Development Application STATEMENT OF … · Proposal: Demolition of ... SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement and ... The site is not located within a heritage conservation area and

NUPD Pty Ltd | Nino Urban Planning + Development |

Development Application

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellings and structures, consolidation of two lots into one site and the construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising one ground floor

commercial tenancy, 20 apartments, two level basement car park, associated landscaping and Strata subdivision

Site: 247-249 Homebush Road Strathfield South NSW 2136

Submitted to: Strathfield Council

Prepared by:

www.nupd.com.au

(02) 8033 1458 or 0411 299 865

[email protected]

Studio 1/88 Liverpool Road Summer Hill NSW 2130

April 2016

Project no. 0704

0704 – 247-249 Homebush Road Strathfield South 2

CONTENTS PAGE

1. Introduction 3

2. Site Description and Context 5

3. Proposed Development 10

4. Strategic Context 24

5. Planning Assessment 28

5.3.1 Strathfield LEP 2012 30

5.3.2 Strathfield DCP 2005 37

5.4.1 SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 47

5.4.2 Senior Living Policy 53

5.4.3 SEPP (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) 65 55

6. Section 79C Consideration 57

7. Recommendation and Conclusion 60

APPENDIX A – Clause 4.6 Exception, Height of Building 61

APPENDIX B – SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide 69

APPENDIX C – Legal Advice 85

APPENDIX D – Council Pre-DA Advice 86

Revision Status

Revision Date Status Written Approved

0704 – Rev 3 Rev 2 Rev 1

26.04.16 18.04.16 05.04.16

Final Draft Draft

W.N W.N W.N

Wil Nino MPIA MUDIA B Planning (UNSW) M Construction Project Management (UNSW) Director

Note: This document is preliminary unless it is signed by the Director of Nino Urban Planning + Development

Disclaimer: The information contained within this document is protected by Copyright Law. Other than for the purposes it was produced and subject to conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may, in any form nor by any means (electronic, photocopy or otherwise), be reproduced, stored or transmitted without prior written permission of the author, being NUPD Pty Ltd. This document contains confidential material that is intended solely for the client commissioning NUPD Pty Ltd to prepare this report. The client, project team and all regulatory authorities shall exercise precautionary measures to ensure that the information contained herein is not to be accessed by any third party.


1. INTRODUCTION

Nino Urban Planning + Development have been engaged to prepare this Statement of Environmental Effects report to accompany a Development Application to Strathfield Council for the following development at 247-249 Homebush Road Strathfield South.

Demolition of existing dwellings and structures, consolidation of two lots into one site and the construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising one ground floor commercial tenancy, 20 apartments, two level basement car park, associated landscaping and strata subdivision.

The following consultants have been involved in the preparation of the Development Application documentation:

Statement of Environmental Effects report prepared by Nino Urban Planning + Development

Architectural Plans, Shadow Diagrams, SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement and Photomontages prepared by Kennedy Associates Architects.

Survey plan prepared by Benchmark Surveys.

Access Report prepared by Accessible Building Solutions.

Hydraulic Engineer Plans prepared by S & G Consultants.

Traffic and Parking Report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning.

Landscape Plan prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects.

QS Certificate prepared by MMDCC.

BASIX Certificate prepared by Thermal Certificates.

BCA Report prepared by BCA Consulting.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Redgum Horticultural.

Stormwater Report prepared by SGC Engineering Value.

The proposal will deliver an architecturally designed mixed use development that is consistent with the provisions under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the Strathfield DCP 2005. The proposal is submitted as ‘infill affordable housing’ under Division 1 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. Therefore, the application relies upon the provisions of Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 which includes the FSR incentive as part of the provision of eight affordable dwellings. The applicant has procured legal advice to support the position that the provisions under Division 1 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 are applicable to a mixed use development. This is consistent with the findings of Justice Sheahan in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 126 and Commissioner Pearson in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1253. Reference should be made to the legal advice under separate cover. Consideration has been given to the desired future character of the area and the planning shift towards medium density development within the locality. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the desired future character and is of a built form that would be reasonably contemplated for the site given the shift toward mixed use developments in the immediate area. The site is zoned ‘B4 Mixed Use’ under the Strathfield LEP 2012. The proposal is permissible with consent in the zone. The site is not located within a heritage conservation area and is not within the vicinity of any heritage items. The application complies with the statutory FSR standard under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. The proposal results in a variation to the height of building standard and a Clause 4.6 Exception is provided at Appendix A.


The application relies upon the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 and which stipulates a minimum lot size of 450 sqm. Therefore, a Clause 4.6 in relation to minimum lot size is not required. In preparing this Development Application, a Pre-DA has been undertaken with Council staff. The application responds to the advice provided by Council. This report addresses the nature of the proposed development and the characteristics of the site and surrounding areas. It provides an assessment under the relevant Council and State Planning Instruments and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including Part 1, Section 5 and Part 4, Section 79C. The proposal has taken into consideration the requirements of Council’s LEP, DCP, relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, SEPP 2009 and SEPP 65. The cost of works of the development is $5,684,645. The proposal is assessed under the following Planning Legislation:

Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Relevant Strathfield Development Control Plan/s.

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

SEPP (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) 65.

Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies/Instruments.

Reference is also made to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment 2012 which introduced Section 79C(3A) and Section 74(C)(5) to clarify the role of Development Control Plan’s (DCP’s) in terms of statutory planning assessment. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the area and is considered to be compliant with the objectives of Council and State Planning Instruments. This outcome is consistent with State Strategic objectives and Council’s Strategic Policies, including:

State Plan 2021.

Sydney Metropolitan Strategy – A Plan for Growing Sydney.

Accordingly, the proposal is submitted to Strathfield Council for approval.


2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT 2.1 Site Description The subject site is known as 247-249 Homebush Road Strathfield South and comprises two lots of land, being Lot 41 in DP 2043 and Lot 40 in DP 2043. The consolidated site is rectangular in shape and has a site area of 903 sqm, with a primary frontage of 24.38 metres to Homebush Road and a depth of 37.06 metres. The site has a slope topography of approximately 1 metre from its northern boundary to southern boundary (side to side). Each lot accommodates a single storey brick and rendered dwelling with front and rear landscaped yard, with each dwelling being in a moderate state. To the north, the site adjoins a vacant car park lot that services the adjoining Crossway Hotel located at the corner of Homebush Road and Liverpool Road. The site faces east and is on the periphery of the Strathfield South local shops area which is formed at the intersection of Liverpool Road and Homebush Road. This intersection is undergoing renewal and redevelopment, as evidenced in the redevelopment of the Spanish Inn site for a mixed use development of up to 8 storeys. The surrounding context includes freestanding dwellings and some residential flat buildings, however, the area is undergoing a transition towards medium density residential, as evidenced in the approval of recent residential flat buildings along Homebush Road and Liverpool Road. The site is zoned ‘B4 Mixed Use’ under the Strathfield Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. The site is not identified as a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. There are no known planning affectations. The highest and best use of the site would be in the form of a mixed use development or residential flat building, which is consistent with the B4 Mixed Use land use. Site photos and an aerial photo is provided below and overleaf.

Image 1: Subject site (Source: NSW Dept Lands)

Subject site

Homebush Road

Hume Highway


Image 2: Photo of subject site (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)

Image 3: Site survey (Source: Sydney Registered Surveyors)


Image 4: Site analysis plan (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 5: Public Car Park at 245 Homebush Road (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)

Image 6: Adjoining properties at 251 and 253 Homebush Road (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)


2.2 Context

The site is located approximately 14.5km west of the Sydney CBD within a mixed used area and approximately 3km from Strathfield station. The area is undergoing a shift towards medium density residential development as demonstrated by the recent approvals in the immediate vicinity. Liverpool Road (also known as the Hume Highway) is a four (4) lane classified road. The site is located in proximity to the signalised intersection of Liverpool Road and Homebush Road, and prohibits a right turn into Homebush Road from the west. Further along Liverpool Road, there are a variety of varying land uses, such as residential flat buildings, mixed use buildings and non-residential buildings. Liverpool Road is an arterial road that connects the south western suburbs of Sydney to the inner west. Liverpool Road provides access to bus services, providing the site with good access to surrounding suburbs and services. A context map is provided below.

Image 7: Context map of surrounding locality (Source: NSW Dept. Lands)

Image 8: Surrounding development (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)

Industrial lands

Liverpool Road

Centenary Drive

Homebush Road

The site

Strathfield Park

Henley Park

Cooks River


Image 9: Surrounding development (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)

Image 10: Surrounding development along Liverpool Road (Source: Nino Urban Planning + Development)


3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Description of Proposed Development A Development Application under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is submitted to Strathfield Council seeking approval for the following works at 247-249 Homebush Road Strathfield South:

Demolition of existing dwellings and structures, consolidation of two lots into one site and the construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising one ground floor commercial tenancy, 20 apartments, two level basement car park, associated landscaping and strata subdivision.

