large, it is considered that privacy impacts can be managed with the use of privacy screens.

Although improved, the extensive windows within the side elevations still result in a privacy impact and the application is not supported on this basis.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.5 SECONDARY DWELLINGS

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the proposed secondary dwelling is located on the basement floor level. The secondary dwelling comprises two (2) bedrooms plus study, living room, kitchen, bathroom and an ensuite.

The secondary dwelling now has separate access and is also now consistent with the definition of a secondary dwelling. As such, an assessment is provided below against the provisions of Section 4.5.

Section 4.5

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

4.5.2 General

Design

Subdivision

Location

Compliments existing principal dwelling and natural surrounds

Not permitted

To maintain existing trees where possible

The secondary dwelling is contained within the basement level of the proposed dwelling house. As discussed earlier in this report, as the basement level projects significantly above the ground level, it appears as a three (3) storey building along the north western elevation which is out of character with the area.

If the application was approved, a condition is recommended that consent to subdivision of the lot is not permitted or granted

No tree removal required.

Yes (by condition)

Yes

4.5.2.1 Height

1 storey

Floor to ceiling height 2.7m – 3.6m

1 storey within basement level of dwelling house.

2.65m

Although less than the minimum, the variation is minor and amenity would not be significantly compromised by the difference in height.

N/A

No but acceptable

4.5.2.2 Floor Space

60sqm or

10% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling

Combined floor space cannot exceed the maximum permitted floor space for the site under the LEP

60sqm

FSR = 0.43:1

Yes

4.5.2.3 Setbacks

1.2m

Sides – 1.2m

Rear - >1.2m

Yes

4.5.2.4 Landscaping

Shared with principal dwelling

20% of the site

Shared landscaped area:

21% of the site

Yes

4.5.2.5 Car Parking

No additional parking spaces are required

Secondary dwelling must not result in any failure of the principal dwelling to meet the minimum required car parking spaces

No additional parking proposed.

Principal dwelling does not meet parking requirements as discussed earlier in this report. However, the secondary dwelling does not result in the parking issue.

Yes

As can be seen from the above table, although the secondary dwelling generally complies with the numerical requirements of the Development Control Plan, its location within the basement and the projection of the basement above the ground level results in an unreasonable bulk and scale that is not supported. The development is therefore contrary to Section 4.5.2 of the Development Control Plan.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.6 OUTBUILDINGS

Section 4.6 - Garage	Standard	Proposed	Complies
4.6.2.3 External Finishes	Low reflectivity	Details not provided but can be conditioned to comply	Yes, subject to condition
4.6.2.4 Maximum Height	3m from ceiling or top plate height to natural ground level	2.95m	Yes
4.6.2.5 Driveway Gradients and Parking	Driveway gradients must be constructed in accordance with AS2890.1	Subject to condition	Yes, subject to condition
4.6.2.6 Stormwater	To comply with relevant Council policy, BCA and Australian Standard	Subject to drainage condition the garage can drain directly to Lily Lane at the rear	Yes
4.6.3.1 Garages, Gyms, Cabanas and Sheds	Outbuildings of masonry (brick) construction may extend to side and rear boundaries.	No setback to side boundaries. Condition recommended requiring masonry construction.	Yes
4.6.3.1 Garages, Gyms, Cabanas and Sheds	Outbuildings on rear laneways are to be setback 1m to allow area for bins to be placed	600mm No justification provided.	No

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 5.7 SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS

Section 5.7	Standards	Proposed	Complies
5.7.1.1 Aims	Satisfy Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 1998 Do not adversely affect neighbour amenity Maintain trees	Swimming pool is partially fenced along the eastern and northern side. The dwelling will form the northern fence line. It is unclear how the pool is to be secured from within the building (to the west) and also along the southern edge. This can be addressed by condition. The coping level of the swimming pool is up to 2m below natural ground level. As such it will not affect neighbour amenity. None to be removed	Yes (by condition) Yes Yes
5.7.2 Pool Siting and Noise Control	Top of pool is as close as possible to natural ground level No fill between pool and property boundary and landscaping to be incorporated along boundary lines Drainage of spill/overflow water shall not adversely impact on neighbours or the environment Swimming pool edge must be a minimum setback of 1.5m from any side or rear boundary	Coping is located below ground level due to excavation for semi-basement level and granny flat but is satisfactory. No filling proposed as there is excavation only along the side boundaries. As the swimming pool is located below the dwelling, there is no opportunity for landscaping. Standards applied 1.5m to side boundary	Satisfactory Satisfactory Yes (by condition) Yes
5.7.2.2 Noise Control and Nuisances	The position of the swimming pool and associated equipment is to be determined paying consideration to any noise amenity impact on adjacent neighbours Mechanical equipment may be required to be acoustically treated to minimise noise impacts on adjacent neighbours Construction, location and use of the swimming pool are to be such so as not to cause a nuisance to surrounding neighbours by means of noise, drainage, illumination or any other reason	The pool level is below the ground level of the adjoining property and is unlikely to result in any noise amenity impacts. The location of the pool pump is unknown. However if the application was approved, standard conditions would be recommended to ensure noise from the pool pump complies with the relevant standard. Standards applied	Yes Yes, by condition if approved Yes (by condition)
5.7.2.3 Heated Swimming Pools	Heating may only be sourced from renewable energy sources such as solar heating, heat pumps and gas heating. Swimming pool covers should be provided when the pool is not in use	No information provided	Yes (by condition)

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with Section 5.7.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The application proposes significant excavation of the natural ground level but provides no geotechnical report to support the proposed development. In absence of a geotechnical report, Council cannot be certain that the application will not have an unreasonable impact on the natural environment.

Built Environment

Although vastly improved from the previous submission, the proposed development is still considered to have a negative impact on the built environment for the following reasons:

· The development would still result in privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

· Driveway access to the front garage from Lily Street is not supported therefore insufficient parking is provided on site.

· It appears as though excavation along the side boundaries, external to the building is required, however no finished ground levels have been provided and no geotechnical report has been submitted in accordance with the Development Control Plan.

In this regard, the proposal cannot be supported and is still considered to result in unacceptable built environment impacts.

Social Impact

The proposed development is for a residential purpose in an already established residential zone. Consequently, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable social impacts.

Economic Impact

No significant economic impacts are likely to arise as a result of the proposed development.

Suitability of the Site

For the reasons provided throughout this report, the development is considered excessive and the site is not suitable for this particular proposal.

5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

The application was notified to thirteen (13) neighbouring properties for a period of fourteen (14) days. One (1) submission was received. The issues raised are discussed below.

Privacy

The proposed windows and terraces will overlook adjoining properties and cause an acoustic issue.

Comment: As discussed throughout this report, the reduced size of the terraces will improve privacy impacts subject to conditions requiring privacy screens. Even so, the extent of windows in the side elevations serving bedrooms and primary living spaces would have an unreasonable privacy impact on adjoining properties. The development is recommended for refusal on this basis.

Swimming Pool Pump

The swimming pool pump is located on the side boundary which would cause a noise impact.

Comment: The location of the pool pump is unknown. However, if the application was to be approved, a condition is recommended restricting the noise level of the pool pump to 5dB(A) above the background level.

Excavation

The close proximity of the excavation to the adjoining property boundaries will undermine the ground area. There are also no details of adequate structural support during the construction phase.

Comment: Should the application be approved, conditions of consent will be imposed requiring dilapidation reports to be completed. Notwithstanding, as discussed earlier in this report a geotechnical report has not been provided in accordance with the Development Control Plan and insufficient information has been provided to adequately consider the implications of the development.

Use

The development appears to be for a boarding house rather than a dwelling.

Comment: The development has been reduced in size and now satisfies the definition of a single dwelling house and secondary dwelling.

Driveway

How is the front driveway going to be constructed? A driveway at the front of the site cannot be built as the land is too steep.

Comment: As discussed throughout this report, Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer has advised that the proposed driveway at the front of the site is not supported.

Council Referrals

Design and Infrastructure Engineer

Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer has assessed the development and provided the following comments:

‘Property at 8 Lily Street has a secondary boundary with the rear laneway, Council prefers access from the laneway. Reason Council prefers to have driveway at the laneway are as follows:

· Nature strip front of the property is lower than street gutter. Street water could escape into the property with the proposed driveway crossing.

· Having a driveway will reduce the street parking. Demand for on street parking in Lily Street, especially at the station end is high and should not be reduced.

· Additionally, with proposed Lily Street bridge upgrade traffic movement in Lily Street could become busy and access to the property becomes hazardous.’

Further Council’s Design and Infrastructure Engineer has advised that Council’s Policy is that each dwelling can only have one (1) driveway so they can get approval for the laneway access only.

Given the above, the driveway and garage accessed from Lily Street cannot be supported.

External Referrals

No external referrals were required in relation to the proposal.

6. CONCLUSION

Development consent is sought for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part two (2)/part three (3) storey dwelling house with secondary dwelling, swimming pool and detached garage.

Following deferral by Council, amended plans were lodged. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide and although improved, a number of variations are still sought with no justification provided. The development would also result in amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

The amended application was notified for fourteen (14) days in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide and one (1) submission was received. The concerns raised are discussed throughout this report and a number of issues raised are found to be valid.

Having regard to the matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is considered unsatisfactory for the reasons stated in this report and is recommended for refusal.

DETERMINATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council refuse development consent to Development Application DA2014/1131 for demolition of existing structures. Construction of part two/part three storey dwelling with attached secondary dwelling, detached garage, swimming pool and front fence at Lot 22, DP 5970 and known as 8 Lily Street Hurstville, for the following reasons:

1. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, a BASIX certificate has not been provided in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Building and Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the following clauses of Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide:

· Section 3.1 – Car Parking

· Section 3.5 – Energy Efficiency

· Section 4.1 – Single Dwelling Houses

§ Section 4.1.3.5 – Basements and Attics

§ Section 4.1.3.8 – Car Parking

§ Section 4.1.3.9 – Visual Privacy

· Section 4.5 – Secondary Dwellings

· Section 4.6 - Outbuildings

4. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development will result in unreasonable privacy impacts negatively impacting on the amenity of adjoining properties.

5. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal would be an overdevelopment and would have adverse impacts on the natural and built environment.

6. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest as it is inconsistent with provisions of the relevant controls and is likely to set an undesirable precedent with respect to overdevelopment on similar sites in the locality, when considering the non compliances.

7. Insufficient information was provided to assess all aspects of the application.

For a video of 8 Lily Street, Hurstville, click here.

APPENDICES

Appendix View1	Location Map - 8 Lily St Hurstville
Appendix View2	Site Photo - Front - 8 Lily St Hurstville
Appendix View3	Site Photo - Rear - 8 Lily St Hurstville
Appendix View4	Amended Site Plan – 8 Lily St Hurstville
Appendix View5	Amended Elevations Plan - 8 Lily St Hurstville
Appendix View6	Amended Elevations Plan – 8 Lily St Hurstville

Hurstville City Council – Council Meeting Wednesday, 20 April 2016

CCL129-16 64 Stanley St Peakhurst - Demolition of Existing and Construction of a Seniors Housing Development - 3 Residential Flat Buildings and Basement Parking

Applicant	George Jabbour c/o SJB Planning (NSW) Pty Ltd
Proposal	Demolition of existing structures and construction of a seniors housing development comprising 41 dwellings in 3 residential flat buildings of 2-4 storeys and basement parking
Owners	Mr G Jabbour
Report Author/s	Senior Development Assessment Officer, Ms T Gizzi
File	DA2014/1127
Previous Reports Referenced	CCL974-15 - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst - Demolition of Existing and Construction of a Seniors Housing Development - 3 Residential Flat Buildings and Basement Parking - Council - 04 Nov 2015 7:00pm
Disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts	No
Zoning	Zone R2 - Low Density Residential
Existing Development	Vacant building previously used as a Community Health Care Facility
Cost of Development	$11,658,850.00
Reason for Referral to Council	Nature of the proposal
Planning Instruments Applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide
Hurstville Local Environment Plan Interpretation of Use	Seniors Housing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Development consent is sought for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a seniors’ housing development comprising forty one (41) dwellings in three (3) residential flat buildings of two (2) - four (4) storeys and basement parking.

2. The application was referred to Council on 4 November 2015 with a recommendation for refusal. The application was deferred for legal advice.

3. Council Officers have now received legal advice that the proposal is not prohibited and can be considered on the site.

4. The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning instruments and Development Control Plans.

5. The variation to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP (HSPD)) relating to location and access to facilities is supported.

6. Amended plans were submitted to reduce the height of the development. Variations to both height and FSR are still proposed and are not supported.

7. The original application was notified and advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide. One (1) submission was received. The amended plans were not renotified as they are of a lesser environmental impact.

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be refused in accordance with the reasons included in the report.

REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Development consent is sought for demolition of the existing buildings on site and construction of a seniors ‘serviced self-care housing’ development.

The development is proposed to comprise three (3) residential flat buildings ranging in height from two (2) to four (4) storeys to accommodate forty one (41) units. Two (2) basement levels are also proposed to provide parking for and ancillary services.