The proposed 20 apartments comprise the following mix:

5 x One bedroom apartments

13 x Two bedroom apartments

2 x Three bedroom apartments

The building is a mixed use development that responds to the B4 Mixed Use zone and the its context, given that the site is located on the periphery of the Strathfield South local shops area, which is a small commercial locality that is formed at the intersection of Liverpool Road and Homebush Road. In accordance with the legal advice attached at Appendix C, the applicant contends that the provisions under Division 1 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 are applicable to a mixed use development. The mixed use building is built to the front boundary to provide an active street frontage. This allows the ground floor commercial tenancy to define the public domain and private area, whilst providing for activation of the ground floor level. The residential lobby is accessed from Homebush Road and provides a clear sight line from the street edge. A setback is provided to the lobby entry creating an alcove style waiting area. This will provide a space for mail boxes, building entry and fire stair discharge. An elevator and fire stair provides access to each level within the development. A care-takes bathroom is provided on the ground floor level. The common open space area is directly accessible from the ground floor lobby. It faces north and shall receive substantial solar access in mid-winter. The common area is 232sqm and complies with the minimum 25% requirement under the Apartment Design Guide. The ground floor apartment is accessible from the lobby and each contain a compliant balcony area. The common open space incorporates a substantial deep soil zone of 148sqm. The building comprises 20 apartments, with three apartments and a commercial tenancy located on the ground floor, five apartments on level 1, 2 and 3 and two apartments on level 4. The provision of ground floor apartments is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zone in the form of a mixed use development. The apartments have good residential amenity and each apartment has a balcony space in addition to access to the communal area located on the ground floor and containing sitting spaces. Twenty nine car parking spaces are provided within the basement car park and each apartment has a storage area as notated on the plans. The proposed height and bulk delivers a well-designed streetscape presentation that has a good contextual fit with adjoining approved development.


The proposal has been designed to provide an attractive streetscape that will activate the Homebush Road streetscape via the ground floor commercial tenancy. The architect has combined three materials, face brick, metal cladding and painted render to define the building features and provide break in built form. Waste collection will be provided via a private contractor via the garbage truck bay located on basement level 1 directly opposite the main entrance ramp. The reliance upon private contractor collection is consistent with the findings of Commissioner O’Niell in Courallie Avenue Pty Limited v Strathfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1128. The proposal is a suitable response to the planning controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012, Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 and the Strathfield DCP 2015, and results in compliance with the requirements of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide. 3.2 Development Calculations The proposal results in the following calculations:

Site Area: 903 m2

Proposed Gross Floor Area: 1,852.8 m2

Permissible Floor Space Ratio: 1.65 Strathfield LEP + up to 0.5 ARH SEPP 2009

Proposed Floor Space Ratio: 2.05:1

Height: 17.70 metres to highest point (lift over-run)

Storeys: 5 storey

Communal Open Space: 232 m2 or 25.7%

Deep Soil Area: 148 m2 or 16.4%

Landscape Area: 284 m2 or 31.4%

Soft Landscaped Area: 198 m2 or 69.8%

Apartments: 20 apartments

Car parking: 29 car parking spaces (including 4 adaptable spaces)

Affordable apartments: 9 apartments

Affordable Gross Floor Area: 744.2 m2 (39% of the total floor area)

Adaptable apartments: 4 apartments

Solar Access: 85% apartments or 17/20 apartments

Cross-ventilated: 65% apartments or 13/20 apartments

Trees to be removed: 1 tree


Image 11: Perspective from Homebush Road (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)




Image 14: Basement Level 2 (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 15: Basement Level 1 (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 16: Ground floor plan (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 17: Level 1 Floor plan (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 18: Level 2 floor plan (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)




Image 21: Roof plan (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 22: East elevation (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 23: South elevation (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 24: North elevation (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 25: West elevation (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 26: Section A (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

Image 27: Section B (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Image 28: Section C (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

3.3 Pre-Development Application and Project History

A Pre-Development Application was lodged with Council in October 2015, with a meeting being held on 18 November 2015 and Pre-DA advice issued on 09 December 2015. A response to the Pre-DA notes is provided as follows:

- Background: The proposal is not combined with the adjoining allotments (251-253 Homebush Road). Consideration has been taken to the future anticipated form of the adjoining development and existing dwellings.

- Setbacks: The proposal includes a commercial tenancy on the ground floor, enabling the front setback to be reduced. The rear setback remains 6 metres. The side setbacks considered the proposed future footprint of the adjoining lots. Minimum side setbacks range between approximately 4 (south) and 8 (north) metres which is considered reasonable, given the orientation of the building and the width of the site.

- Stormwater: a stormwater plan has been submitted with the application. - Floor Space Ratio: The proposal is submitted as Infill Affordable Rental Housing and

complies with the FSR incentive, whereby 0.39:1 is being sought, providing a total FSR standard of 2.05:1. Legal advice is submitted which confirms that the ARH SEPP 2009 can be applied to a mixed use development.

- Height of the Building: The proposal seeks consent for a height variation. A Clause 4.6 Exception has been provided at Appendix A.

- Communal Open Space: A common area is provided on the ground floor that is 25.7% of the site area. The ADG prevails over the ARH SEPP in terms of apartment design. An arborist report has been submitted with the application.

- Unit Mix: The proposal complies with the pre DA minimum 10% of 3 bedroom units, and 15% minimum of adaptable units with an updated mix of 5 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom, and 2 x 3 bedroom with 4 units being adaptable.

- Parking: Car parking has been revised to 29 spaces within 2 basement levels. - Waste collection: A garbage room and a garbage truck bay have been provided in the

basement car park. - Additional Advice: An acoustic report has been submitted with the application. ADG is

addressed at appendix B.

The subject proposal is considered to be consistent with the Pre-DA advice provided by Council.


3.4 Common Area and Landscaping The proposal includes a ground floor common area that includes deep soil areas. In addition, each apartment has a private balcony.

Communal Open Space: 232 m2 or 25.7%

Deep Soil Area: 148 m2 or 16.4%

Landscape Area: 284 m2 or 31.4%

Soft Landscaped Area: 198 m2 or 69.8%

Reference should be made to the landscape plans prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects.

Image 29: Proposed landscape plan (Source: Conzept Landscape Architects)

3.5 Car Parking and basement The proposal provides a two level basement car park that is accessed from Homebush Road, providing a total of 29 car parking spaces and 8 bicycle spaces.

Residential: 23 spaces, including 4 adaptable.

Visitor: 3 spaces

Retail: 3 spaces

Bicycle: 8 spaces

In support, a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report has been prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, which concludes that the proposed development will not generate an adverse impact upon existing parking and traffic conditions in the area, and that the proposed parking is compliant. Reference should be made to the Parking and Traffic report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning


3.6 Materials The following materials are proposed to be used in the building:

Painted render: Dulux Duralloy powdercoating Colour: 'Anotec off-white'

Facebrick: PGH Bricks & Pavers: 'Livingstone Gold', dry-pressed face brick. Off-white mortar with ironed joints.

Metal cladding: Prepainted Colorbond Custom Orb 'Accent' metal sheet cladding. Vertical profile. Colour: 'Astro'

Concrete: Painted Concrete Colour: Dulux 'Basalt'

Window panelling: powdercoated aluminium frame. Colour: 'Anodic Natural Matt'

Framing: Trend windows, powdercoated aluminium frame. Colour: 'Anodic Natural Matt'

Metal roofing: Colorbond Custom Orb 'Accent' metal roof sheeting. Colour: 'Astro'

Glazed balustrade #1: Powdercoated handrail with obscure glazing. Colour: Dulux Duralloy 'Anotec off-white'

Glazed balustrade #2: Powdercoated handrail with obscure glazing. Colour: Dulux Duralloy 'Anotec off-white'

Vertical railing: powdercoated vertical metal handrail Colour: Dulux Duralloy 'Anotec off-white'

Handrail: Powdercoated handrail. Colour: Dulux Duralloy 'Anotec off-white'

Railing/privacy screen: Powdercoated horizontal metal handrail/1800mm privacy screen. Colour: Dulux Duralloy 'Anotec off-white'

Garage door: Powdercoated metal garage door. Colour: Dulux Duralloy Anotec off-white

Image 30: Proposed materials and finishes (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


4. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

4.1 NSW State Plan 2021 The State Plan – NSW 2021 was released in September 2011 to replace the 2006 State Plan as the Government’s key strategic business plan. NSW 2021 is a 10 year plan that is based around the following five strategies:

Rebuild the Economy;

Provide Quality Services;

Renovate Infrastructure;

Restore Government Accountability; and

Strengthen our local environment and communities.

The above five strategies provide a platform upon which 32 goals have been identified for the State. The key goals that are relevant to the subject proposal are:

Goal 5 – Place Downward Pressure on the Cost of Living Goal 20 – Build liveable Centres

Goal 5 outlines targets to improve housing affordability and availability. It is identified that NSW households spend the greatest proportion of their household budget on rent or housing repayments. As such, the following priority actions have been formulated to assist in reducing the costs of home ownership:

continue to set dwelling targets for local councils outlined in subregional strategies;

ensure that targets for housing and growth and the priorities within the subregional and regional plans are reflected in relevant proposals and in LEP’s;

prepare a Growth Management Strategy that will involve stakeholders and the property industry to ensure the rezoning, provision of infrastructure and release of land is timely and economically feasible;

increase the supply of land for housing; and

provide regular forecasts of future dwelling prediction.

Goal 20 outlines the Government’s commitment to implement planning policies that will encourage job growth in centres close to where people live and with good access to public transport. The main target of Goal 20 is to increase the percentage of the population living within 30 minutes by public transport of a city or major centre in metropolitan Sydney. The priority actions to achieve this target include:

Deliver a metropolitan strategic planning framework which details housing and employment growth targets and key planning principles to facilitate urban development;

Outline clear subregional local housing and employment targets; and

Deliver local land use controls that identify land use zoning and appropriate development outcomes to support the delivery of housing and employment targets.

As part of NSW 2021, regional action plans have been developed to address the priorities of each local community in NSW. Each plan includes:


the vision and future of the region;

issues and ideas raised by the community;

regional priorities;

links with existing regional government strategies and initiatives; and

delivery mechanisms.

The subject site is located within the Inner West Regional Action Plan which outlines the following vision for the area:

provide more efficient and reliable transport;

strengthen Sydney as an economic leader and competitive global city;

provide more affordable housing options;

build liveable and sustainable cities;

provide more support for vulnerable members of the community; and

improve community safety.

The site is capable of being redeveloped to provide employment generating development and additional housing opportunities. The proposal will align with the mix of existing residential development surrounding the site. The site is capable of accommodating a medium density development that will provide increased housing supply for the Strathfield market. It is considered that the subject site has the capacity to accommodate additional housing to allow people to live within an accessible environment, being close to work and services. This directly responds to Goal 20 of NSW 2021. The proposed development is consistent with the strategic objectives of NSW 2021. 4.2 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy - A Plan for Growing Sydney A Plan for Growing Sydney (Sydney Plan), formerly the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (Metro Plan), was released in 2014 and is the primary strategic planning document to guide land use decisions in Sydney for the next 20 years. The vision for the Sydney Plan is to increase the productivity of our businesses, the choice of housing we have, access to services and facilities, liveability of our communities and the quality of the built and natural environment. This vision is supported by four goals:

Goal 1. a competitive economy with world-class services and transport;

Goal 2. a city of housing choice with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles;

Goal 3. a great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected;

Goal 4. a sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environment and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources.

In order to achieve these goals, the Sydney Plan sets out the following planning principles:


Principle 1. Increasing housing choice around all centres through urban renewal in established areas.

Principle 2. Stronger economic development in strategic centres and transport gateways.

Principle 3. Connecting centres with a networked transport system.

The Sydney Plan builds upon the 2005 Metropolitan Strategy which focused on transforming Sydney from a single centred city to a more connected, multi-centred city with greater emphasis on regional cities. The vision of the Sydney Plan is to facilitate the growth of metropolitan Sydney to be a more compact, networked city with improved accessibility, capable of supporting more jobs, homes and lifestyle opportunities within the existing urban footprint. The Sydney Plan, developed to support the continuing economic growth of Sydney and enhance its standing as a global city, places the Strathfield LGA within the Central Subregion. The Sydney Plan is an integrated growth and transport Plan to guide Sydney for the next 20 years. The Sydney Plan projects Sydney’s population to grow by 1.6 million over the next 20 years equating to an increase in growth of approximately 40%. This will result in an increased demand for housing, with Sydney projected to need to provide 664,000 additional homes and accommodate 689,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. As such, the Sydney Plan has set the following priorities for the Central Subregion:

Priority 1. A competitive economy.

Priority 2. Accelerate housing supply, choice and affordability and build great places to live.

Priority 3. Protect the natural environment and promote its sustainability and resilience.

The Sydney Plan notes that ongoing planning with local councils and the community will be undertaken to guide the delivery of the Sydney Plan and address the vision and distribution for housing and employment growth in the subregion and at the local government area (LGA) level. The relevant direction for Goal 1 is to Grow Strategic Centres – providing jobs closer to home. The Sydney Plan sets the following directions under housing:

Direction 1. Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

Direction 2. Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs

Direction 3. Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles

Direction 4. Deliver timely and well planned greenfield precincts and housing

Directions 1, 2 and 3 are relevant to the proposal. As mentioned earlier in this report, the site is located within the Strathfield LGA which is in close proximity to major centres via public transport. The Sydney Plan considers the hierarchy of centres, employment/housing trends and travel patterns to identify existing and emerging multimodal transport corridors with long-term potential. These corridors offer the opportunity to unlock urban renewal potential in established areas and further increase the proportion of people living within close proximity to their workplaces. The proposed density will deliver a development that can respond to the increased population growth and market demand for dwellings. This will facilitate a suitable strategic outcome that is consistent with the strategic directions of the Sydney Plan.


The proposal is consistent with the key directions of the Sydney Plan, specifically through the provision of additional housing and employment opportunities. This will facilitate the delivery of additional housing supply and jobs to the Strathfield locality.

Image 31: Sydney Plan – Central Subregion (Source: A Plan for Growing Sydney)


5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1.1 Objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Consideration has been given to the relevant provisions of the EP&A Act, including the objects of the Act. The objects of the Act in section 5 are as follows:

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, (iv) the provision of land for public purposes, (v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and (vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native

animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and (viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and

(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The relevant objectives to the proposal are section 5(a) (i), (ii), (vii) and (viii). The proposal is considered to comply with these objectives through the suitable management and development of the site which promotes the social and economic welfare of the Strathfield locality and surrounding Strathfield LGA through the provision of a mixed use development that will provide additional housing opportunities for the locality. Further the proposal does not raise significant issues with regards to (a) (vi) of section 5 of the Act. 5.1.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2012 The NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure has introduced amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to clarify the role that Development Control Plan’s (DCP) play in terms of planning assessment. Specifically, the Amendment introduced additional requirements for consideration under Section 79C of the Act, being the insertion of section 79C(3A):

prevents the consent authority requiring more onerous standards than a DCP provides

requires the consent authority to be 'flexible' and allow 'reasonable alternative solutions' in applying DCP provisions with which a development application does not comply

limits the consent authority's consideration of the DCP to the development application (preventing consideration of previous or future applications of the DCP).

The Amendment was introduced by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure to remove ‘impediments to the supply of housing’ by clarifying the role of DCP’s. The subject proposal is consistent with this objective, through the delivery of additional housing within proximity to local services and public transport. Accordingly, consideration of Section 79C(3A) is provided in this report.


5.2 ESD Principles The Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1990 provides five accepted ESD principles:

(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations (the integration principle);

(b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation (the precautionary principle);

(c) the principle of inter-generational equity - that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations (the inter-generational principle);

(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making (the biodiversity principle); and

(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted (the valuation principle).

Consideration has been given to the above ESD principles:

Integration Principle – The application seeks consent for the redevelopment of the site, which shall assist in the ongoing renewal of the site and locality. The proposal seeks consent for a mixed use development, thus delivering new housing options. This assists in the social development of the area.

Precautionary Principle – The site is identified as being affected by Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. Each lot accommodates a dwelling house. Therefore, contamination is considered low. An assessment under SEPP 55 is provided within this report.

Inter-Generational Principle – The proposal will provide new housing opportunities for the Strathfield locality. The proposal is not considered to compromise the environment and therefore the existing environment will be protected for future generations and the development will have ongoing benefits for future generations.

Biodiversity Principle – The site does not contain any known threatened or vulnerable species, populations, communities or significant habitats. It is concluded that there is no threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage as a result of the proposal.

Valuation Principle – The proposal will provide employment opportunities through the construction of the development which will assist in the urban renewal and economic development of the locality. The proposal has been designed to minimise adverse impacts on the environment which will be demonstrated through a construction management plan and waste management plan.

Accordingly, the proposal meets the five ESD Principles.


5.3 Strathfield Council Planning Instruments and Policies The following Section assesses the proposal under the relevant Council instruments. 5.3.1 Strathfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 The Strathfield LEP 2012 was gazetted on 15 March 2013 and came into force on 29 March 2013. The Strathfield LEP 2012 repealed the former Strathfield Planning Scheme Ordinance 1969. The following maps apply to the site:

Image 32: Zoning map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Image 33: Floor Space Ratio map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Subject site

Subject site


Image 34: Building Height map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Image 35: Acid Sulfate Soils map (Source: Strathfield Council)

Subject site

Subject site


The following table demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with the Strathfield LEP 2012. Clauses which are not applicable to the proposal have not been included. Following the table, further assessment is undertaken where relevant.

Strathfield LEP 2012

Standard and Objectives Proposed Compliance

1.2 Aims of Plan

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under section 33A of the Act.

(2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(a) to achieve high quality urban form by ensuring that new development exhibits design excellence and reflects the existing or desired future character of particular localities and neighbourhoods in Strathfield,

(b) to promote the efficient and spatially appropriate use of land, the sustainable revitalisation of centres, the improved integration of transport and land use, and an appropriate mix of uses by regulating land use and development,

(c) to promote land uses that provide a wide range of employment, recreation, retail, cultural, service, educational and other facilities for the local community,

(d) to provide opportunities for economic growth that will enhance the local community,

(e) to promote future development that integrates land use and transport planning, encourages public transport use, and reduces the traffic and environmental impacts of private vehicle use,

(f) to identify and protect environmental and cultural heritage,

(g) to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities,

(h) to minimise risk to the community by identifying land subject to flooding and restricting incompatible development.

The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012.

The proposal will provide new housing opportunities within close proximity to existing services.

The proposal redevelops two individual lots into a mixed use development that is permissible in the zone. The proposal is a considered design response to the site constraints and opportunities.

The development will provide employment opportunities during the construction stage.

The site is not identified as a heritage item nor located within a heritage conservation area.