Following the application being deferred by Council at the meeting held on the 4 November 2015, the applicant lodged amended plans and additional supplementary information to support the application. The main amendment to the application is that the buildings have all been reduced in height. A height comparison is provided in the table below.

Building	Original Proposal			Amended Proposal
Building	SEPP (HSPD) Note: Measured to ceiling	HLEP 2012 Note: to highest point	Storeys	SEPP (HSPD) Note: Measured to ceiling	HLEP 2012 Note: to highest point	Storeys
Building A	13.2m	13.6m	4	11.4m	12.2m	4
Building B	13.4m	13.9m	4	11.4m	12.5m	4
Building C	6.3m	6.7m	2	5.6m	6.1m	2

The breakdown of the development remains as follows:

Basement Level 2

· Thirty five (35) parking spaces

Basement Level 1

· Sixteen (16) parking spaces (including four (4) visitor spaces)

· Gymnasium

· Pool

· Cinema

· Offices

· Beauty Parlour

· Medical Reception

· Card Room and Café

· Auditorium

· Bathrooms

Building A (fronting Stanley Street)

· Four (4) storey building comprising twenty one (21) units

· Common areas including café, lounge and chapel at ground floor level.

· Four (4) visitor parking spaces at grade in the southern corner of the site with access from Turpentine Avenue.

Building B (central building)

· Four (4) storey building comprising sixteen (16) units.

Building C (rear of site)

· Two (2) storey building comprising four (4) dwellings.

The overall unit mix is as follows:

· Three (3) x one (1) bed units,

· Twenty three (23) x two (2) bed units and,

· Fifteen (15) x three (3) bed units.

The proposal also includes the removal of six (6) trees.

The development is proposed to operate as ‘serviced self-care housing’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP (HSPD)) and as such numerous services are proposed to be located on the site. A mini-bus is also proposed to provide transport to the local town centre.

HISTORY

19 Jul 13 Development Application 12/DA-365 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a senior’s living development with forty one (41) self-contained dwellings was refused by Council under delegated authority

23 Sep 13 Section 82A Review of Determination (REV2013/0005) was lodged for construction of a three (3) - four (4) storey Seniors Housing Development over three (3) buildings comprising thirty six (36) self-contained dwellings

19 Dec 13 Council approved the Review of Determination subject to the deferred commencement condition requiring:

‘Plans are to be amended to delete Level 4 from the middle building to make the middle section 3 storeys. The uppermost RL of this building shall be reduced to RL40.9 and result in deletion of 4 units.’ The approved development has a maximum FSR of 1.17:1 and contained thirty two (32) dwellings.

10 Nov 14 Development Application DA2014/1127 was lodged for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a seniors housing development comprising forty one (41) dwellings in three (3) residential flat buildings of two (2) - four (4) storeys and basement parking. This DA is similar to that original application refused under delegated authority in 2013.

21 Nov-5 Dec 14 Application notified and advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1

25 Jun 15 Applicant advised of issues with the application

4 Nov 15 Application referred to Council with a recommendation for refusal. The Council resolved that the application be deferred for legal advice.

5 Nov 15 Legal advice received from applicant

26 Nov 15 Amended plans and additional supplementary information received from applicant

1 Dec 15 Legal advice received from Council’s Senior Counsel

8 Dec 15 Further information received from applicant

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is located on the northern side of Stanley Street Peakhurst near the junction with Lorraine Street.

The site is legally known as Lot 1 DP 5154. It is an irregular triangular shape with a frontage of 78.12m to Stanley Street and an area of approximately 3,790sqm. The south west corner of the site is affected by a right of way which provides access to the adjacent residential development to the north and west.

Numerous mature trees are present on the site mainly at street frontage and south west corner with no street fencing. Some of the tree species are a Turpentine species, which are remnant species of the area, hence, the street name of Turpentine Avenue to the western boundary of the site. The existing building on the site was previously used as a community health centre.

Adjoining the site to the eastern boundary at 60 and 62 Stanley Street are single storey older style industrial buildings, currently used for motor vehicle body repairs and spray painting with the rear industrial building being used for outboard motors and boat repairs. Fencing along this boundary comprises mainly of a high and open form steel fence towards the street frontage only. Further to the east, is light industrial land comprised of new and older buildings being generally single to two (2) storeys in height with a mix of light industrial uses.

Adjoining to the immediate west and north west boundary of the site is predominantly a large existing seniors housing and Anglican Retirement Village characterised by low density residential comprised of numerous attached buildings being single storey with a maximum of two (2) storeys in height. The remaining residential dwellings in the area are similarly low density.

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

Legal Advice

As discussed in the previous assessment report to Council, Officers were in receipt of legal advice advising that due to the site not meeting the location and access to facilities requirements under SEPP (HSPD), the development for seniors housing on this site is prohibited. Following deferral of the application by the Council for further legal advice to be sought, a second opinion was received from Sandra Duggan SC who has advised that the application is not prohibited and can be considered. As such, an assessment of the application in accordance with the relevant legislation is provided below.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

The following is an assessment of the proposal pursuant to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Clause	Standard	Assessment Under HLEP 2012	Complies
Part 2 – Permitted or Prohibited Development	R2 Low Density Residential Zone	Seniors Housing is not permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under HLEP 2012. The application has been lodged under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 which permits the use in the R2 zone. The development is therefore permissible under the provisions of SEPP (HSPD).	Yes
	Objectives of the Zone	The development is contrary to the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone as the development is of a bulk and scale that is inconsistent with a low density residential environment	No
2.7 – Demolition	Demolition of building and work requires consent	Consent is sought for the demolition of existing buildings and structures proposed on site	Yes
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	Building A: 12.2m Building B: 12.5m Building C: 6.1m SEPP (HSPD) contains a development standard for building height being a maximum of 8m measured to the uppermost ceiling of the building. This control supersedes the HLEP 2012 height control.	No - see assessment under SEPP (HSPD) table for explanation
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	0:6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map	1.54:1	No - see assessment under SEPP (HSPD) table for explanation
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	Yes
4.6 Exceptions to development standards	A written request to vary a development standard must be submitted by the applicant	A written request to vary the building height development standard and also the location and access to facilities controls of SEPP (HSPD) in accordance with Clause 4.6 has been submitted with the application and is considered later in this report.	No
5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation	Trees to be removed are specified in DCP No.1	Six (6) mature trees are proposed to be removed on site. A Flora and Fauna Assessment and Arborist report has been submitted with the application and no objections are raised to the loss of trees subject to the development complying with the recommendations of these reports.	Yes
6.7 Essential Services	Development consent must not be granted to development unless services that are essential for the development are available (a) the supply of water, (b) the supply of electricity, (c) the disposal and management of sewage, (d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, (e) suitable vehicular access.	The amended proposal satisfactorily meets this clause	Yes

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (HOUSING FOR SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY) 2004

The development application has been lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP (HSPD)). Therefore, an assessment of the application against the requirements of the SEPP is provided below.

Chapter 2 Key Concepts

Consent is sought for the provision of ‘seniors housing’ in the form of ‘serviced self-care housing’.

Clause 13 defines ‘serviced self-care housing’ as:

“Seniors housing that consists of self-contained dwellings where the following services are available on the site: meals, cleaning services, personal care, nursing care.”

Chapter 3 – Development for Seniors Housing

Part 2 Site Related Requirements

Clause

Requirement

Complies

Cl. 26 Location and Access to Facilities

Residents must have access to:

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

No (1)

Although multiple services are provided on site, they are not sufficient to satisfy the facilities required by SEPP (HSPD). For example there is no provision for a bank service provider in accordance with the clause.

The applicant has provided evidence that the nearest bus stop to the site is located within 355m along Forest Road and satisfies the requirements of the SEPP. Although this bus stop and the associated bus service meets the SEPP requirements in terms of location and frequency, it applies to only the Bankstown direction of the route. The nearest bus stop for the return route is 445m from the site which does not comply with the SEPP requirements.

Although, it is noted that a private transport service is proposed, this provision of the SEPP is only relevant to land adjoining land zoned primarily for urban purposes. As such, it does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 26.

A variation to Clause 26 is provided below in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

Access complies with this clause if:

(a) the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1) are located at a distance of not more than 400m from the site, or

(b) there is a public transport service available not more than 400m from the site of the proposed development.

(1) Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities

As identified in the above table, the proposed development does not satisfy Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities of SEPP (HSPD) as the nearest northbound bus stop, is located 445m from the site.

To support the non compliance the applicant has provided a request for a variation to a development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The variation to the development standard is considered against Clause 4.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows:

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

Comment: Council is in receipt of legal advice from Sandra Duggan SC advising that Clause 26 is a development standard.

What are the objectives of the development standard?

Comment: Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities has no stated objectives. Therefore consideration must be given to the underlying objective of the standards which is to provide reasonable access to facilities and services for residents.

The applicant has submitted justification to support the variation which addresses the relevant underlying objective. The applicant’s justification is provided below:

‘The proposal is consistent with the underlying objective as it provides access to a range of services and facilities on site, as outlined in 2.8 above, including: banking facilities and convenience goods, medical, health and fitness, personal care and meal services. In addition a transport service is provided on site, which will enable residents to access additional services, facilities and shops in nearby centres including but not limited to Riverwood, Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst, up to twice a day.’

On this basis it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the underlying purpose of the standard by ensuring the residents of the seniors housing have excellence access to a wide range of services and facilities.

The proposal is consistent with the underlying objective on the following basis:

· The development is within 400m of a bus stop that provides access to a bus route that complies with the provisions of the SEPP including frequency of services and access to town centre facilities in Bankstown.

· Although the bus stop for the return bus route is located 445m from the site which exceeds the locational requirements of the Clause 26, it is not considered to be inaccessible and would still provide an acceptable level of access to mobile residents.

· The nearby bus services are proposed to be supplemented by a private bus service on site providing access to nearby centres twice a day.

· Some facilities are also proposed to be provided on site as listed in the above justification by the applicant.

The overall access to facilities and services from the site is considered to satisfy the underlying objective of the control. If the application was to be approved, a condition is recommended to ensure the provision of the private bus service and also the facilities listed in the applicant’s justification above.

What are the underlying objectives of the zone?

Comment: In assessing the development’s non compliance, consideration must be given to its consistency with the underlying objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone which are as follows:

a) ‘To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

b) To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

c) To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

d) To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

e) To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

f) To provide for a range of home business activities where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the surrounding residential amenity.’

The applicant’s justification is as follows:

‘Objectives (a) (c) (d) and (e) are relevant to the proposed SSC housing proposal, and as demonstrated in the accompanying SEE, the proposal is consistent with these objectives.

In relation to (a), the development provides seniors housing to meet the needs of the ageing community members.

While the proposed on-site services are ancillary to the development and are not separate land use, they will meet many of the day to day needs of the residents of the development and in this regard is consistent with objective (b).

The proposal is consistent with objective (c) and provides medium density housing in the form of a residential flat building. The development will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area. The development is not located within the vicinity of natural or cultural heritage.

The proposal maintains and achieves a high level of residential amenity in terms of privacy, solar access, and access to open space, and in this regard is consistent with objective (d).

The proposal is consistent with objective (e) in that it maintains the majority of existing trees and provides new plantings to enhance the landscaping particularly along the street frontage.

In relation to objective (f) the proposal does not prevent the opportunity for future residents to conduct activities from their homes.’

The development is considered consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in regards to the location and access of the development to facilities and services for the following reasons:

· The development would provide seniors housing for the community with access to facilities and services that will meet the day to day needs of the community.

· The development provides a variety of housing types for seniors housing.

· A high level of residential amenity is achieved for the future residents in terms of access to facilities.

Is the variation to the development standard consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012?

(1) ‘The objectives of Clause 4.6 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: The variation to Clause 26 is limited to the bus stop located on the northbound side of Forest Road only and requires residents to travel an additional 45m beyond the prescribed 400m to catch the return bus service. To supplement the public transport available to residents, the proposal includes a private bus service that will travel to and from local centres twice a day, and some services and facilities will also be provided on site.

The supplementary bus service provided is considered to mitigate the inconvenience of the distance to the public bus stop from the site and provide good access to facilities and services to residents.

The variation to the location and access to facilities development standard is found to be consistent with the objectives of the clause.

(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 site is not excluded from the operation of this clause.

(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: The applicant has provided justification stating that the development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone as discussed above. Further the applicant’s justification that the application of the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in this case is provided below:

‘To strictly comply with the locational standard is unnecessary in the circumstance of this case as set out in section 3.4 in the consideration of the underlying objectives of the standard and objectives of the zone and section 3.4 in the consideration of the zone objectives.

Given the circumstances of the case, strict numerical compliance with the locational standard would be unnecessary on the basis that the development as proposed provides extensive services and facilities on site, which will be supplemented by an on-site transport service that will provide access to a greater range of facilities and services and shops, within several nearby centres up to twice a day. Fundamentally, it will provide more convenient access to services and facilities.

Furthermore, the provision of on-site services and facilities is considered to provide a superior and more convenient level of access than compliance with the standard would afford, which could be limited to being within 400m of a public transport stop that provides access to a centre.

Given the extensive services and facilities proposed as part of the development, compliance with the standard is considered unnecessary in the circumstances.’