Accordingly, the proposal complies with the aims of the LEP.

Yes

Part 2 – Permitted or prohibited development

2.3 Zone Objectives and Land Use Table Zone B4 Mixed Use 1 Objectives of zone • To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use.

The proposal results in a mixed use development that delivers 20 apartments with a portion of the ground floor accommodating a commercial tenancy.

The proposal includes a mix of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom

Yes




transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. • To facilitate mixed use urban growth around railway stations and transport nodes and corridors, commercial centres and open space. • To provide local and regional employment and live and work opportunities. 2 Permitted without consent Home occupations 3 Permitted with consent Boarding houses; Child care centres; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Home industries; Hostels; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Medical centres; Multi dwelling housing; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Serviced apartments; Shop top housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

dwellings, providing a variety of housing choice for the community.

The proposed development is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use zone, and complies with the objectives of the zone.

2.6 Subdivision

The proposed seeks consent for strata subdivision of the development. Subdivision plans have been submitted with the application.

Yes

2.7 Demolition requires development consent The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent. Note. If the demolition of a building or work is identified in an applicable environmental planning instrument, such as this Plan or State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, as exempt development, the Act enables it to be carried out without development consent.

The proposed development seeks consent for the demolition of existing dwellings and its structures.

Yes

Part 4 - Principal development standards

4.1A Minimum Lot Sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings (1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones. Minimum lot size for a residential flat building in the B4 zone is 1000sqm

The subject site has a total site area of approximately 903 sqm. However, the proposal is defined as a mixed use development and not a residential flat building. The minimum lot size only applies to a residential flat building. Further, the application is submitted as infill affordable housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, which specifies a minimum site area of 450sqm, which the application complies with. In accordance with Clause 8 of the

N/A

Relies upon

ARH SEPP

2009




Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009, the SEPP prevails over the Strathfield LEP 2012. Therefore, there is no requirement for a Clause 4.6 Exception for minimum lot size, given the application relies upon the minimum site area control under the SEPP.

4.3 Height of buildings

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

(a) to ensure that development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area,

(b) to encourage a consolidation pattern that leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area,

(c) to achieve a diversity of small and large development options.

Height:

- 13 metres

The proposal is five storeys in height and results in a maximum building height of approximately 17.70 metres, which does not strictly comply with the building standard of 13 metres.

A Clause 4.6 Exception is submitted in support of the proposed height departure.

Refer to Appendix A.

Compliant

with the

objectives of

the standard,

however

departs from

the numerical

control

Refer to

Appendix A

4.3A Exceptions to height of buildings (Parramatta Road Corridor)

Despite clause 4.3, the height of a building on land in “Area 1” identified on the Height of Buildings Map that comprises a key site shown in Column 1 of the Table to this clause and is identified as a key site on the Key Sites Map is not to exceed the maximum height shown opposite in Column 2.

The site is not located within the Parramatta Road Corridor.

Not

applicable

4.4 Floor space ratio

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

(a) to ensure that dwellings are in keeping with the built form character of the local area,

(b) to provide consistency in the bulk and scale of new dwellings in residential areas,

(c) to minimise the impact of new development on the amenity of adjoining properties,

(d) to minimise the impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

(e) in relation to Strathfield Town Centre:

(i) to encourage consolidation and a sustainable integrated land use and transport development around key public transport infrastructure, and

(ii) to provide space for the strategic implementation of economic, social and cultural goals that create an active, lively and people-orientated development,

(f) in relation to Parramatta Road Corridor —to

The site has an FSR standard of 1.65:1. The ARH SEPP provides an FSR incentive of up to 0.5:1, under Clause 13(2)(a)(i) of the ARH SEPP. The proposal seeks to utilise a bonus of 0.40:1, whereby 40% of the total floor area shall be utilised for the purposes of affordable rental housing. This equates to 9 apartments. This enables a total FSR standard of 2.05:1 or a GFA of up to 1,852.8 sqm, which the proposal complies with. A breakdown calculation sheet has been submitted with the pre-DA application.

Yes

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+115+2013+pt.4-cl.4.3a+0+N?tocnav=y






encourage a sustainable consolidation pattern that optimises floor space capacity in the corridor.

Control:

- 1.65:1

4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratio (Parramatta Road Corridor) Despite clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of a building on land in “Area 1” identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map that comprises a key site shown in Column 1 of the Table to this clause and is identified as a key site on the Key Sites Map is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown opposite in Column 2.

The site is not located within the Parramatta Road Corridor.

Not applicable.

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.

The proposal results in a departure from the height control.

Accordingly, a Clause 4.6 exception is submitted.

Refer to Appendix A.

Refer to Appendix A

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

(1) The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

The application seeks consent for the removal of one tree on site. An arborist report has been submitted with the application.

Yes

5.9AA Trees or vegetation not prescribed by development control plan (1) This clause applies to any tree or other vegetation that is not of a species or kind prescribed for the purposes of clause 5.9 by a development control plan made by the Council. (2) The ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, removal, injuring or destruction of any tree or other vegetation to which this clause applies is permitted without development consent.

The application seeks consent for the removal of one tree on site. An arborist report has been submitted with the application.

Yes

Part 6 - Additional local provisions

6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.

Class 5

The site is contained within Class 5 Sulfate soils and therefore the proposal works are acceptable in relation to this clause.

Relevant testing will be undertaken as part of the Construction Certificate process.

Yes






6.2 Earthworks (1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The proposal involves the excavation of the site to create two basement level car park. Council can impose any relevant conditions of consent to regulate this matter during construction.

Yes

6.4 Essential Services (1) Development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required: (a) the supply of water, (b) the supply of electricity, (c) the disposal and management of sewage, (d) the disposal and recycling of waste, (e) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, (f) suitable vehicular access.

The site is currently serviced by water, electricity and associated services. The proposal will integrate relevant services into the development to provide essential services for all future occupants. In addition, suitable vehicle access and car parking is provided.

Yes


5.3.2 Strathfield Development Control Plan 2005 The Strathfield DCP 2005 has yet to be revised to incorporate the planning standards that were introduced under the Strathfield LEP 2012. Strathfield Council is in the process of preparing a new DCP to replace DCP 2005. In terms of design guidance, reliance has been given to the objectives and controls under SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The following table demonstrates the proposal’s compliance with Council’s Development Control Plan. Clauses which are not applicable to the proposal have not been included. Following the table, further assessment is undertaken where relevant.

Part C – Multiple-Unit Housing

Requirements Proposed Compliance

Part 1 - 1.2 Objectives of Part C

1. To maintain and improve the amenity and character of medium density residential areas in the Council area.

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use. The character of the area is an emerging medium density area. The proposal aligns with this character by providing a five storey mixed use development that is permissible and generally compliant with the planning controls under the LEP and DCP.

Yes

2. To ensure that new residential development is of a type, scale, height, bulk and character that is compatible with the particular streetscape characteristics of the area in which it is proposed.

The proposal is of an appropriate bulk and scale that will contribute positively to the character of the streetscape which includes a mix of development types including, single dwellings, residential flat buildings and non-residential buildings.

Architectural features have been incorporated to ensure that the building is well articulated and well presented to the street.

Yes

3. To promote residential development that is attractive, functional, innovative and is of a high quality.

As discussed previously in this report, the proposed mixed use development has been architecturally designed and encompasses high quality materials and finishes.

The proposed development has been architecturally designed and has taken into consideration the adjoining land uses and retain solar access and privacy to adjoining dwellings.

Yes

4. To maximise solar access and privacy to existing and proposed developments.

All units and communal areas shall receive adequate levels of solar access.

The submitted shadow diagrams illustrate that the proposal will retain a minimum 2 hours solar access to the private open space areas of the adjoining dwellings. The worst affected property is 251 Homebush Road. The shadow diagrams indicate that the backyard areas of 251 Homebush Road shall receive some sun in mid-winter from 12pm onwards. Furthermore, 251 Homebush Road is zoned

Yes




B4 Mixed Use and a Development Application has been submitted to Council for the redevelopment of the site into a 5 storeys development. Given the shift in land use, it is expected that some sun will be lost and this is reasonable as the area shifts towards medium density development.

5. To provide an acceptable acoustic environment for residents through appropriate design, layout and construction measures, which mitigate noise and vibration impacts from nearby road and rail transport activities.

The proposed development shall be constructed to comply with the relevant Australian Standards in relation to acoustic treatment. It is considered appropriate that this shall form part of a condition of consent.

Yes

6. To preserve existing mature vegetation and encourage the planting of native vegetation suitable for the area.

The proposal seeks to remove the existing vegetation on site and provide landscaping that will assist in maintaining amenity to adjoining properties.

Yes

7. To ensure that an adequate number of on-site car parking spaces are provided for residents and visitors.

29 car spaces have been provided. Car parking is reliant upon the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

Yes

8. To ensure that adequate provision is made for landscaped open space for the enjoyment of residents.

Landscaped open space has been provided on the ground floor.

Yes

9. To promote high quality landscaped areas which complement the overall development and which assist in maintaining existing streetscape quality.

The proposal will improve the existing streetscape quality by providing an architecturally designed building in lieu of dated dwelling and will deliver functional landscaped areas that will improve the streetscape.

Yes

10. To ensure that the heritage value of individual buildings and conservation areas is not compromised by new multiple-unit residential development.