The applicant also contends that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard as follows:

‘A better planning outcome can be achieved through allowing the development as proposed, with the attendant support services and facilities on site, including the provision of complementary transport that provides access to other services and facilities within nearby centres. In a region with a demonstrable deficiency in seniors housing, this outcome should outweigh a minor variation to an arbitrary numerical control. Furthermore, it is considered that the providing on site services and transport is a better outcome that provide the required 400m access to public transport that travels to a centre.’

When considering the variation in the context of the proposal having regard to the provision of a private bus service and also the additional facilities and services to be accommodated within the development, it is agreed that the development provides a better outcome for residents in terms of access to facilities than would be provided by a complying development relying on proximity to public transport alone. Additionally, it is noted that the availability of public transport to the site is not out of reach for residents with the variation being limited to one direction only.

On balance, strict application of this development standard in this specific instance is unnecessary and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

(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’

Comment: A written request for the variation prepared by SJB Planning was submitted with the application which provides justification to address subclause (3). The extent of the variation is found to be consistent with subclause (3) and Clause 4.6 overall and the submitted justification is supported.

‘(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’

Comment: Even with the increased distance of the site from public transport services, the development satisfies the objectives of the development standard and the zone in terms of access to facilities and provision of services to residents. Notwithstanding the other issues outlined in this report, in relation to proximity to services and the amenity provided to future residents as a result, this aspect of the development is in the public interest.

(b) ‘ the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.’

Comment: Planning Circular PS 08-003 dated 9 May 2008, as issued by the NSW Department of Planning, advises that the concurrence of the Director-General may be assumed for exceptions to development standards under environmental planning instruments that adopt Clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument. In this regard, if the variation is found to be consistent with the objectives of the zone, the concurrence of the Director-General for the variation to the building height Development Standard can be assumed.

Clause	Requirement	Complies
Cl. 28 – Water and Sewer	Housing is to be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewerage	Yes
Cl. 29 – Consent Authority to Consider Certain Site Compatibility Criteria	The proposed development is to be compatible with the surrounding land uses having regard to (at least) the following criteria:
	· the natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development	Yes The development would have no significant impacts on the natural environment.
	· the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision	Yes As discussed above, despite a variation to Clause 26, the development provides good access to facilities and services with retail, community, medical services provided on site and a private bus service being available for residents to nearby town centres twice daily.
	· without limiting any other criteria, the impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.	No Although the height of the development has been reduced, the bulk and scale of the development is still considered excessive in its context and is inconsistent with the character and appearance of the streetscape.

Part 3 Design Requirements

The following is an assessment of the proposed development under Part 3 of the SEPP.

Clause	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Division 1 General
Cl. 30 Site Analysis	Site analysis to be prepared by applicant	Site analysis provided	Yes
Cl.31 – Design of Infill Housing	Council to consider the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development	Consent is sought for serviced self-care housing	N/A
Cl. 32 – Design of residential development	Design must have adequate regard to principles in Division 2	See assessment below	No
Division 2 Design Principles
Cl. 33 - Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape	(a) recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area, and	The height and scale of the development is excessive in its context	No
	(b) retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any heritage conservation areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a local environmental plan, and	No heritage items or conservation areas within the vicinity of the site	N/A
	(c) maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by: (i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing, and (ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and (iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and (iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours, and	Due to the orientation of the site, the height and bulk of the development would not result in any unreasonable overshadowing of adjoining properties. However, even though the height of the building has been reduced, the layout of the development and height of the central ‘Building B’ would result in overshadowing of the ground floor level units and the common open space. The height, bulk and scale of the development is still considered excessive as it exceeds both the R2 Zone height limit and also the height limit of the adjoining IN1 Light Industrial Zone to the east. The proximity of the development to the eastern side boundary with a proposed setback of between 0m-1.2m results in a conflict between uses and potential acoustic impacts on the future residents of the property. This has not been addressed by the amended documentation. Adjoining the eastern boundary is an industrial panel beating workshop and although an Acoustic Report has been submitted to ensure internal residential noise criterion can be satisfied, it does not acknowledge the impacts of the panel beating workshop on the private open spaces of this development. Further, the amended development now includes an outdoor terrace adjacent to the eastern boundary at third floor level that appears to be communal open space. The impact of industrial noise on the terrace is not considered in the amended information. As such, concerns regarding amenity for future occupiers remain.	No
	(d) be designed so that the front building of the development is setback in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line, and	The proposed development respects the building line of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone	Yes
	(e) embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape, and	The proposed landscaping is satisfactory	Yes
	(f) retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees, and	Although six (6) significant trees are proposed to be removed from the site, replacement planting is proposed. A number of other significant trees will also be retained on site.	Yes
	(g) be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.	The site is not located in proximity to a riparian zone	N/A
Cl.34 – Visual and acoustic privacy	The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by: (a) appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and (b) ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.	The development has been well designed to orientate the buildings to the north and south to minimise any potential overlooking over side boundaries. Further, privacy between residences is satisfactory. However, as mentioned above, there is a concern that the amenity of the residences may be affected as a result of acoustic impacts on their private open space arising from the adjoining industrial uses.	No
Cl.35 – Solar Access	The proposed development should: (a) ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space, and (b) involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.	Solar access to neighbouring properties is satisfactory. All units have good cross ventilation and are primarily orientated to the north. As such, most residences within the development will also receive adequate solar access however the excessive height of the central ‘Building B’ will still overshadow the private open space of the ground level units in ‘Building A’ as provided on the amended shadow diagrams. This is unsatisfactory.	No
Cl.36 - Stormwater	The proposed development should: (a) control and minimise the disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties and receiving waters by, for example, finishing driveway surfaces with semi-pervious material, minimising the width of paths and minimising paved areas, and (b) include, where practical, on-site stormwater detention or re-use for second quality water uses.	The management of stormwater is generally acceptable. Council’s Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development has assessed the stormwater and overland flow aspects of the development and advised it is generally satisfactory with the exception of a conflict between the Overland Flow Study and the entrance levels to the development. This can be overcome with conditions of consent should the application be approved.	Yes, subject to condition
Cl.37 – Crime Prevention	The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by: (a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and (b) where shared entries are required, providing shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and (c) providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.	Crime prevention is acceptable with good passive surveillance available across the site	Yes
Cl.38 – Accessibility	The proposed development should: (a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and (b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.	Good access is provided across the site to parking and onsite facilities. Also as discussed above, the variation to Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities is supported and satisfactory access is provided.	Yes
Cl.39 – Waste Management	The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.	Satisfactory	Yes

Part 4 – Development Standards to be complied with

Clause 40 Development Standards – Minimum Sizes and Building Height

Clause 40 of the SEPP provides development standards that a development must comply with.

Control	Standard	Proposal	Complies
Site size	1,000sqm	3,790sqm	Yes
Site frontage	20m at the building line	78.12m	Yes
40(4) - Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted	8m (measured to the topmost ceiling)	Building A: 11.4m Building B: 11.4m Building C: 5.6m It is noted that height under SEPP (HSPD) is calculated to the ceiling.	No
	Buildings adjacent to boundaries must not exceed 2 storeys	4 storeys	No
	Buildings in rear 25% of site must not exceed 1 storey	2 storeys	No

Clause 40(4) – Height in Residential Zones where Residential Flat Buildings are Not Permitted

As can be seen from the above table, the development seeks significant variations to the building height development standards prescribed by Clause 40.

It is important to note that height under SEPP (HSPD) is measured to the ceiling and the 11.4m figure above is provided by the applicant in the supporting documentation. From the plans provided, it is impossible to determine the height to the ceiling as ceiling RL’s have not been provided. In addition, it is unclear how the figures for Building A and B have been reached. When comparing the supporting documentation for both proposals, the amended design has achieved a 1.8m ceiling height reduction for Building A and a 2m reduction for Building B. Given that between the previous and amended plans there is only a 1.4m reduction in the finished floor level of level 3 in Buildings A and B, there appears to be a 0.4m – 0.6m discrepancy in the submitted final ceiling height which would further intensify the non compliance.

Even so, in the absence of ceiling RL’s the information provided in the supporting documentation is used in the assessment of the variation.

In support of the variation, the applicant has lodged a request to vary the building height development standard under Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2012.

An assessment under Clause 4.6 of HLEP 2012 is provided below:

Is the planning control in question a development standard?

Comment: Clause 40(4) of SEPP (HSPD) is a Development Standard.

What are the objectives of the development standard?

Comment: Clause 40(4) of SEPP (HSPD) has no stated objectives. Therefore consideration must be given to the underlying objective of the standard which is to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the area and to minimise impacts on adjoining properties.

The applicant has submitted justification to support the variation which addresses the relevant underlying objectives (please see attachments). The main basis of the applicant’s justification is provided below:

‘The surrounding development is characterised by a mix of industrial and residential buildings, with no consistent height or typical building forms or scale relationships. It is also subject to a variable height limit of 9m and 10m under the provisions of the HLEP 2012.

On this basis the 8m, two-storey and one-storey controls applying under Clause 40(4) of the SEPP do not appropriately reflect the site context and would not result in development of a height that is compatible with the surrounding development.’

Contrary to the applicant’s submission, the proposal is not considered consistent with the objectives of the standard for the followings reasons:

· The site is located in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone which has a height limit of 9m under HLEP 2012. The adjoining IN2 Industrial Zone has a height limit of 10m. Proposed Buildings A and B have height of 11.4m to the ceiling (calculated in accordance with SEPP (HSPD)) and when calculated in accordance with HLEP 2012 to the roof, have heights of 12.2m and 12.5m respectively. The development overall exceeds the height limit of the R2 Zone by over 3m and the IN2 Zone by over 2m. As such, although a minor height exceedance may be justified, it is evident that the development has been designed without regard to its context significantly exceeding the height of both areas and not providing any transition in height between the two zones.

· The bulk and scale of the four (4) storey built form of Building A and B is excessive.

· Although the scale and massing of the development is varied and some effort has been made to scale Building A down to three (3) storeys at the eastern boundary where it adjoins the industrial zone, the development does not acknowledge the low density residential character to the west. Consequently the building ‘pops up’ in the streetscape which appears incongruous and visually dominant in this context.

· Significant tree retention along the western side of Building A will to some extent screen the development from the dwellings opposite, however this would not mitigate the streetscape impacts of the development.

It is noted that the two (2) storey height of Building C is considered acceptable.

The proposed height is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the development standard.

What are the underlying objectives of the zone?

Comment: In assessing the development’s non compliance, consideration must be given to its consistency with the underlying objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone which are as follows:

a) ‘To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

b) To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

c) To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

d) To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

e) To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

f) To provide for a range of home business activities where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the surrounding residential amenity.’

The applicants justification is as above under Clause 26.

In regards to height, the development is considered inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the following reasons:

· The applicant indicates that the development provides for medium density housing in the form of a residential flat building which is consistent with objective (c). It is important to note that the site is located in a low density residential zone where residential flat buildings are usually prohibited.

· The built form of the development does not reflect the bulk and scale of the low density residential zone in which it is located and also exceeds the bulk and scale of development in the adjoining IN2 Light Industrial Zone.

· The development would have a negative visual impact on the streetscape compromising the amenity of the surrounding area.

Is the variation to the development standard consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012?

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(c) ‘ to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(d) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.’

Comment: In this instance, the variation sought to Clause 40 of SEPP (HSPD) is excessive and the height of the development is inappropriate in the context of the site. The variation would not provide a better outcome and there is no reasonable justification for the increased height. The proposed variation is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 4.6.

g) ‘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 site is not excluded from the operation of this clause.

h) ‘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:

(c) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(d) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.’

‘A development that complies with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because:

· The standard applies only to development in a residential zone where residential flat buildings are not permitted and secondly, it functions to limit building height to 8m and one (1) and two (2) storeys, which is typical of development in low density residential zones. However, this does not appropriately reflect the context of the site, which does not read as part of a residential streetscape, but reads as part of the Stanley Street industrial precinct.

· The circumstances of the proposal and the site do not match the circumstances implied by the standard:

· The standard at subclause 40(4) (a) specifies a building height limit of 8m, however the site is subject to a 9m height limit and a 10m height limit applies to the east, north and south under the HLEP 2012.

· The standard at subclause 40(4) (b) specifies a two (2) storey height limit where a building is adjacent to a boundary of a site which implies that development should respond appropriately to adjoining residential development in terms of scale and not result in adverse impacts such as loss of privacy or loss of solar access. However, the eastern boundary of the site is adjoined by an industrial building and zone;

· The standard at subclause 40(4) (c) identifies a site having a rear area and it is implied that residential development immediately adjoins to the rear. The rear of the subject site is adjoined by an industrial development and a change in topography. A development that strictly complies with the standard is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable in this circumstance.

· Given that the height of the proposal does not result in adverse impacts on adjoining sites, no appreciable benefits would result for adjoining properties if the proposal were to strictly comply.’