The subject site is not identified as heritage item nor located within a heritage conservation area.

N/A

Part 2 – Site Planning and Design Provisions

2.1 – Site Analysis and Design Principles The submitted survey and architectural plans include site and surroundings details in accordance with Council’s requirements.

Yes

2.2 – Density, Bulk and Scale

Site requirements

Minimum allotment area is 1000sqm and

The subject site has a total area of 903sqm




30m in width.

Minimum frontage along arterial roads is 25m

and a frontage to Homebush Road of 24.38 metres.

The application relies upon the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009, which prescribes a minimum site area of 450 sqm.

The provisions of the SEPP prevail over the LEP and DCP. Therefore, the site is not required to amalgamate with any adjoining property.

Yes

Building Envelope

Building height and scale

1. Density sub-zones.

2. Maximum finished floor levels of ground floor units shall be 1200mm above natural ground level.

Front Setbacks

1. 9 metres or less.

Car parking structures shall be behind the front building alignment

2. Notwithstanding 1. above, setbacks may be less than 9m if it is the prevailing character of the streetscape

Building Envelope and Side and Rear Boundaries

1. Buildings shall be sited within a building envelope determined by a plane projected at an angle of 45 degrees over a site from a height of 3.5m above natural ground level along the side and rear boundaries of the land

2. Departures from the building envelope will be considered for characteristic design elements, such as chimneys, vents and eaves, and for other features such as dormer windows and aerials where it can be demonstrated that no significant non-compliances are likely to occur with the privacy and overshadowing provisions of this Plan.

The proposed height is 5 storeys. The provisions under the Strathfield DCP 2005 have not been updated to reflect the changes in the Strathfield LEP 2012. The proposal does not comply with the 13 metre building height standard and a clause 4.6 Exception is provided at Appendix A which concludes that the proposed height is acceptable.

Finished floor levels of ground floor units follow the topography of the site.

In accordance with the pre DA advice, a commercial tenancy is added to the proposal allowing a reduced front setback.

The proposal includes a basement car park located behind front building alignment.

The proposed building setbacks are consistent with the prevailing character of the streetscape.

The proposal seeks consent for a mixed use development, that is proportionally built to the front and side boundaries, whilst also provide setbacks.

The provisions under the Strathfield DCP 2005 have not been updated to reflect the changes in the Strathfield LEP 2012. The proposal results in a minor departure from the 13 metre height of building standard. A Clause 4.6 Exception is provided at Appendix A which concludes that the proposed height is acceptable.

Yes

Considered acceptable




3. Buildings should be sited to maintain or enhance the existing streetscape

4. Side and rear setbacks shall maintain a reasonably consistent relationship between buildings, allotment boundaries and adjacent development, limit potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties and allow adequate daylight, sunlight and ventilation to living areas and private open spaces of new and neighbouring dwellings.

(i) A minimum side setback of 4 metres each side shall be provided in all development. Minor encroachments to this minimum setback shall be considered on their merits for elements such as eaves, pergolas, electricity or gas meters, steps, ramps or the like.

(ii) Side and rear setbacks for buildings containing 2 or more storeys shall be determined by the building envelope, and the ability of the development to comply with Solar Access and Privacy requirements as set out in sections 2.3 and 2.6 of this Plan. Encroachments to the building envelope and setback controls will be considered on sites with frontage to a public place (including road or open space area), and will be determined on their merits.

(iii) Exceptions to the side and rear setback controls will also be considered for sites with frontage to a major noise source, such as an arterial road or the railway line. The extent and nature of variations will be determined on the merits of the case.

The proposed side and rear setbacks provide enable the redevelopment of adjacent lots.

Side setback:

Minimum side setbacks, range between 4 (south) and 8 metres (north) which do not strictly comply with the DCP, however, are considered reasonable, given the orientation of the building and the width of the site. The proposal is a mixed use development, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a nil setback shall be provided where appropriate to allow future development to be built to the boundary. Additionally, setbacks enable openings for ventilation and solar access and provides separation to future built form.

The proposed setbacks are considered reasonable, given the proposed footprint of the adjoining lots.

Rear setback:

6 metres.

As discussed above the building envelope control in the DCP has not been amended to reflect the changes introduced by the new planning controls under the Strathfield LEP 2005. Reliance has been given to the 13 metre height under the Strathfield LEP 2012. Notwithstanding, the setbacks are considered a suitable response to the DCP provisions.

2.3 – Dwelling Unit and Building Design

Building Design

1. Minimum 15% shall be adaptable

4. One main entry shall be provided for access to ground floor units.

5. Boundary walls shall be broken or staggered to avoid bulk and scale.

6. Access to common areas shall be unobstructed.

4 apartments are provided as adaptable.

One main entry has been provided into the building.

The boundary walls have been appropriately articulated and high quality materials and finishes have been incorporated to avoid bulk and scale.

Access to common areas are unobstructed.

Yes





7. Adequate and convenient seating and amenities for disabled shall be provided.

8. Disabled parking shall be provided

9. Design of building shall comply with BCA and AS1428 1 -2001 Design for Access and Mobility

10-13. Building materials, finishes and colours shall be sympathetic with streetscape.

There is opportunity for seating and amenities for the disabled.

4 disabled car spaces are provided.

The proposed development is capable of compliance with the BCA and AS1428. This shall form part of a condition of consent.

The proposed building materials, finishes and colours are of high quality and consistent with the character of the streetscape and aid in avoiding bulk and scale.

Unit Sizes and Layout

14. The minimum unit sizes are:

1 Bed = 70sqm

2 Bed = 85sqm

3 Bed = 100sqm

All apartments comply with the minimum unit sizes required under the ADG and Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. The provisions of the SEPP prevail over the LEP and DCP standards.

Yes

2.4 – Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation

2.4.1 Energy Efficiency

2.4.2 Solar Access

1. The site layout and design shall ensure

Reasonable solar access to the site

Protection of solar access to neighbouring properties

Maximise solar access

Adequate natural light to living areas

Orientate living rooms and bedrooms to the north

2. Maximise solar access to living areas and private open space

The main living areas and min.

A BASIX Certificate has been submitted to demonstrate compliance with Energy Efficiency requirements.

The proposed layout and design allows for high levels of solar access to the units and communal open space areas.

The main living areas and private open space areas shall achieve 2 hours solar access in mid-winter. This is considered appropriate for

Yes




50% of the principle private open space of each dwelling shall receive 3hours sunlight minimum between 9am and 3pm on June 22

Solar access to windows of habitable rooms and to majority of private open space of adjoining properties must be substantially maintained or achieve 3hours minimum between 9am and 3pm on June 22

3. Solar access to existing neighbouring solar collectors must be maintained or enhanced

4. Shadow diagrams shall be submitted

a medium density development and the proposed communal areas will receive unobstructed solar access during mid winter.

The proposal overshadows the adjoining dwellings at 251 Homebush Road, however, the property retains solar access between 1pm and 3pm. Furthermore, an application has recently been submitted for the redevelopment of 251 Homebush Road into a four storey built form. Given the increase in height and shift toward medium density development, it is reasonable to expect some shadowing.

The shadow impact is considered reasonable given the emerging medium density character of the area.

Shadow diagrams have been submitted with the Development Application.

2.4.3 – Natural Space Heating and Cooling

1-4.The use of artificial heating and cooling devices shall be minimised.

5. Single orientated apartments are discouraged.

The proposed development receives sufficient levels of solar access and natural ventilation to minimise the use of artificial heating and cooling devices.

65% of the apartments are cross ventilated.

Yes

2.4.4 – Natural Lighting

1. Residential units are to be designed so as to maximise natural lighting

The units have been orientated to maximise natural lighting to windows to habitable rooms and private open spaces.

Yes

2.4.5 – Building Materials

High quality building materials shall be incorporated into the construction of the development that will assist in achieving insulation and acceptable thermal conditions.

Yes

2.4.6 – Water Management

A rainwater tank and first flush system shall be provided in accordance with BASIX requirements.

Yes

2.4.7 – Energy Smart Appliances

Energy smart appliances shall be installed and it is anticipated that this can form part of a condition of consent.

Yes




2.5 – Streetscape and Building Orientation

1. New development shall be compatible with the predominant streetscape character and address the street frontage

2. New development shall reflect the style or main stylistic features of the predominant architecture style.

3. All building elements are to be integrated in design detailing.

4. Dwellings facing the street frontage shall have entries to the street.

5. Garages and parking structures shall not dominate the street frontage.

6. Development adjoining a major road shall take into consideration impacts of the noise source on the amenity of future residents.

Front Fences

1. Fences and gates are to be in keeping with the character of the streetscape and development

2. Fences forward of the building line shall not exceed 900mm

Side and Rear Fences

1. Side and rear fences shall be a maximum 1.8m in height

As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

The proposed mixed use development is architecturally designed and has incorporated quality materials and finishes to ensure that the development will contribute positively to the streetscape.

The façade has been well articulated and the building elements including the balconies have been integrated into the design of the building.

N/A

A basement car park has been provided and will not dominate the streetscape.

The proposed development shall be constructed to comply with the relevant Australian Standards in relation to acoustic treatment. It is considered appropriate that this shall form part of a condition of consent.

The gates will complement the design of the mixed use development and be in keeping with the character of the streetscape.

N/A

N/A

Yes

2.6 – Heritage and Conservation

The subject site is not identified as a heritage item nor located within a heritage conservation area.

N/A

2.7 – Open Space and Landscaping

1. 50% landscaped area shall be provided

The proposal results in the following

Yes




at ground level for residential units

(i) landscaped area does not include any area set aside for driveways, parking, side setback areas less than 1.2m in width, pools, outbuildings, and the like; and

(ii) at least 60 percent of the landscaped area must remain as unpaved or “soft” landscaping.

2. Minimum 35% of required landscape area shall be deep soil = 346.85sqm

3. Common open space: 198.2sqm

Residential Flat Developments

5. Dwellings without ground level open space shall provided a balcony with the following minimum private open space areas:

2 Bed = 12sqm

3 Bed or more = 15sqm

All balconies shall have a min. width and depth of 2m

General

10. A Landscape Concept Plan shall be submitted.

landscaping calculations:

31.4% or 284sqm of landscaped area

Deep Soil: 148sqm or 16.4% is deep soil.

Common open space:

232 m2 or 25.7%.

All private open space areas comply with the minimum requirements and dimensions under SEPP 65 and the ADG.

A landscape plan prepared by Conzept Landscape Architect has been submitted with the Development Application.

2.8 – Privacy and Security

1. Windows within 9m of an adjoining dwelling shall be offset to a distance of 0.5m min, have a 1.7m sill height or be obscure glazed.

2. Suitable screening shall be used to avoid direct overlooking

3. The acoustic privacy of all development shall be considered.

4 – 6. Appropriate security measures shall be implemented.

Windows have been appropriately sited to mitigate privacy impacts.

The active communal recreation areas and parking areas have been sited away from bedrooms to minimise the acoustic privacy of adjoining residents and future occupants. As discussed previously, landscaping has been proposed to the site boundaries where necessary, as a noise-shielding design.

External common areas including the pathways and entrances shall be provided with appropriate artificial lighting at low levels to provide safe access at night.

Yes




2.9 – Parking

1 Bed = 1 space

2 Bed = 1.5 spaces

3 Bed or more = 2 spaces

Visitor = 1 space for every 5 dwellings

Car wash bay = 1 space

Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided

5 x 1 Bed x 1 = 5 spaces

13 x 2 Bed x 1.5 = 19.5 spaces

2 x 3 Bed x 2 = 6 spaces

Visitor 20/5 = 4 spaces

Car Wash bay = 1 space

Total: 35.5 spaces required

Proposed: 29 spaces

The proposal relies upon the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 for car parking.

8 bicycle spaces are provided in the basement car park.

Acceptable, given application relies upon the provisions of the ARH SEPP 2009 for car parking.

2.10 – Site Facilities and Water Management

2.10.1 – Site Drainage and Water Management

2.10.2 – Garbage Facilities

2.10.3 – Electricity and Telecommunications Supply

2.10.4 – Letterboxes

2.10.5 – TV Antennas

2.10.6 – Clothes Drying Facilities

A Stormwater Management Plan been submitted with the Development Application.

A garbage room and a garbage truck bay have been provided in the basement car park.

The subject site has access to existing services.

Letterboxes have been sited adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to the building.

There is opportunity for a master TV antenna and/or satellite to be provided.

Proposed clothes dryers can be conditioned to achieve the minimum SEDA Greenhouse Score of 3.5 as specified in Council’s DCP.

Yes

2.11 –Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions is applicable to the proposed dwelling.

2.12 – Excavation of Sites The proposed basement car park encroaches within the building setbacks however, the basement will not protrude above ground level at the site boundaries and will not have any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Yes


Part H - Waste Minimisation and Management Plan


3.2 Construction of Buildings or Structures

Controls a) A Waste Management Plan (WMP) is required to accompany all Development Applications for construction in accordance with the guidelines below.

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with this application.

Yes

3.8 Mixed-Use Development

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) is required for all mixed-use development applications prepared in accordance with the guidelines below and the following:

a. Provision for onsite collection is required in accordance with Section 3.3 and Appendix E.

b. Waste management must comply with the objectives, controls and guidelines of the other sections of this Part, based on the types of development proposed (e.g. Clause 3.6 for Residential and Clause 3.7 for Commercial).

c. Separate waste storage rooms/areas must be provided for residential and non-residential uses.

d. Residential units shall be insulated from noise if adjacent to or above:

i) Waste and recycling storage facilities,

ii) Chute and compaction systems,

iii) Waste and recycling collection and vehicle access points.

e. Separate waste management systems must be designed so that they can effectively operate without conflict or adversely affecting amenity

f. The WMP should be prepared in accordance with the template contained in Appendix A of this Plan.

Appropriated garbage room and a garbage truck bay have been provided in the basement car park.

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with this application.

Waste collection will be provided via a private contractor via the garbage truck bay located on basement level 1 directly opposite the main entrance ramp. The reliance upon private contractor collection is consistent with the findings of Commissioner O’Niell in Courallie Avenue Pty Limited v Strathfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1128.

Yes


5.4 NSW State Planning Instruments The following State Environmental Planning Policies apply to the proposed development: 5.4.1 State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing

The proposal will be been submitted as in-fill development under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. Accordingly, the SEPP lists all relevant provisions that apply to such development and proposal is reliant upon the SEPP.

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009


3 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing, (b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards, (c) to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing, (d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing, (e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing, (f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work, (g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The proposed infill development is compliant with the objectives of the ARH SEPP.

The proposal shall facilitate the delivery of new affordable housing accommodation within an accessible locality and close to employment uses.

The proposal will replace a dwelling, with an architecturally designed infill development that will provide an improved setting for future occupants.

Yes

4 Interpretation—general

(1) In this Policy:

accessible area means land that is within:

(a) 800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or (b) 400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or (c) 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

The subject site is approximately 200 metres from a bus stop located on Liverpool Road. The bus stop is serviced by bus M90 which provides a bus service in accordance with the definition for an accessible area.

Therefore, the site is within an accessible area.

Yes

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1990%20AND%20no%3D39&nohits=y




8 Relationship with other environmental planning instruments If there is an inconsistency between this Policy and any other environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

The provisions of the ARH SEPP prevail over the provisions of the Strathfield LEP 2012, where there is an inconsistency.

This Clause is applicable to the minimum lot size/site area standard, where the SEPP prevails over the standard in the LEP.

Yes

Division 1 In-fill affordable housing

10 Development to which Division applies

(1) This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if: (a) the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument, and (b) the development is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument, or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977. (2) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within an accessible area. (3) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B2 Local Centre, or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

1. The proposal seeks consent for an infill development in the form of mixed use development. a. the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the Strathfield LEP 2012, and a mixed use development is permissible with consent. b. the site does not contain a heritage item. In support of this position, the applicant has procured legal advice that confirms that the provisions under Division 1 of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 are applicable to a mixed use development. This is consistent with the findings of Justice Sheahan in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 12 and Commissioner Pearson in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1253. 2. The site is located within an accessible area. The site is within 200 metres of a bus stop that provides one bus per hour between 6am to 9pm from Monday to Friday, and between 8am to 6pm on Saturday and Sunday.

Yes

13 Floor space ratios

(1) This clause applies to development to which this Division applies if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent. (2) The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum

The site has an FSR standard of 1.65:1 + up to 0.5:1 of the FSR standard as a bonus available under Clause 13(2)(a)(i) of the ARH SEPP, resulting in a total FSR of 2.05:1.

Yes

http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1977%20AND%20no%3D136&nohits=y





floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus: (a) if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less: (i) 0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or (ii) Y:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent, where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Y = AH ÷ 100

or (b) if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1: (i) 20 per cent of the existing maximum floor space ratio—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or (ii) Z per cent of the existing maximum floor space ratio—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent, where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Z = AH ÷ 2.5

0.40 additional floor area is requested, requiring 40% of the floor area to be utilised as affordable housing. This equates to 9 apartments. Therefore, the combined FSR standard is 2.05:1. The proposal seeks consent for a total floor area of 1,852.8 sqm or an FSR of 2.05:1. A condition shall be included requiring the retention of 40% of the total floor area as affordable rental housing. In this instance, 9 dwellings are proposed as affordable housing.

14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) Site and solar access requirements A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds: (a) (Repealed) (b) site area if the site area on which it is proposed to carry out the development is at least 450 square metres, (c) landscaped area if: (i) in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—at least 35 square metres of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or (ii) in any other case—at least 30 per cent of the site area is to be landscaped, (d) deep soil zones if, in relation to that part of the site area (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed: (i) there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the

1. b. The site has an area of 903 m2, which is greater 450 m2. As such, the proposal complies with the minimum site area standard. c. a landscape plan has been submitted with the application. The proposal includes 284sqm or 31.4% of the site as landscaped area. d. 148sqm or 16.4% of deep soil is provided. The minimum dimension of the deep soil zone is 6 metres.