The applicant also contends that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard as follows:

‘A better planning outcome can be achieved through allowing a building height, form and density that properly responds to the surrounding built form and its suitability for the purpose. There are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravening the development standard as outlined below:

· Due to the transitional location of the site, there is no consistent building height or typical building form or scale relationships. The site is located within a residential zone that is adjoined by an industrial zone to the north, south and east. The site fronts an industrial street (Stanley Street) and reads as part of the industrial area and not the residential area. Stanley Street is characterised by industrial warehouses with high ceiling heights and more modern two (2) storey industrial buildings;

· The adjacent residential development to the west consists of single storey aged care villas and is not a visible element within the Stanley Street streetscape. The height and scale of the proposed development is appropriate for the transitional location of the site on the fringe of an industrial precinct and residential area;

· The varied character of the area is reinforced by the different height controls applying to the site and surrounds under the planning controls. Under the HLEP, a 9.0m height limit applies to the residential zone and 10.0m height limit applies to the industrial zone. On this basis the 8m, two (2) storey and one (1) storey controls applying under Clause 40(4) of the SEPP do not appropriately reflect the site context;

· A building complying with the height standard would result in a development that does not achieve a viable senior housing development that is required to support the extensive services proposed on site. In a location with a demonstrable deficiency in seniors housing, this is not an appropriate planning outcome.’

It is acknowledged that the site is in a transitional location being on the edge of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and adjoining the IN2 Light Industrial Zone. It is also acknowledged that between the two (2) zones, the height limit varies from 9m to 10m.

The proposed height of Buildings A and B at 11.4m when calculated to the ceiling in accordance with SEPP (HSPD) exceeds both height limits providing no transition between the zones. In addition, when measured to the roof in accordance with HLEP 2012, the buildings have a height of 12.2m-12.5m further exacerbating their height above the surrounding properties.

It is disagreed that the site is detached from the residential zone which is dominated by single and two (2) storey developments, and reads only as part of the adjoining industrial zone to the east. Even if this was the case, the proposed Buildings A and B would still exceed the height of the adjoining industrial buildings to the east by 4.9m - 7.6m due to the variation and also the fall of the land.

The proposed development is excessive in its overall bulk and scale and would dominate the appearance of the streetscape. Further, the development is not complementary to the character of the locality and is incompatible in its context.

The variation to Building C when considered in isolation of the other variations is acceptable. The two (2) storey height is below the 8m SEPP (HSPD) height and consistent with the HLEP 2012 height control for the zone. The two (2) storey height of Building C is also compatible with surrounding development

Whilst the architectural quality of the proposal is acceptable the bulk and scale of the proposal is not, and there are no site constraints that prevent compliance with the 8m two (2) storey height control of SEPP (HSPD). Although the height of the development would not affect the amenity of the adjoining properties, this is not reasonable justification to vary the control.

Overall, there is no valid justification for the proposed height non compliance. It is considered reasonable to apply the height control in this case and there are no reasonable environmental planning grounds to support a variation. As such, the application is recommended for refusal on this basis.

i) ‘Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(c) 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’

Comment: A written request for the variation prepared by SJB Planning was submitted with the application which provides justification to address subclause (3). However as discussed above, in this instance, the height variation is not considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 4.6.

Comment: As discussed above the height variation is not consistent with the underlying objectives of the standard or the objectives of the zone and is therefore not in the public interest.

(d) ‘the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.’

Division 3 Hostels and Self-Contained Dwellings — Standards Concerning Accessibility and Useability

Clause 41 Standards for Hostels and Self-Contained Dwellings

In accordance with Clause 41 a consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to Chapter 3 unless the development complies with the standards specified in Schedule 3 for such development.

The submitted BCA and Access Compliance Assessment Report prepared by Certified Building Specialists dated 5 November 2014 indicates that the development would comply in full with all relevant sections of Schedule 3. If the application is approved, a condition of consent is recommended to ensure compliance.

Cl 50 - Part 7 - Standards That Cannot Be Used To Refuse Consent

Control	Standards	Proposal	Complies
Building height	8m or less in height (2 storeys)	Building A: 11.4m Building B: 11.4m Building C: 5.6m	Can refuse on height. See discussion relating to building height under Clause 40 above.
Density and Scale	FSR of 0.5:1 or less	1.54:1	Can refuse on FSR (1)
Landscaped Area	Min. landscape area of 30% of the site area	22% total landscaping	Can refuse on landscaped area (2)
Deep Soil Zone	Min. 15% of the site area min dimension of 3m. 2/3 should be at rear	16.5% deep soil zone provided with minimum dimensions of 3m. No deep soil zone is provided at the rear of the site.	Can refuse on deep soil zone (2)
Solar access	70% of dwellings to receive at least 3hrs sunlight between 9am -3pm mid-winter to living rooms and POS	70% receive adequate solar access	Yes
Private open space	Ground floor POS min. 15sqm/dwelling with min. 3m x 3m	15sqm POS provided on ground level with min. 3m x 3m	Yes
	Above ground floor POS min.10sqm /dwelling or 6sqm -1bdrm with min. 2m	Provided	Yes
Parking	(i) 0.5 parking spaces provided for each bedroom 47 spaces required	47 car spaces provided for residents and 8 x visitor spaces provided	Yes

(1) Density and Scale - Floor Space Ratio

The SEPP does not specify a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) that applies to development, rather it states that if a proposal has an FSR of 0.5:1 or less a consent authority cannot refuse the application based on floor space.

The amended plans do not include any changes that reduce the FSR of the development. As such, when calculated in accordance with the SEPP (HSPD), the development proposes an FSR of 1.54:1. This significantly exceeds the 0.6:1 maximum that applies to the site and also the 1:1 maximum that applies to the industrial zone that adjoins the site to the east under HLEP 2012. Although there may be some justification for a minor variation due to the location of the site on the edge of the R2 Low Density Zone and the IN2 Light Industrial Zone, the FSR proposed is excessive and does not provide an acceptable transition. The bulk and scale of development that arises as a result of the increased FSR is incompatible with the character and appearance of the streetscape and is considered an overdevelopment of the site. A reason for refusal is still recommended on this basis.

(2) Landscaped Area and Deep Soil Zone

As demonstrated in the above table, less than 30% of the site is provided as landscaped open space, and two thirds of the deep soil zone is not provided at the rear of the property. Consequently, the development application can be refused for these reasons.

Even so, the proposed landscaping is considered acceptable. Although only 22% of the site can be considered as landscaped area (landscaping over the basement has been excluded), this is consistent with the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA wide as it applies to development in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. Also, the provision of deep soil zone across the site rather than at the rear allows for the retention of a number of existing trees and more balanced landscaping provision. As such, the landscaped area and deep soil zone proposed is considered acceptable.

SEPP (HSPD) Conclusion

As can be seen from the above assessment, although Council’s legal advice and the additional submitted information satisfies the objectives of Clause 26 – Location and Access to Facilities so that the variation can be justified, the development still does not satisfy the other provisions of SEPP (HSPD) particularly in relation to height, FSR and amenity. The proposal is therefore still recommended for refusal.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

A satisfactory BASIX certificate has been submitted for the proposed development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 55 – REMEDIATION OF LAND

Clause 7(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless;

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

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

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

To support the application, a Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by Aargus dated 4 November 2014 has been submitted. The report concludes the following:

‘The findings of the assessment indicated the following areas of potential environmental concern:

· Potential importation of uncontrolled fill that may contain various contaminants;

· Current or past use of pesticides;

· Car park areas where leaks and spills from cars may have occurred; and

· Current and former historical activities on site and in the adjacent light industrial area, including smash repairs.

The contaminants that may be present in some of these areas were considered to be of low to moderate significance in terms of risk to the human and environmental receptors identified. Therefore, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) is required to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development application and to address the data gaps identified.

Based on the information collected during this investigation and in reference to Clause 7 (DA development) of SEPP 55, the site will be made suitable subject to the completion of a Detailed Site Investigation (and after remediation and validation, if required) for the proposed medium density residential unit development.’

From the report provided, it is evident that Detailed Site Investigation is required before it can be determined if remediation is required. Following deferral of the application, no further information was submitted in this regard. In the absence of the Detailed Site Investigation, Council cannot be certain that the site is suitable for the development in accordance with SEPP 55.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 65 – DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS

Buildings A and B of the proposed development comprise residential flat buildings and are therefore subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65).

Clause 50(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 requires the submission of a Design Verification Certificate from a qualified designer at lodgement of the development application. A Design Verification Certificate has been provided by Angelo Candalepas (Reg No. 5773) of Candalepas Associates in accordance with this clause.

The SEPP requires the assessment of any development application for residential flat development against ten (10) principles contained in Clauses 9 - 18 and Council is also required to consider the matters contained in the publication “Residential Flat Design Code”.

Accordingly the application was referred to the Design Review Panel. The Design Review Panel provided their comments with reference to those previously provided on the 30 May 2013 in regards to the amended version of the original Development Application 12/DA-365 which was similar to this proposal and refused under delegated authority.

The amended plans submitted following the deferral of the application by Council were not referred back to the Design Review Panel for further comment as the changes relate to the height of the development only.

An assessment of the principles is provided below.

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.

Design Review Panel (DRP) Comment:

30 May 2013

The development sits in an unusual context, between an auto body repair shop and a retirement village, between a low density residential zone and an industrial estate. Thus this site sits at the interface of the above uses and as a consequence of the context the form of development proposed does not impose any significant impact on its neighbours.

We commend the proponents design revisions to retain the existing trees on Stanley Street and at points on the western boundary.

26 February 2015

The Panel reiterates the above comments.

Development Assessment Officer (DAO) Comment: The development is considered to respond to its context in terms of setbacks from the street and retention of significant trees on the site.

However the height, bulk and scale of the development is not considered to sufficiently respond to the established built form of the area.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

The Panel notes that the proposal exceeds the height limits of Council in both residential and industrial zones and the height standard of 8m in the SEPP which would otherwise prevent refusal on the grounds of height.

However the Panel considers that the height proposed is not inappropriate in this context. That part of the site where height would be critical at the northern extremity now would contain a building that is reduced to 2 storeys where the existing ground level is approximately 1 storey below the ground level of the adjacent aged care site.

26 February 2015

With the exception of the concerns noted below in relation to the central block, the above comments are reiterated.

DAO Comment: It is not agreed that the scale of the development is acceptable. As mentioned earlier in this report the development exceeds both the height and FSR controls relevant to the site. It cannot be argued that the development would provide a suitable transition from the R2 zone to the IN2 zone as it exceeds the maximum height and FSR controls of both of those zones. A minor variation may be acceptable but the scale of the development proposed is inappropriate and does not reflect the desired future character of the area.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

The buildings are very well articulated in the architectural modelling using quality materials. The separation distances between the blocks are at the minimum required 12m.

The retention of the trees as required in the previous Panel minutes and repositioning of the buildings creates an improved outcome in terms of built form.

26 February 2015

The approved application has maximum height of buildings of 3 storeys above ground. The present application proposes to increase the height of the central and southern buildings to 4 storeys. This has some negative impact in that there is additional overshadowing in the central courtyard, on the residential units on the southern side, on the landscaped area and trees along Stanley Street to the south, and on the west of the site.

Although the negative impacts are relatively small, and the previous Panel in May 2013 accepted the development in this form, the approved application would be preferable. The applicant’s primary argument in support of the change was the commercial need to increase the accommodation from 32 to 41 units in order to provide the amenities which they considered to be essential – auditorium, café, card rooms, cinema, spas, etc.

The Panel notes the outstanding significance of the existing trees and the extent to which the applicant has sought to minimise impact on the root balls of these trees. Further information on any shadow impacts of the additional height is required to ensure the long term health of these trees.

DAO Comment: Putting the height, bulk and scale of the development aside, the built form of the development is otherwise acceptable. The general location of the buildings on the site, the appearance of the buildings fronting the street and the overall landscaping are considered appropriate. However as mentioned above the overall bulk and scale of the development is excessive and cannot be supported.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

The proposal significantly exceeds residential R2 zone (0.6:1) and industrial IN2 zone (1:1) however the SEPP suggests no floor space limit (although refusal is not possible under 0.5:1 FSR on the grounds of density).

26 February 2015

The current proposal approved is 1.17:1 and it is proposed to increase to 1.52:1.

This appears to be excessive in view of the negative impacts discussed elsewhere.

DAO Comment: The density of the development is excessive and an overdevelopment of the site.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

Comply with BASIX.

26 February 2015

There has been no further change to the landscape design since the previous approval, to expand ecological benefits.

DAO Comment: A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

It is noted that most of the existing trees on site have now been retained and efforts to reposition buildings to accommodate this are appreciated.

26 February 2015

This remains as above.

30 May 2013

The Panel notes that the arborist report is undergoing review by Council’s Tree Officer.

26 February 2015

Further information has been provided. Although the Landscape Architect on the Panel raised the issue that there appears to be significant impact on one of the very significant trees on the site (T16), the applicant assured the Panel that they had refined the design in accordance with the arborist’s recommendation.

30 May 2013

The landscape design is appropriate. The provision of a few larger canopied trees within the courtyards is recommended.

26 February 2015

This does not appear to have been addressed.

30 May 2013

The provision of outdoor communal areas and their proposed use within the development are not evident and this information should be provided.