Yes




growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15 per cent of the site area (the deep soil zone), and (ii) each area forming part of the deep soil zone has a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and (iii) if practicable, at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site area, (e) solar access if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. (2) General A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds: (a) parking if: (i) in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider for development on land in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, or (ii) in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, (b) dwelling size if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least: (i) 35 square metres in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or (ii) 50 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or (iii) 70 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or (iv) 95 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 3 or more bedrooms. (3) A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

e. The living rooms and private open space of at least 70% of the dwelling receive solar access in mid-winter. Specifically, a minimum of 85% of the total dwellings or 17/20 dwellings receive 2-3 hours of sun light in mid-winter. 2. a. The dwellings include 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom dwellings, as follows: - 1 bedroom x 5 x 0.5: 2.5 spaces - 2 bedroom x 13 x 1: 13 spaces - 3 bedroom x 2 x 1.5: 3 spaces Total required: 18.5 spaces. Proposed: 29 spaces b. Each dwelling complies with the minimum dwelling size under the ARH SEPP. The 1 bedroom apartments are a minimum of 60sqm, all 2 bedroom apartments are a minimum 76sqm and the 3 bedroom dwelling is greater than 105sqm. 3. This clause allows Council to consent to the proposed development whether or not the development complies with the standards in this clause.

15 Design requirements

(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill

An assessment under the provisions of Seniors Living Policy has been provided within this report.

Yes




Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004, to the extent that those provisions are consistent with this Policy. (2) This clause does not apply to development for the purposes of a residential flat building if State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development applies to the development.

16 Continued application of SEPP 65

Nothing in this Policy affects the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development to any development to which this Division applies.

An assessment under SEPP 65 has been provided at Appendix B.

Yes

16A Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

The proposal is considered to be compatible with the character of the local area. This is on the basis that the proposal is permissible with consent in the ‘B4 Mixed Use’ zone, and complies with the statutory provisions under the Strathfield LEP 2012 and the ARH SEPP. This is addressed further at Note 1.

Yes This is addressed further at Note 1

17 Must be used for affordable housing for 10 years

(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that: (a) for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate: (i) the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and (ii) all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and (b) a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply to development on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or to a development application made by, or on behalf of, a public authority.

The proposal seeks to provide 40% of the total floor area as affordable housing for a minimum of 10 years. 9 dwellings are proposed as affordable housing.

Yes

http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Depi%20AND%20Year%3D2002%20AND%20No%3D530&nohits=y











18 Subdivision

Land on which development has been carried out under this Division may be subdivided with the consent of the consent authority.

The application seeks consent for Strata subdivision.

Yes

Note 1 – Character of Local Area Clause 16A of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP requires a Consent Authority to consider if the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. In considering compatibility with the character of the area, reference is made to the Planning Principles of the Land & Environment Court. The Principles of Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2005) NSWLEC 19, establishes that for a development to be compatible with the local area it does not need to be the ‘same as other development, but rather being capable of existing in harmony with other development’ meaning, compatibility does not mean replication. The planning principles of Project Venture state that compatible development means being ‘capable of existing together in harmony’ and ‘that it is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance’. Former Senior Commissioner Roseth, establishes in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2005) NSWLEC 19 that the “most important contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping”. A streetscape elevation is provided below:

Image 36: Streetscape elevation (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)

The proposed development draws on this planning principle in developing a design that is compatible with the desired future character of the local area which is an emerging medium density mixed use and residential area. This is established by the reasonable approach to the height and setback controls, whilst balancing this with landscaping and built form. The site is


zoned B4 Mixed Use and a mixed use development is permissible with consent. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a mixed use development that is built to the street edge would be provided upon the site, given it provides an active use that is consistent with the zone. Additionally, the proposal complies with the combined FSR standard. Whilst there is a variation to the height standard, it is supported by a Clause 4.6 Exception. The area contains a variety of land uses, including dwellings and residential flat buildings, all of varying architectural styles that reflect the various stages of settlement and growth within the area. It is considered that the proposal is of a bulk, scale and height that would be reasonably expected by the applicable planning controls. The proposal satisfies the building height and setback requirements that are stated in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2005) NSWLEC 19, where it states the “most important contributor to urban character being the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping”. In relation to landscaping, the proposal generally complies with the applicable landscape and deep soil requirements. Therefore, the proposed landscaping is compatible. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed development adequately satisfies the principles in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2005) NSWLEC 19 and results in a development that is compatible with the character of the area. Accordingly, the proposed mixed use development is compatible with the character of the area and complies with Clause 16A of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.


5.4.2 Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 requires consideration of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development. Whilst the subject proposal is an infill development, it is not a seniors living development, and therefore some of the provisions of the Policy are not applicable to the proposal. Further, some of the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy are superseded by the provisions contained in the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009, which is an Environmental Planning Instrument and prevails over the Seniors Living Policy. Therefore, greater weight is applied to the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

Requirement Response

1. Responding to Context

Analysis of neighbourhood character - Street layout and hierarchy - Block and lots - Built environment - Trees Site Analysis

The proposed mixed use development is a permissible development within the B4 Mixed Use zone. Therefore, it is a land-use that would be reasonably contemplated for the subject site and contributes to the overall character of the area. The proposal is considered to have a good relationship with the street.

The proposal retains the existing street layout.

The proposal retains the rectilinear pattern of the lot.

The application is supported by a site analysis plan.

2. Site Planning and Design

Built Form

- Locate the bulk of development towards the front of the site to maximise the number of dwellings with a frontage to a public street.

- Parts of the development towards the rear of the site should be more modest in scale to limit the impacts on adjoining properties.

- Design and orient dwellings to respond to environmental conditions.

SEPP Controls

- Minimum site area : 1000sqm

- Minimum site width: 20 metres

The Seniors Living SEPP controls are not strictly applicable, as the proposed development is not a seniors living development and therefore, the controls under the ARH SEPP 2009 are applicable.

Notwithstanding, the proposal complies with the objectives outlined in this clause. The proposal does not impact on the neighbourhood character, but rather contributes to the character through a contemporary building that provides improved built form and visual interest. Further, each dwelling exhibits a high level of residential amenity.

The application complies with the minimum site area prescribed under the ARH SEPP 2009.

3. Impacts on streetscape

The design objectives are: - To minimise impacts on the existing streetscape and enhance its desirable characteristics. - To ensure that new development, including the built form, front and side setbacks, trees, planting and front fence, is designed and scaled appropriately in relation to the existing streetscape. - To minimise dominance of driveways and car park entries in the streetscape. - To provide a high level activation and passive surveillance to the street.

The proposed mixed use development has been designed to respond to the site and streetscape by providing a reasonable front and side setback that provides adequate areas for landscaping and planting. The proposal delivers a desirable streetscape presentation that will contribute to the character of the area.

The driveway has been recessed within the design of the development to reduce any visual dominance.

The new dwellings provide new opportunities for passive surveillance.


4. Impacts on neighbours

Objectives - To minimise impacts on the privacy and amenity of existing neighbouring dwellings - To minimise overshadowing of existing dwellings and private open space by new dwellings - To retain neighbours’ views and outlook to existing mature planting and tree canopy - To reduce the apparent bulk of development and its impact on neighbouring properties - To provide adequate building separation

The proposed mixed use development does not generate adverse impacts on adjoining dwellings.

The proposal does not impact on any existing views and vistas.

The proposal provides suitable side setbacks and separation.

5. Internal site amenity

Objectives - To provide quality useable private and communal open space for all residents - To provide dwellings that have distinct identity and safe entries - To provide safe and distinct pedestrian routes to all dwellings and communal facilities - To reduce the dominance of parking, garaging and vehicular circulation space on the internal character of new development

The proposed mixed use development exhibits a high level of residential amenity. Each dwelling has a private open space area and open plan living.


5.4.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (Amendment No 3) An amendment to SEPP No. 65 was gazetted on 19 June 2015, and came into force on 17 July 2015. The new SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide are applicable to the application. SEPP 65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential apartment development across the State, through policy direction and the application of nine design quality principles. The Residential Flat Design Code has been superseded by the Apartment Design Guide. The New SEPP 65 makes reference to parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide, to address the design principles. The Apartment Design Guide provides detail in Parts 3 and 4, through objectives, design criteria and design guidance for the sitting, design and amenity of residential apartment development. A Design Verification Statement prepared by Kennedy Associates Architects has been submitted. An assessment under the Apartment Design Guide is provided at Appendix B. 5.4.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land Under Clause 7 of SEPP 55, Council must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated. The provisions of SEPP 55 have been considered in the assessment of the development application. The likelihood of encountering contaminated soils on the subject site is considered to be extremely low given the following:

The site appears to have been continuously used for residential purposes;

The adjoining and adjacent properties are currently used for residential purposes;

The site and surrounding land were not previously zoned for purposes identified under Table 1 of the contaminated land-planning guide in SEPP 55, in particular industrial, agricultural or defence uses.

On this basis, the site is considered suitable in its present state for the proposed residential development, however further testing can be undertaken prior to a Construction Certificate. 5.4.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004 The proposal has adopted best practice energy and water conservation measures in terms of the installation of energy and water efficient fittings and equipment, the orientation of the dwellings to allow daylight penetration and the adoption of best practice energy conservation measures in terms of energy efficient lighting and other electrical fittings. A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the application which states that the proposal complies with the requirements of BASIX and has incorporated ecologically sustainable design features in the building. Accordingly, the proposal will adequately meet ESD principles. Reference should be made to the certificate for further details. The stipulated BASIX commitments can be adequately controlled via relevant conditions of consent.