26 February 2015

A café located overlooking common open space has been provided. This is an internal space with outlook to external space, however no substantial useable communal open space has been provided outside of the building areas. It appears that a secure and attractive communal open space could be provided on the western corner of the site, linking to the café/lounge and perhaps with some modest loose paving which would not compromise the trees, together with moveable seating, etc. Below the large tree canopies, this could potentially be a very pleasant summer space.

Given the challenges of retaining the substantial trees along the Stanley Street frontage, the Panel believes that with this addition the design could be accepted.

DAO Comment: A terrace has been provided on the eastern side of Building A at third floor level on the amended plans. It is unclear if this is a communal terrace and if so, if it is for the use of all residents or just those with access of that particular lift core. Regardless, the terrace is in a location that is unlikely to be used by residents of the development and is not considered to satisfy the concerns of the Design Review Panel.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

Entry to the development is now improved. Access to Building C is acceptable and the opportunity for casual surveillance and meeting other residents along the route is possible.

26 February 2015

Remains unchanged.

30 May 2013

Living rooms in Building C now face north and are acceptable. However some thought needs to be given to screening the adjacent private open space from the industrial site, which is at a similar ground level immediately to the north.

26 February 2015

The east elevation shows a retaining wall and fence above which appears to provide sufficient screening.

30 May 2013

Library and beauty salon should be relocated in a better position for some natural light and outlook.

26 February 2015

No library is shown on the current plans. The basement area has been redesigned and some daylight access has been provided, but only to the small café area not to the ‘Beauty Parlour’. All the five (5) ‘Office’ spaces and gymnasium have no daylight or outlook. There appears to be good opportunities to at least incorporate natural light by providing roof lights above some of these areas, creatively integrated into the landscape design of the courtyard above.

DAO Comment: The amenity of the offices and common areas/facilities could be improved as per the Design Review Panel comments above. It is particularly concerning that the amended plans will reduce solar access to these areas as basement level 1 and the ground floor plan are lower a further 0.5m below the surrounding ground level.

Further, there are still concerns that the proximity of the buildings to the eastern side boundary will result in acoustic impacts on the private open spaces of the eastern most dwellings as they adjoin a panel beating workshop and other light industrial uses.

PRINCIPLE 8: SAFETY AND SECURITY

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

The drawings are unclear as to what arrangements are intended to ensure that the site is secure and residents are safe. No fences and gates appear to be provided. Inclusion of site security may conflict with visitor access.

26 February 2015

This does not appear to have been addressed, but could be readily resolved.

DAO Comment: The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the development will comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in terms of access and security. This may be addressed by a condition of consent.

PRINCIPLE 9: SOCIAL DIMENSIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

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.

New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices and providing a mix of housing types to cater for different budgets and housing needs.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

Satisfactory.

The proposal seems to provide a facility that is appropriate for the needs of the local community.

26 February 2015

Satisfactory.

DAO Comment: Satisfactory.

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.

DRP Comment:

30 May 2013

The proposal has been improved. The street façade has been improved in line with previous recommendations from the Panel.

Any perception of bulk of the buildings is alleviated by the strong modelling of the forms.

26 February 2015

Generally satisfactory, however the eastern end wall is somewhat bland and should be further articulated.

DAO Comment: Generally satisfactory.

DRP RECOMMENDATION:

CONCLUSION

The Panel does not have the expertise to assess whether or not all of the additional nine (9) units are necessary as “... an absolute minimum for the viable provision of this level of facilities and services.” (P14 of SEE) in order to satisfy commercial objectives. The additional floors on two (2) of the buildings have negative impacts in relation to overshadowing courtyards and landscape spaces and in that sense the approved scheme would be preferable.

RECOMMENDATION

The Panel supports the concept of the design but recommends the removal of the fourth level from Block B (centre block) and further justification being provided to ensure that the fourth level of Block A does not have detrimental impacts on the health and viability of the existing trees. There should be further exploration of possible benefits through additional landscaping such as removal of the on-grade car parking and additional turpentine tree planting at the southern corner of the site.

The Panel supports the application subject to these changes, and the other issues raised above being addressed.

DAO Comment: The amended information that has been submitted does not address the concerns raised by the Design Review Panel or issues previously raised in the original assessment report.

Overall, the bulk and scale of the proposal remains excessive in its context and is not supported. The development cannot be supported in its current form.

Further to the design quality principles and referral to the Design Review Panel, Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 also requires residential flat development to be designed in accordance with the Department of Planning’s publication entitled Residential Flat Design Code.

There are a number of guidelines and rules of thumb contained in the Residential Flat Design Code which accompanies SEPP 65 that are applicable to the proposed development. These provide a meaningful and quantifiable assessment of the merits and deficiencies of the proposal, when assessed against SEPP 65 and in turn inform whether the design quality principles contained in SEPP 65 are addressed.

The following table outlines compliance with the Residential Flat Design Code, where applicable.

Standard	Objective	Provided	Complies
Building Height	Ensure future development responds to desired future scale and character of street and local area	The height of the development is still considered excessive and does not respond appropriately to scale and character of its surroundings	No
Building Depth	Max. 18m (glass line to glass line)	Units are max. 17m in depth	Yes
Building Separation	For buildings up to four storeys/12m: -12m between habitable rooms/balconies; -9.0m between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms; -6.0m between non-habitable rooms.	Satisfactory. 12m separation achieved.	Yes
Street setbacks	Use different setback controls to differentiate between urban and suburban character areas. 5m -9m range is typical in suburban areas.	Street setbacks are satisfactory	Yes
Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	To ensure that the development is in keeping with the optimum capacity of the site and the local area. FSR is not specified in the Design Code	The FSR of the development is excessive	No
Deep Soil Zones	A minimum of 15% (568sqm) of the open space area of a site should be a deep soil zone, more is desirable. Exceptions may be made in urban areas where sites are built out.	Satisfactory	Yes
Fences and walls	Clearly delineate the public and private domain	Acceptable	Yes
Open Space	Communal open space should be generally between 25% of the site area.	Unsatisfactory. See comments from the DRP earlier in this report.	No
Orientation	Position and orientate buildings to maximise solar access	Satisfactory	Yes
Planting on structures	Design for optimum conditions for plant growth	Satisfactory	Yes
Stormwater Management	Reduce the volume impact of stormwater on infrastructure by retaining it on site	Satisfactory	Yes
Safety	Undertake a formal crime prevention assessment of the development	Satisfactory	Yes
Visual privacy	Provide reasonable levels of visual privacy	Satisfactory	Yes
Building Entry	Create entrance which provides a desirable residential identity for development	Satisfactory	Yes
Parking	Provide adequate car parking for the building and integrate parking with the design of the building	Satisfactory	Yes
Pedestrian Access	Barrier free access to 20% of units	Lifts provided with accessible paths of travel and lift	Yes
Vehicle Access	Limit width of driveways to 6m. Integrate adequate car parking and servicing access without compromising character	6m at Stanley Street frontage	Yes
Apartment Layout	-Maximum depth from window of single aspect apartment 8.0m -The back of a kitchen should be no more than 8 metres from a window -Width of cross-over or cross-through apartments more than 15m deep should be a minimum of 4m	Complies	Yes
Apartment Mix	To provide a diversity of apartment types, which cater for different household requirements now and in the future	The proposal incorporates a diversity of apartment mix	Yes.
Balconies	Primary balconies to be a minimum of 2m in depth	Satisfactory	Yes
Ceiling Heights	Retail/comm. 3.3m 2.7m for residential levels	Satisfactory	Yes
Flexibility	Provide apartment layouts which can accommodate the changing use of rooms	Satisfactory	Yes
Ground floor apartments	Optimise the number of ground floor apartments with separate entries. Ensure ground floor apartments have access to private open space.	Direct access to ground floor apartments is not provided but is acceptable. All ground floor units have access to private open space.	Satisfactory
Internal Circulation	Maximum of 8 units to be accessible from a double loaded corridor.	Complies	Yes
Storage	To provide adequate storage for every day household items within easy access of the apartment 1br : 6cub.m 2br :8cub.m 3br:10cub.m	Complies	Yes
Daylight Access	Min 70% of units receive min 3 hrs of solar access Max 10% units southerly aspect	> 70% receive direct solar access No single south aspect	Yes Yes
Natural Ventilation	60% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. 25% of kitchens should have access to natural ventilation.	Complies	Yes
Waste Management	Supply Waste Management Plan in conjunction with the DA. Locate storage areas for rubbish away from front of development.	A Waste Management Plan has been submitted Garbage room in the basement	Yes

GREATER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 2 – GEORGES RIVER CATCHMENT

The site is within the area affected by the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. The proposal, including the disposal of stormwater, is required to be consistent with Council’s requirements for the disposal of stormwater in the catchment. The proposed drainage system is satisfactory and the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no applicable draft environmental planning instruments for this application.

Other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The Regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601 - 2001 will apply to the demolition of any buildings affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.7 DRAINAGE AND ON SITE DETENTION (OSD) REQUIREMENTS

Council’s Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development has assessed the stormwater and overland flow aspects of the development and advised it is generally satisfactory with the exception of a conflict between the Overland Flow Study and the entrance levels to the development.

This can be overcome with conditions of consent should the application be approved.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the application which is acceptable. If approved, standard conditions are recommended requiring appropriate waste management during construction and as part of the on-going use of the development.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.11 PRESERVATION OF TREES AND MANAGEMENT

Preservation of trees has been discussed previously in this report. Generally, the proposed landscaping including tree retention, removal and replacement is considered acceptable.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.3 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDINGS

The extent to which the proposed development complies with Section 4.3 Multiple Dwellings and Residential Flat Buildings is detailed and discussed in the table below.

Section 4.3	Standard	Proposal	Complies
Minimum Street Frontage	24m	SEPP (HSPD)	N/A
Residential density (Floor Space Ratio)	As per Hurstville LEP 2012 (0.6:1)	1.54:1	No
Landscaped Area	20%	22%	Yes
Maximum Building Height	As per Hurstville LEP 2012 (9m)	Building A: 12.2m Building B: 12.5m Building C: 6.1m	No
Storeys	2	4	No
Minimum Private Open Space Area	Ground floor level <3 bedrooms – 50sqm Min dimension – 3m	SEPP (HSPD)	N/A
Minimum Principal Private Open Space Area	Ground floor level Must not be located forward of the building line < 3 bedrooms – 4m x 4m 1:20 (max)	SEPP (HSPD)	N/A
Minimum Principal Private Open Space Area	Upper levels 12sqm Min dimension – 2.5m	SEPP (HSPD)	N/A
Landscape Plan	Landscape Plan to be submitted with the DA	A landscape plan prepared by Site Design and Studios was submitted with the application	Yes
Front Boundary Setbacks	Minimum 6m, balconies can project 1m	>6m	Yes
Secondary Frontage Setback	Minimum 6m balconies can project 1m	>6m	Yes
Rear Boundary Setbacks	Minimum 6m, balconies can project 1m.	3m	No
Minimum Side Boundary Setbacks	Building Envelope 1.5m/45 degrees	All levels breach the building envelope along both the eastern and western elevations	No
Balcony Projection	Must not project beyond the outer face of the building to any side boundaries	Complies	Yes
Maximum excavation of natural ground level	500mm	Up to 2.3m excavation for ground floor level	No
Driveways, access lanes and car parking	If street frontage is 20m or less – Must not occupy more than 40% of the frontage >20m – Must not occupy more than 33%	8%	Yes
Garages and car ports	Garages must not visually dominate the street facade	As the car parking is located within a basement garage it is not readily visible from the street and the driveway entrance does not appear visually dominant	Yes
Basement parking	Basement cannot extend more than 1m above natural ground level	Less than 1m above ground level	Yes
Visual Privacy	Habitable windows within 9m to be offset 1m or screened	Complies	Yes
Solar Design & Energy Efficiency	3hrs of sunlight upon the open space areas of adjacent dwellings between 9am-3pm on 21 June	Complies	Yes
Fences at the front boundary	Fences facing the street – Max 1m in height	Satisfactory	Yes
Site Services	Site must be serviced by standard utilities	Standard utilities are available to the site	Yes
Storage	6 cubic metres per dwelling	Satisfactory	Yes
Stormwater Drainage	Management of stormwater in accordance with the DCP	See table below in relation to stormwater drainage	Yes

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Gravity to street
Proposed Stormwater System	Gravity to street
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	Consistent
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	No
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	Yes
Discharge into same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No

As can be seen from the above table, the site does not conform to requirements of Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide. In isolation, minor variations to the relevant development controls may be acceptable, however overall the number of variations proposed are evidence that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. The application is recommended for refusal on this basis.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

As discussed throughout this report, six (6) trees are proposed to be removed from the site and replacement planting is proposed. A significant number of large trees are proposed to be retained particularly along the front boundary of the site.

The development is not considered to result in any unreasonable impacts on the natural environment.

Built Environment

Although the height of the building has been reduced, the height and FSR of the development still substantially exceeds the provisions of SEPP (HSPD) and also what is normally permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. Even though the site is at the edge of the zone and there is an argument for a development that provides a transition to the adjoining light industrial land, given that the proposal is still higher than that permitted in the IN2 Light Industrial Zone it is considered excessive.

The bulk and scale of the development at four (4) storeys would be imposing and does not reflect the existing or desired future character of the area. The proposed seniors housing in its current form is considered an overdevelopment of the site that is incongruous with the streetscape and as such, would negatively impact on the built environment.

Social Impact

The applicant has provided a report titled “Seniors Living Needs Assessment” prepared by GHD Consultants identifying the need for seniors housing in the Hurstville LGA. The proposed development would provide much needed seniors housing in the LGA and as such, would have a positive social impact.

Economic Impact

The proposed development would not result in any significant economic impacts.

Suitability of the Site

The subject site is considered to be suitable for development for housing for seniors and people with a disability and has no apparent constraints which preclude it from being developed for this purpose. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and not consistent with the intended scale of development anticipated by the relevant controls. In this regard, the site is not suitable for the development as proposed.

5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

The development application was advertised and forty four (44) adjoining residents were notified in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide. One (1) submission was received. The amended plans were not renotified as the reduced height is of a lesser environmental impact and the concerns raised in the original submission have not been addressed. The issues raised in the original submission are outlined below.

Overshadowing

Concerns have been raised that the development would overshadow the adjoining properties.

Comment: Due to the orientation of the site and its surroundings, only the adjoining light industrial development to the east would be affected by overshadowing. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the adjoining property would be unaffected until mid-afternoon, mid-winter. This is considered acceptable.

Easement and Stormwater

Concerns have been raised that the development is proposed to be constructed over an existing drainage easement which would cause flooding.

Comment: The application has been assessed by Council’s Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development as discussed below. The development is not proposed to be constructed over a drainage easement and subject to conditions requiring the development be constructed in accordance with the submitted Overland Flow Study, the management of stormwater is satisfactory.

Conflict with adjoining Light Industrial Area

Concerns have been raised that the residents of the proposed development will be affected by noise, dust and odours arising from the adjoining industrial area.

Comment: As discussed earlier in this report, the applicant has submitted an Acoustic Report provided by SLR Consulting that provides recommendations for construction levels to mitigate any noise impacts. Even though a report has been submitted to demonstrate that the required noise levels can be met within the development, there are still concerns that the private open spaces will be affect by noise from the adjoining industrial area.

As the adjoining industrial area is a light industrial area, it is not considered that noise and dust emissions would likely be of such significance that they would unreasonably impact on the future residents. Further, any incidences of such disturbance would be subject to investigation by Council’s Environmental Health team and would be considered in the context of the relevant legislation.

Future Classification of Industrial Area

Concerns have been raised that the heavy industrial area may be reclassified in the future due to impacts on the adjoining residential.

Comment: Firstly it is noted that the adjoining industrial zone is for light industrial uses only and heavy industrial uses are strictly prohibited. Council currently has no proposals to rezone the industrial area for alternative uses.

Council Referrals

The development application was referred to the following Council’s Officers for their comments. Their comments are provided below.

Senior Traffic Engineer

No objections were raised by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer regarding the proposal.

Manager Environmental Sustainability

The Flora and Fauna Report prepared by Eco Logical Australia was assessed as part of the previous application and no objections were raised subject to conditions adopting its recommendations.

Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development

Councils Acting Team Leader Subdivision and Development is generally satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable subject to conditions. A discrepancy has been identified between the entry levels indicated on the submitted plans and those recommended in the Overland Flow Study. This could be overcome by conditions requiring compliance with the study.

Public Interest

The planning controls contained within SEPP (HSPD), Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 provide the community with a level of certainty as to the scale and intensity of future development and the form and character of development that is in keeping with the desired future character envisaged for the locality.

The height and floor space ratio of the proposed development still significantly exceeds that provided by the controls with no reasonable justification for the variation. The proposed development is inconsistent with the existing built form in the area and fails to recognise the surrounding context.

Given the above, the proposal is considered contrary to the public interest.

6. CONCLUSION

Consent is sought for demolition of the existing building and the construction of a two (2) - four (4) storey seniors housing development at 64 Stanley Street, Peakhurst.

The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning instruments and Development Control Plans.

Following the application being deferred at Council, further legal advice was sought in relation to the permissibility of the development given its siting from the nearest bus stop. The legal advice received advised the application can be considered.

Following this advice, the variation to Clause 26 of SEPP (HSPD) relating to location and access to services and facilities has been assessed in accordance with Clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is found to be acceptable.

Amended plans were also submitted by the applicant with a reduction in overall height. However it is still noted that Buildings A and B are four (4) storeys high and the maximum building height controls contained in SEPP (HSPD) and also Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 are still substantially exceeded. The FSR of the development remains unchanged and also exceeds the controls within SEPP (HSPD) and Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The departures from the height and FSR controls have been considered throughout this report and cannot be supported. The development is excessive in bulk and scale and provides no transition between the R2 Low Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial Zones. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is not complementary to the character of the area.

The original application was notified and advertised in accordance with Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide and one (1) submission was received. The amended plans were not renotified as they are of a lesser environmental impact. The concerns raised in the original submission are discussed earlier in this report.

The application is still recommended for refusal.

DETERMINATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council refuse development consent to Development Application DA2014/1127 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a seniors housing development comprising 41 dwellings in 3 residential flat buildings of 2-4 storeys and basement parking on Lot 1 DP5154, known as 64 Stanley Street, Peakhurst, for the following reasons:

1. REF1001 - Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004.

2. REF1001 - Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in terms of the following:

· Objectives of the Zone

· Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

· Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

· Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

3. REF1001 - Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development. In particular, the development is inconsistent with the following Design Principles:

· Principle 1 – Context

· Principle 2 - Scale

· Principle 3 - Built Form

· Principle 4 – Density

· Principle 6 - Landscape

· Principle 7 – Amenity

Additionally, the proposal is inconsistent with the associated Residential Flat Design Code.

4. REF1001 - Refusal Reason - Environmental Planning Instrument - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land as insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the site is suitable for the development.

5. REF1003 - Refusal Reason - Development Control Plan - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with the Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide.

6. REF1006 - Refusal Reason - Impacts on the Environment - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the built environment.

7. REF1007 - Refusal Reason - Suitability of Site - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not suitable for the proposed development.

8. REF1008 - Refusal Reason - Public interest - Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not in the public interest.

For a video of 64 Stanley Street, Peakhurst, please click here.

APPENDICES

Appendix View1	Location Map - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst
Appendix View2	Site Photo 1 - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst
Appendix View3	Site Photo 2 - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst
Appendix View4	Amended Site and Roof Plan - 64 Stanley Street Peakhurst
Appendix View5	Amended Elevations - 64 Stanley Street Peakhurst
Appendix View6	Amended Photomontage - 64 Stanley Street Peakhurst
Appendix View7	Amended Shadow Diagrams - 64 Stanley Street Peakhurst
Appendix View8	Landscape Plan - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst
Appendix View9	Clause 4 - 6 - Variation Statement - Height - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst
Appendix View10	Company Extract - Applicant - 64 Stanley St Peakhurst (Confidential)

Hurstville City Council – Council Meeting Wednesday, 20 April 2016

CCL130-16 30 Cooloongatta Rd Beverly Hills - Demoltion and Construction of Child Care Centre for 38 children

Applicant	Robinson-Moeskops Architects
Proposal	Demolition of existing stuctures and construction of child care centre accomodating thirty eight (38) children
Owners	Mr D and Mrs L Hanna
Report Author/s	Development Assessment Officer, Mr M Raymundo
File	DA2015/0244
Previous Reports Referenced	No
Disclosure of Political Donations or Gifts	No
Zoning	Zone R2 - Low Density Residential
Existing Development	Dwelling House
Cost of Development	$450,000.00
Reason for Referral to Council	Two (2) variations to DCP1 and one (1) submission received
Planning Instruments Applicable	Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land, Development Control Plan No 1 - LGA Wide
Hurstville Local Environment Plan Interpretation of Use	Child Care Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The proposal seeks demolition of existing structures and construction of child care centre accommodating thirty eight (38) children on land known as 30 Cooloongatta Road, Beverly Hills.

2. The application has been assessed in accordance with the relevant planning controls and seeks a variation to minimum indoor space in the Development Control Plan, however this complies with the minimum area under the industry requirements is also proposed. A variation to the child age groupings is also proposed. The proposed variations are considered to reasonable and are supported on planning merit.

3. The application was notified/advertised to twenty one (21) adjoining owners/occupiers. In response, one (1) submission was received. The amended plans were not renotified as this did not generate a greater material impact that the original proposal.

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in the report.

REPORT DETAIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks demolition of existing and construction of child care centre accommodating thirty eight (38) children on land known as 30 Cooloongatta Road, Beverly Hills.

Details of the proposed child care centre are as follows:-

Built form: Single storey child care centre with three (3) indoor playrooms and associated ancillary service and office rooms, two (2) rear play areas.

Car parking: Six (6) car spaces, including one (1) accessible space;

Number of children: Thirty eight (38) child care places comprising of, eight (8) x 0-2 year olds, ten (10) x 2-3 year olds and twenty (20) x 3-6 year olds;

Hours of operation: 7am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday. Closed on Sunday;

Number of staff: Six (6) staff on site;

Demolition of existing dwelling and associated structures;

Separate entrance and exit driveway;

1.2m high front fence;

Removal of three (3) trees, retention of one (1) tree within rear setback and retention of one (1) tree within Council reserve.

HISTORY

14 Jul 15 Application lodged

24 Jul – 7 Aug 15 Notification period

1 Sep 15 Stop the Clock Letter – Flood Study

11 Nov 15 Flood Study provided and amended plans (increase floor level 800mm, minor changes to car parking layout to provided appropriate floor level)

10 Feb 16 Stop the Clock Letter – Additional justification for shortfall in 0-2 year old child care spaces

25 Feb 16 Additional planning justification provided

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Lot 346 in DP 13496 and is known as 30 Coolongatta Road, Beverly Hills. The site forms an irregular shaped allotment with a 21.52m eastern frontage to Cooloongatta Road, 42m along the northern side boundary, 21.7m along the rear western boundary, 31.93m along the southern side boundary with a total site area of 776.5sqm. The site is considered to generally slope from rear to front with an average fall of about 500mm.

A single storey detached building is centrally located on site, with a garage located within the rear setback. Four (4) trees are located within the rear setback.

The surrounding area comprises of single and two (2) storey dwellings of varying architectural styles and designs. One (1) small tree is located centrally within the Council reserve in front of the site. The site adjoins a turfed drainage reserve to the north.

COMPLIANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The development has been inspected and assessed under the relevant Section 79C(1) "Matters for Consideration" of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Environmental Planning Instruments

HURSTVILLE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

Clause	Standard	Proposal	Complies
1.2 – Aims of the Plan	In accordance with Clause 1.2 (2)	Consistent with the aims of the plan	Yes
1.4 - Definitions	“Child Care Centre”	The proposed development is defined as a child care centre	Yes
2.3 - Zone objectives and Land Use Table	Meets objectives of R2 Zone Development must be permissible with consent	Meets objectives and is a permissible development with consent	Yes
2.7 - Demolition	Demolition is permissible with consent	Demolition supported, standard conditions of consent applied	Yes
4.3 – Height of Buildings	9m as identified on Height of Buildings Map	5.92m	Yes
4.4 – Floor Space Ratio	Site =776.5sqm 0.6:1 as identified on Floor Space Ratio Map	Proposed GFA = 225.18sqm FSR = 0.29:1	Yes
4.5 – Calculation of floor space ratio and site area	FSR and site area calculated in accordance with Cl.4.5	Calculated In accordance with Cl. 4.5	Yes
5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation	Trees to be removed are specified in DCP1	Removal three (3) small trees within rear setback, retention of one (1) tree within rear setback and retention of one (1) tree within Council reserve. This is subject to one (1) tree replacement planting.	Yes
6.7 – Essential Services	The following services that are essential for the development shall be available or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required: Supply of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation Suitable vehicular access	Adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage are available to this land The proposed development can drain to the street. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection, subject to conditions of consent Suitable vehicular access to Cooloongatta Road at front of site to service proposed use	Yes

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy	Complies
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land	Yes

2. Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable to this application.

Any other matters prescribed by the Regulations

The regulations prescribe the following matters for consideration for development in the Hurstville Council area:

Demolition

Safety standards for demolition and compliance with AS 2601-2001 apply to the demolition of any building affected by the proposal.

3. Development Control Plans

The provisions of Development Control Plan No 1 apply to the proposed development with the relevant sections as follows.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.1 CAR PARKING

Section 3.1

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.1.2.1 (table) – Child care centres

1 space per 2 staff (6 staff) = 3 spaces

Separate entry and exit (1 space per 15 children) = 3 spaces

Total required = 6 spaces

3 staff spaces

3 spaces

Total provided = 6 spaces

Yes

As can be seen from the table above, the proposal complies with Section 3.1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.3 ACCESS AND MOBILITY

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Section 3.3 as follows.