5.4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 The proposed development includes vehicular entry to the basement car park from Homebush Road. A traffic report has been submitted with the development proposal under separate cover and concludes that the proposed development complies with the relevant Australian Standards for the car park and the vehicular entry and will not have an adverse impact upon the efficient and ongoing operation of local traffic conditions. Clause 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP requires residential development that is located on land adjacent to a road corridor to achieve specific noise criteria. Given the site is not adjacent to a main road, an acoustic assessment report is not required. Clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP requires development specified under Column 1 in Schedule 3, to be referred to the Roads & Maritime Authority (formerly Roads & Traffic Authority). Given the proposal seeks consent for less than 75 dwellings, the application is not classified as ‘integrated development’ and is not required to be submitted to the RMS for concurrence. Accordingly, the proposal is compliant with the requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP.


6. SECTION 79C CONSIDERATION Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 as amended specifies the matters which a consent authority must consider when determining a development application. 6.1 s.79C(1)(a)(i)- the provisions of any environmental planning instrument (EPI) Consideration of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and other SEPPs are discussed in Section 5. The proposal is permissible in the ‘B4 Mixed Use’ zone and complies with the objectives of the zone. The proposal is compliant with the requirements of this section. 6.2 s.79C(1)(a)(ii)- the provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument There are no applicable draft instruments for consideration. 6.3 s.79C(a)(iii)- any development control plan Consideration of the Strathfield DCP 2005 is discussed in Section 5. The proposal is considered to be compliant with the objectives and controls of the DCP. The proposed design, articulation, amenity and general streetscape presentation of the proposal is of a form that is consistent with the desired future character of the area, as contemplated by the available planning controls. 6.4 s.79C(a)(iiia)- any planning agreement There are no voluntary planning agreements that apply to the proposal. 6.5 s.79C(a)(iv)- any matters prescribed by the regulations There are no matters prescribed by the regulations that are relevant to the proposed development. 6.6 s.79C(1)(b)- the likely impacts of that development The application has considered the development controls of Council’s LEP and DCP in relation to issues associated with privacy, overshadowing and amenity controls and it is considered that the proposal shall have minimal adverse impacts on the site, surrounding area and general locality. The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and compliant with the requirements of the SEPP 65. It is considered that the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on any adjoining properties, the streetscape or the locality in general.


6.7 s.79C(1)(c)- the suitability of the site for the development The proposal aims to provide a mixed use development that is consistent with the desired medium density character of the locality. The proposal is considered a suitable development of the site and is in accordance with the zone provisions of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and compliant with the requirements of the DCP. The immediate context of the site contains residential flat buildings and mixed use developments. The proposal shall replace two single dwellings with an architecturally designed medium density development that shall provide visual interest and relief along Homebush Road. Section 5 of this report has established that the proposed development is compatible with the local area and is appropriate for the site. Therefore, the site can accommodate the proposed development. 6.8 s.79C(1)(d)- any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations Not applicable. 6.9 s.79C(1)(e)- the public interest It is considered that the proposed development will be in the public interest in that it:

Improves the amenity of the site and streetscape presentation.

Provides development that is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

Maintains solar access and minimises privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

Results in additional housing including affordable housing for the Strathfield locality.

6.10 s.79C(3A) Development control plans (Environmental Planning & Assessment

Amendment Act 2012) 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, and (c) may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that development application.

The proposed development is permissible in the zone and complies with the relevant statutory and non-statutory controls. Where there exists a departure, adequate justification has been provided to establish that the proposed development is suitable for the site; provides an adequate transition between adjoining development; and delivers a reasonable alternative solution for the site, without adversely impacting on adjoining development.


It has been established that the proposed development achieves the objectives of the relevant standards of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005 and relevant SEPP Instruments and therefore, Council can support the proposal.


7. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION This report has undertaken an assessment of the proposed application. It concludes that on balance, the application complies with the controls and objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005, Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 and other relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. Importantly, the application shall facilitate affordable housing opportunities for the community. The application of the ARH SEPP 2009 to a mixed use development is consistent with the legal advice and the findings of Justice Sheahan in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 126 and Commissioner Pearson in EPS Constructions Pty Ltd v Holroyd City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1253. Reference should be made to the legal advice under separate cover. The proposal provides an architecturally designed mixed use development that will positively contribute to the site and locality through the provision of renewed built form, architectural presentation, additional housing opportunities and will assist in the ongoing renewal of the suburb of Strathfield. The proposal is permissible with Council consent and on balance, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012, Strathfield DCP 2005, relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The proposal is considered an appropriate response to the context, setting, planning instruments and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, and is consistent with the strategic objectives for the area, being consistent with the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, in terms of State Government directions for providing additional housing opportunities for the community and construction employment opportunities. Accordingly, the proposal is submitted to Strathfield Council for approval. Prepared by:

Wil Nino MPIA MUDIA B Planning (UNSW) M Construction Project Management (UNSW) Director


APPENDIX A – Clause 4.6 Exception, Height of Building In accordance with the Clause 4.6 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, a request for an exception to the development standard under Clause 4.3 Height of Building development standard is submitted to the consent authority. The provisions of Clause 4.6 are addressed as follows: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, (b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances. Comment: In accordance with clause 4.3 of the Strathfield LEP 2012, the Height of Building standard is 13 metres. The proposal seeks consent for a 5 storeys building that is 17.7 metres to the highest point, being the lift over-run. Due to the topography of the site, the height departure is exacerbated along the southern elevation. The proposal results in a departure from the Height of Building standard by 4 metres. In accordance with the findings of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 and Abdul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122, both Justice Pain and Commissioner O’Neill accept that a “reasonable approach to determine the number of storeys that could be permitted is to consider the number that could fit within the maximum allowable height limit”. Adopting the position of Justice Pain and Commissioner O’Neill, allowing 3 metres per floor is reasonable. The number of storeys that can fit within 13 metres is 4.3 storeys (13/3 = 4.3). This can be interpreted as four and a half storeys or a building of up to 4-5 storeys. The following images illustrate the proposed height variation.

Image 37: Streetscape elevation – 13 metre height standard shown in organge (Source: Kennedy Associates Architects)


Further, the application relies upon the FSR incentive available by combining the LEP and ARH SEPP 2009. In this context it is reasonable to expect that there be some form of expanded building envelope, subject to retaining compliance with Clause 16A of the ARH SEPP 2009, to allow for a development to accommodate the FSR incentive. Otherwise, there would be a disconnect or an inconsistent relationship with the combined FSR under the LEP and ARH SEPP 2009 and the applicable height standard. In this context, any height increase would need to be compatible with the character of the local area and satisfy Clause 16A of the ARH SEPP 2009. The principle of an expanded building envelope in recognition of the contribution of affordable rental housing was accepted in the findings of Commissioner O’Neill in Abdul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122. This clause 4.6 submission establishes that in the circumstances of this case, the departure can be supported as the application satisfies the five principles of the ‘Wehbe’ test and additionally, satisfies the test established under Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009, in that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the environmental planning grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the subject site. (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. Comment: The proposal seeks consent for a Height of Building 17.7 metres. Therefore, the height variation is 4 metres at the highest point. This clause allows Council to grant consent to such a numerical departure. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating: (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Comment: Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(a) The proposed variation to the Height of Building standard is assessed with consideration to the principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Wehbe V Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 82. His Honour Preston CJ set out 5 ways of establishing that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. The 5 parameters were further tested in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009 where Justice Pain upholding a decision of Pearson C held that the principles in Wehbe remained relevant to the provisions of Clause 4.6(3)(a). The findings of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council NSWLEC 1009 requires the identification of grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, as opposed to grounds that would apply to any similar development in the vicinity of the site.


His Honour Preston CJ set out five alternative ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the preparation of a SEPP 1 objection in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827, albeit only one of these 5 ways needs to apply in order for the objection to be well founded. The same approach has been held by the Land and Environment Court to be appropriate in assessing a Clause 4.6 submission. The five alternative ways are:

a. Establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

b. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

c. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

d. Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

e. Establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary...

Each criteria under Wehbe is addressed follows. Wehbe Criterion (a)

a. Establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

The objectives of the Height standard are:

(a) to ensure that development is of a height that is generally compatible with or which improves the appearance of the existing area, (b) to encourage a consolidation pattern that leads to the optimum sustainable capacity height for the area, (c) to achieve a diversity of small and large development options.

Each objective is addressed below. Objective (a). The development is of a height that is compatible with the desired future character of the area, which is that of a medium density mixed use and residential area. The proposal will deliver a mixed use development that is of a height that is compatible with the height of adjoining development in the locality. This includes development on the northern side of Liverpool Road. The proposal will deliver an architecturally designed boutique flat building that will facilitate the provision of new dwellings including affordable housing. The additional height on Homebush Road shall not affect the compatibility of the proposal with the immediate area, but rather shall facilitate a development that is able to sit harmoniously with future development.


The proposal is considered to improve the appearance of the area. The building mass is considered contextually appropriate when considering that adjoining sites have been developed/approved to a similar height building. Therefore, the additional height will improve the appearance of the area and provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies objective (a). Objective (b) refers to the need to encourage a ‘consolidated pattern’ to deliver a ‘sustainable capacity height for the area’. The site complies with the minimum site area standard under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. This standard prevails over the minimum lot size under the SLEP 2012. Therefore, there is no further requirement for the site to consolidate, given it complies with the applicable numerical standard. Despite this, the proposal consolidates two lots and achieves the