Section 3.3	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
Access requirements	Access for all persons through the principal entrance and access to appropriate sanitary facilities in accordance with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards	Access provided to all areas of the child care centre and sanitary facilities provided	Yes
Accessible car spaces	1 space per 20 spaces or part thereof = 1 accessible car space required	1 accessible space is provided	Yes

Although the floor level of the building is proposed to be raised 800mm due to overland flow, disabled access is still provided to the entrance of the centre, throughout the centre and to the outdoor play area.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.4 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

The extent to which the proposal complies with the requirements of Section 3.4 of Development Control Plan No 1 is outlined in the table below.

Section 3.4	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
Fencing	Allows natural surveillance to street	Fencing proposed is appropriate and provides appropriate surveillance around the site and to the street	Yes
Blind Corners	To be avoided	No blind corners evident	Yes
Communal Areas	Provide opportunities for natural surveillance	Windows of front foyer and staff lounge provide natural surveillance to the street	Yes
Entrances	Clearly visible and not confusing	The entry to the child care centre is clearly defined	Yes
Site and Building Layout	- Provide surveillance opportunities - Building addresses street - Offset windows	Surveillance opportunities provided, building addresses street and windows are appropriately offset	Yes
Lighting	- Diffused/movement sensitive lighting provided externally - Access/egress points illuminated - No light spill towards neighbours - Hiding places illuminated - Lighting is energy efficient	Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved	Yes
Landscaping	- Avoid dense medium height shrubs - Allow spacing for low growing dense vegetation - Low ground cover or high canopy trees around car parks and pathways	Landscape plan shows deep soil planting to boundaries of site to provide screen planting. Planting to external play areas consistent with requirements for child care centres.	Yes
Building Identification	- Clearly numbered buildings - Entrances numbered - Unit numbers provided at entry	Can be conditioned to satisfy these requirements, should the application be approved	Yes
Security	Provide an appropriate level of security	Sufficient level of security provided	Yes
Ownership	Use of fencing, landscaping, colour and finishes to imply ownership	Landscaping, fencing and driveways	Yes

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The requirements of this subsection have been adequately satisfied.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.7 DRAINAGE AND ON-SITE DETENTION (OSD) REQUIREMENTS

The proposed development can drain to the street and is consistent with the requirements of Section 3.7. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection to the application in terms of drainage and overland flow, subject to conditions of consent being attached to any consent granted.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.8 FENCES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC ROADS

The proposed development includes a 1.2m high fence along Cooloongatta Road. In this regard the proposed fencing is appropriate and consistent with the provisions of Development Control Plan No 1.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT

The proposed development was assessed against the waste management requirements of Development Control Plan No 1 and complies. The Waste Management Plan submitted with the application is consistent with the objectives and requirements of Section 3.9.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 3.11 PRESERVATION OF TREES AND VEGETATION

Previously addressed within report.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE – SECTION 4.12 BUILDING HEIGHT AND INDICATIVE STOREYS

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential and the proposal adopts a single storey built form satisfies the indicative storey considerations within this subsection which refers to two (2) storeys.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION 5.4 CHILD CARE CENTRES

The proposed development complies with the requirements of section 5.4 as follows.

Locational Criteria	Requirements	Proposal	Complies
5.4.5.1 (Table) – General Preferences	Close to community focal points	Beverly Hills Train station and shops	Yes
	Site to be greater than 500sqm in area	776.5sqm	Yes
	Min. frontage of 20m where a combined entry and exit is provided	21.52m	Yes
5.4.5.1 (Table) – Proximity to Undesirable or Hazardous Features	Site must be at least 300m away from telecommunications towers, large over-head power wires, any other inappropriate area.	Appropriate	Yes
	Approval will not be given to sites which are less than 55m from an LPG above ground gas tank or tanker unloading position	None within 55m	Yes
	Analysis of existing and/or potential site contamination	None evident	Yes
	Approval will not be given to sites located within cul-de-sacs or closed roads	Through street	Yes
	Child Care Centres are not to be located on bushfire or flood prone land, or located adjoining drug clinics or other inappropriate land uses Proposals must be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Statement provided by a qualified consultant	Not bushfire, not identified as flood prone or adjacent to any inappropriate land uses Yes	Yes
5.4.6 – Cumulative Impacts from Centres within Residential Areas	Child Care Centre not to be located on land adjoining any other Child Care Centre	Not near or adjacent to another Child Care Centre	Yes
	Only 1 Child Care Centre to be located on each street block	Yes	Yes

Child Care Centre	Requirements	Proposal	Complies
5.4.1 (a) - Minimum Site Area	500sqm	776.5sqm	Yes
5.4.1 (b)(i) - Minimum Street Frontage	20m where a combined entry and exit is required	21.52m (separate entry and exit driveway)	Yes
5.4.1 (c) - Location on State Road	Not permitted	Not located on State road	Yes
5.4.8 - Maximum number of children	40 within the R2 - Low Density Residential. Council will consider variation to the controls where the site is located adjacent to a retail/commercial area or other non-residential zone	38 children	Yes
5.4.8 - Age groupings	Minimum number of places within the 0-2 year age group is to be the same as the % of 0-2 year olds in the under 5 years population at most recent census (which is 35% from the 2011 census) = 13 required	Proposed = 8 (21%)	No (1) however acceptable refer to discussion
5.4.9.1 - Height	1 storey for R2 zone	1 storey built form	Yes
5.4.9.6 - Colour scheme	No bright colours on building finishes	Subdued colour palette for external finishes which fits into streetscape	Yes
5.4.9.2 - Front setback Side setback Rear setback	5.5m to primary frontage Ground floor: 0.9m for R2 3m	7.8m 0.9m 6.8m	Yes Yes Yes
5.4.9.3 - Relationships to adjoining properties	Play areas – indoor and outdoor Windows and doors (particularly those associated with indoor play areas) Verandahs Point of entry Pick-up and drop-off points Any plant equipment which may be required within the context of the centre Openings such as windows and doors should not correspond with existing opening on adjoining properties	Provided Appropriate screening and treatment Verandahs provided off each playroom Central point of entry Appropriate location Provided Appropriately offset and treated.	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5.4.9.4 - Solar design	Minimum 3 hours sunlight between 9am-3pm for adjoining private open space, habitable rooms and solar collectors	Compliant	Yes
5.4.10.1 (a) - Staff parking Parent parking	1 space per 2 staff = 6 spaces (on-site staff parking spaces are to be clearly marked and sign posted) 1 space per 15 children = 3 spaces Total = 6 required	3 3 6	Yes Yes Yes
5.4.10.1 - Bike racks	Provision to be made for 4 racks	Provided on site	Yes
5.4.10.1 – Access and Parking	A “Neighbourhood Parking Policy” and a “Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Risk Assessment Report” must be submitted for Council’s consideration Physical demarcation is required to be provided between pedestrians and vehicular access ways to ensure pedestrian safety	The submitted traffic report was referred and reviewed by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer, who raised no objection to the proposal Demarcation provided	Yes Yes
5.4.10.2 – Traffic Consideration	Impacts on traffic and safety Consideration on traffic impacts during peak hours 7.30 - 9am and 3.30 - 6pm	Traffic report submitted No unreasonable impact	Yes
5.4.10.3 (a) - Landscape strip	1m wide along front setback	More than 1m wide	Yes
5.4.10.3 (c) - Disabled Access	Maximum Grade 1:14	Compliant	Yes
5.4.11.1 – Landscaping	Screen planting is to be provided along the side boundaries	Deep soil planting provided along perimeter of the site	Yes
5.4.11.3 – Drainage	Play areas must be capable of rapid clearance of surface water	Drainage appropriate – supported by Council’s Development Engineer	Yes
5.4.12.1 - Indoor space	Area for administration, private consulting room and respite of staff 3.5sqm unencumbered space per child (38 children proposed) = 133sqm Legislative standard 3.25sqm per child	Office, reception/ entry foyer and staff lounge provided Proposed: 124.2sqm	Yes No -however compliant with industry standard
5.4.12.2 (a) - Outdoor play space	7sqm per child required (38 children proposed) = 266sqm Verandah in outdoor play area shall have a min. 2m width A lawn space at least 15m long should be incorporated Outdoor play areas must be readily supervisable and designed to allow for a wide range of effective outdoor play activities Open area = 1/3 to 1/2 of the total playground area Quiet area = 1/4 to 1/3 of the total playground area Active area = 1/3 of the total playground area	Proposed: 266sqm (including verandah area) Compliant width dimensions Lawn space more than 15m in length External play areas are appropriately landscaped. Deep soil planting provided on perimeter of site. In accordance with requirement As above As above	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5.4.12.2 (i) - Shading	2.5sqm per child (162.5sqm) of outdoor play space to be shaded between 10am – 3pm	Appropriate shading provided	Yes
5.4.12.3 – Verandahs	1.25sqm per child (sqm) 2.5m in width, however a width of 2m will be considered as a minimum	Appropriate verandah provided	Yes
5.4.12.2 (j) – Sandpits	Sandpits should be: - min. depth of 600mm - adequately drained - totally shaded - appropriately covered - so that sand can be swept back into the pit - designed to remove all trip hazards	Sand areas provided to external play areas which are subject to the relevant requirements	Yes
5.4.12.4 – Signage	Signage to complement the streetscape and not be intrusive	No signage proposed	Yes
5.4.12.5 – Entry and Security	Legible entry points/office to be located within the view of the main entry Playgrounds must be fenced/gated or opening device within a playground fence is to be fitted with a childproof latch or self-locking device	Office located adjoining entry Appropriate fencing is proposed	Yes Yes
5.4.13.1 (a) - Children’s toilets and hand basins	1 per 8 children and one adult toilet with step (6 toilets)	6 toilets	Yes
5.4.13.1 (a) - Staff toilets	1 per 6 staff = 1 toilet also accessible	1 provided	Yes
5.4.13.1 (a) - Disabled toilet	1 to be provided as above	1 provided	Yes
5.4.13.1 (d) - Staff shower	If greater than 30 children 1 shower required	Shower provided	Yes
5.4.13.1 (e) - Bathroom size	Min. 12sqm with 2.5sqm for each additional toilet required above 3 toilets	Complies	Yes
5.4.13.2 (a)-(c) - Staffroom	12sqm minimum + 2sqm per staff over 6 staff = 12sqm Outdoor staff facilities should be provided	8.5sqm – conditioned to comply at 12sqm Not shown but can be provided	Yes Yes
5.4.13.2 (d)-(e) - Office	Required	Provided	Yes
5.4.13.3 - Cot Rooms	1 cot for every 2 children under 2 years = 4 required Maximum 5 cots per room	Provided – 4 cots Maximum 4 cots	Yes Yes
5.4.13.4 - Nappy Change Area	Separate change room	Complies	Yes
5.4.13.5 - Storage	8sqm for 1 playroom, and up to 16sqm where storage is shared between playrooms	Storerooms provided to each playroom of minimum 8sqm	Yes
5.4.13.6 - Laundry	10sqm	Conditioned to 10sqm	Yes
5.4.13.7 - Garbage	Minimum 3m x 1m	Complies	Yes
5.4.13.8 - Craft	1 sink separate from food preparation area	Can be provided as part Construction Certificate	Yes
5.4.13.9 - Food preparation facilities	Separate designated area from nappy change facilities	Complies	Yes
5.4.14.1 – Visual Privacy	Provide screenings by trees, fencing and window coverings to minimise noise and overlooking impacts Locate any playground equipment at least 3m from any boundary with a residential property	Appropriate screen planting provided to perimeter of site, play areas located away from adjoining residential developments	Yes
5.4.14.2 – Acoustic Amenity	Acoustic assessment report by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted	Supported by Council’s Environmental Health Officer	Yes
5.4.14.3 - Fencing	At least 1200mm high	Proposed fencing is appropriate as previously discussed within report	Yes
5.4.13.13 – Hours of operation	New Child Care Centres with >18m frontage and separate vehicular access points: 7.00am – 6.30pm	Hours of operation proposed: 7.00am – 6.30pm Monday to Saturday. Closed on Sunday.	Yes

Stormwater Assessment
Existing Stormwater System	Unknown
Proposed Stormwater System	Gravity to street
Stormwater objectives for development type met?	Consistent
Slope to rear (measured centreline of site)	No
Gravity to street (from property boundary to street kerb)?	Yes
Discharge into same catchment?	Yes
Easement required?	No
OSD Required?	Yes

(1) Child age groupings

Council’s controls require a minimum of 35% for 0-2 year olds of the child care centre to be provided. This equates to thirteen (13) spaces, the proposal results in variation to this by providing eight (8) spaces totalling 21%. This is a shortfall of 14% or five (5) spaces. The applicant’s planner has provided the following justification for Council’s consideration as per below:

“As you may be aware, the Department of Education and Communities has in recent years moved away from issuing licences for specific numbers of children within narrowed age groups. Rather they now issue “floating licences” which effectively allow for a broader age range (whilst still capping numbers within these). The reason for this is to allow more flexibility for an owner to meet demand, and in fact the demographics of an area, which is the very purpose of the control. The wider brackets mean that a child can transition through the centre from 0-5 years without meeting the issue of there not being a place in the next age bracket at each birthday and a child needing to exit the centre until a place becomes available. In our view, the approach better enables a centre to respond to demographics of an area which may change in the 5 year period within which a child attends the same centre.

In the current case, our client intends to apply for a floating license from DECs that will comprise 18 x 0-3 year old children and 20 x 3-5 year old children. Potentially this will allow for 47% of children in the 0-2 category, far exceeding the minimum 35%, but it is more likely that there will be 2-3 year olds within that bracket which will mean that any one time there we be a spread that may be slightly higher or lower than the 35%. This approach to age brackets is common across almost all child care centres and avoids the need to apply under Section 96 of the EP&A Act, 1979 every time the brackets slightly change (where narrower age brackets are implemented in a consent). From a planning point of view, the approach is logical and is in the interests of the community and the operator being able to meet parent needs.

In our view, the only issue that remains is whether the car parking demand will differ depending on the age make-ups. Whilst there may be some fluctuation in staff requirements depending on the skew of younger to older children, it is our view that these fluctuations will be relatively minor, so as to not result in a perceptible difference in demand for parking over the life of the centre. As indicated in the application, it is the intent of the operator to provide in the order of 8 x 0-2 places at the outset. The parking assessment has been based on this likely scenario. When including the 2 spaces on street within the frontage of the site, there is in fact an excess of 2 spaces beyond the controls, should the indicative age breakdown be applied. In our view, this additional 2 spaces would cater for the overall requirement even in the scenario of additional staff being required, which we are instructed would never exceed just 1 additional staff member.

Based on the foregoing, it is our view that the proposal;

‐ Meets the objectives of Part 5.4.8 in allowing the demographics of the LGA to met on an ongoing basis rather than at a specific point in time (being the time at which the consent is granted);

‐ Represents typical practice, accepted by DECs to not overly narrow age brackets, and to allow for flexibility in the form of a floating licence approach;

‐ Provides adequate car parking, even based on a scenario where an additional staff member is required on site, due to the fact that 2 spaces (beyond the minimum requirement of 6) are provided on street in the curtilage of the site”

The above justification is considered to be reasonable, given that the proposal seeks to provide child care spaces within the locality. In addition, the proposed variation is supported on the following basis;

· Clause 79C(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that;

“Development control plans - If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards - is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and

(b) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards - is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development.”

In relation to this clause, whilst the proposal does not strictly comply with the numerical requirement, the proposed variation is considered to result in a reasonable outcome for the following reasons;

· Whilst the proposal provides a shortfall of five (5) x 0-2 year old spaces, the proposal allocates these five (5) spaces to the 2-6 year old category. This is considered to be in the public interest by providing additional child care spaces.

· Of the thirty eight (38) child care space provided, the proposal provides a mixture of age groups including 0-2 x eight (8) spaces (21%), 2-3 year olds x ten (10) spaces (26.3%) and 3-6 year olds x twenty (20) spaces (52.6%) which is considered to be reasonable in providing a range of age groups. In addition, it is noted that each age group increases in number to assist in catering for movement of children from lower to higher age groups. The strict application of 35% of 0-2 year olds would logically require a similar proportion to the 2 year old and 3-6 year old age groups however this would result in less flexibility and availability of child care spaces within the locality likely limiting opportunities for new enrolments.

· The number of child care spaces provided within the 0-2 year old age group is generally commensurate and similar to that of other child care centres within the Sydney metropolitan area.

· The amendment in the reduction of children numbers to comply with the prescribed control may not necessarily result in improved amenity. This may also result in impacting the proposed existing internal and external layout which is considered to work well and is functional.

· The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable car parking impacts.

For the above reasons, the proposed variation is considered to be reasonable and worthy of support.

4. Impacts

Natural Environment

The proposal is unlikely to result in any unreasonable impacts to the natural environment.

Built Environment

The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the built environment.

Social Impact

It is considered that the proposed child care centre will provide a service that is in demand in the Hurstville LGA and benefit the community. The applicant has submitted traffic and acoustic reports which support the proposal subject to specific recommendations being adopted in the development. The issues raised within the submission to the application are detailed in the report.

Economic Impact

The proposal will provide employment opportunities within the area which will in turn encourage economic growth. The proposed child care centre will provide an in-demand facility to the area and as such the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the local economy.

Suitability of the Site

The subject site has no impediments that preclude it being developed for a child care centre. The proposed development is considered suitable for the subject site for the reasons contained within the report.

5. REFERRALS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Resident

The application was notified/advertised to twenty one (21) adjoining owners/occupiers. In response, one (1) submission was received. The amended plans were not renotified as this did not generate a greater material impact that the original proposal. The issues raised in the submission are summarised and discussed as follows;

Concerns regarding use as a commercial enterprise in a residential zone

Comment: Child care centres form a permissible use within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone within the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. For the reasons contained within this report, the proposed use is considered to be reasonable and adequately satisfies the underlying intent of the zone objectives.

Car parking and traffic impacts

Comment: The proposal has provided compliant car parking on site. No car parking and traffic issues were raised by Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer.

Noise impacts

Comment: The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable noise impacts given the use and hours of operation sought. The hours of operation sought comply with Council’s controls.

Council Referrals

Environmental Health Officer

Council’s Environmental Health Officer supports the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer has supported the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

Senior Traffic Engineer

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer raises no concerns with the proposal.

Public Interest

The proposal is considered to be in the public interest as this results in an appropriate use of the site which reasonably satisfies the underlying objectives of the controls without and significant material impact.

6. CONCLUSION

The application is considered to be worthy of approval for the reasons contained within this report. The proposal forms a child care centre which is considered to be commensurate of that other child care centres approved within the locality. Regarding child care requirements, the proposal is conditioned to satisfy all legislative and industry requirements. Therefore the proposal is considered worthy of approval.

DETERMINATION

THAT pursuant to Section 80(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development consent to Development Application DA2015/0244 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new single storey child care centre for thirty eight (38) children on Lot 346 in DP13496 and known as 30 Cooloongatta Road, Beverly Hills, subject to the following:

Schedule A – Site Specific Conditions

GENERAL CONDITIONS

Reference No.	Date	Description	Revision	Prepared by
DA2015 Sheets 1, 2,3,4	May 2016	Architecturals	B	Robinson Moeskops
Sheet 1-4	2 July 2015	Landscape Plan		Tessa Rose
TH299-01F02	23 June 2015	Noise Assessment Report	R3	Renzi Tonin and Associates
2015/157	18^th June 2015	Traffic Report	A	McLaren Traffic Engineering
-	-	Waste Management Plan	-	-
DA15 008 C	July 2015	Colour Scheme	C	Robinson Moeskops

Payments must be made prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or prior to the commencement of work (if there is no associated Construction Certificate).

(a) Fees to be paid:

Fee types, bonds and contributions

Fee Type

Long Service Levy (to Long Service Corporation)

Builders Damage Deposit

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

The following fees apply where you appoint Council as your Principal Certifying Authority (PCA). (If you appoint a private PCA, separate fees will apply)

PCA Services Fee	$1,475.00
Construction Certificate Application Fee	$1,475.00
Construction Certificate Imaging Fee	$138.00

4. GEN1015 - Damage Deposit - Minor Works - In order to insure against damage to Council property the following is required:

(a) Payment to Council of a damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council property as a result of the development: $1,500.00.

(b) Payment to Council of a non refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs where required: $140.00.

(e) Payments pursuant to this condition are required to be made to Council before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

5. GEN1017 - General Condition - Child Care Centre Use - The proposal must adequately satisfy all legislative and industry requirements relating to the Child Care use.

SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

6. APR6001 - Engineering - Section 138 Roads Act and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993

Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

(b) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

(d) Swinging or hoisting goods over any part of a public road by means of a lift, crane or the like;

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

(f) Pumping water from the site into the public road;

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

(i) Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (e.g. Opening the road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

(j) Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve; and

(k) Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land

(l) If any excavation is to be supported by the use of below ground (cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways.

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the approval provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

The relevant Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Hurstville City Council’s website at: www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au

For further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on (02)9330 6222.

7. APR6004 - Engineering - Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council, in the case of local or regional roads, or from the Roads and Maritime Services, in the case of State roads, for every opening of a public road reserve to access services including sewer, stormwater drains, water mains, gas mains, and telecommunications before the commencement of work in the road.

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

8. GOV1006 - Sydney Water - Trade Waste Agreements - A Trade Waste Agreement with Sydney Water may be required. Details of any work required to comply with the agreement must be detailed on the plans lodged with the Construction Certificate. If no trade waste agreement or grease trap is required, a letter from Sydney Water to this effect must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

9. GOV1008 - Sydney Water - Section 73 Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Plumbing, Building and Developing section of Sydney Water’s website to locate a Water Servicing Coordinator in your area. Visit: www.sydneywater.com.au

A "Notice of Requirements" will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, as it can take some time to build water/sewer pipes and this may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The “Notice of Requirements” must be submitted prior to the commencement of work.

10. GOV1009 - Sydney Water - Section 73 Compliance Certificate - A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation/Subdivision or Strata Certificate.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

11. CC3009 - Development Engineering - Submitted Flood Study - The development shall be designed to conform to the recommendations and conclusions of the submitted flood study prepared by Development Engineering Solutions and dated 9 November 2015.

This shall include, but not be limited to, any recommendations for the following:

(a) Minimum floor levels

(b) Fencing

(d) Overland flow path construction

(e) The structural ability of the building to withstand all hydro-dynamics and hydrostatic, including debris impact loads arising from the 100 year and PMF storm event.

Evidence from an appropriately qualified person that all design requirements have been adhered to shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application

12. CC4019 - Health - Food Premises - Plans and Specifications - Details of the construction and fit out of food premises must be submitted to Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The plans and specifications must demonstrate compliance with the:

· Food Act 2003 (as amended);

· Food Regulation 2010 (as amended);

· Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia;

· New Zealand and Australian Standard AS4674:2004 Design, Construction and fit out of food premises (as amended);

· Sydney Water - trade Waste Section.

Council’s Environmental Health Officers’ must advise in writing that the plans and specification are considered satisfactory prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

13. CC4022 - Health - Food Premises - Waste Facility - Details of the construction and fit out of the waste facility of the food premises must be submitted to Council’s Environmental Health Officers for approval. Such details must demonstrate compliance with the Food Act 2003 (as amended), Food Regulation 2010 (as amended), the Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674:2004 Design, construction and fit out of food premises (as amended.) and must be:

(a) provided with a hose tap connected to the water supply;

(b) paved with impervious floor materials;

(d) graded and drained to a waste disposal system in accordance with the requirements of the relevant regulatory authority (Sydney Water);

(e) adequately ventilated (mechanically or naturally) so that odour emissions do not cause offensive odour as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;

(f) fitted with appropriate interventions to meet fire safety standards in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

Council’s Environmental Health Officers’ must advise in writing that the plans and specification are considered satisfactory prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

14. CC4024 - Health - A hand wash basin must be provided within the kitchen and supply of hot and cold water through a single spout. A supply of liquid soap and single use towels is to be provided to the hand wash basin

15. CC7007 - Building - Engineer’s Certificate - A certificate from a practicing qualified Structural Engineer certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure, to support all proposed additional superimposed loads shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

16. CC7008 - Building - Access for Persons with a Disability - Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities must be provided to the premises/building in accordance with the requirements of the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia, and AS 1428.1. Details must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application:

(a) Access and Egress provisions in accordance with Part D of the BCA

(b) Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities that complies with the Premises Standards, BCA and AS 1428.1.

(c) Protection of window and other openings that stand less than 3 metres from the boundary or fire source feature - Part C

(d) Energy efficiency report demonstrating compliance with the BCA

(e) Mechanical ventilation of the kitchen exhaust system

(f) Fire services and equipment including portable fire extinguishers, emergency lights, exit signs, smoke hazard management and warning systems, etc. - Part E.

(g) Provision of light and ventilation AND sanitary facilities - Part F

In this regard, detailed construction plans and specifications that demonstrate compliance with the above requirements of the BCA must be submitted to the PCA (Council or otherwise) with the Construction Certificate Application. In the event that full compliance with the BCA cannot be achieved and the services of a fire engineer are obtained to determine an alternative method of compliance with the BCA, such report must be submitted to and endorsed by Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate application.

17. CC8007 - Waste - Waste Storage Containers - Child Care Centre - All waste and recycling containers shall be stored in an approved waste storage area, located in an area of the site that is satisfactory for these purposes. Facilities are to be provided in accordance with any requirements of the NSW Department of Community Services.

Details of the Waste Storage Area must be illustrated on the plans submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

18. CC2003 - Development Assessment - Construction Site Management Plan - Major Development - A Site Management Plan must be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate, and must include the following measures:

· location of protective site fencing;

· location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

· location of building materials for construction, e.g. stockpiles

· provisions for public safety;

· dust control measures;

· method used to provide site access location and materials used;

· details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

· method used to provide protective measures for tree preservation;

· provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

· location and size of waste containers/skip bins;

· details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

· method used to provide construction noise and vibration management;

· construction traffic management details.

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any works including demolition and excavation. The site management measures are to be maintained throughout the works, to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity. A copy of the Site Management Plan must be retained on site and is to be made available upon request.

19. CC2001 - Development Assessment - Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Erosion and sediment controls must be provided to ensure: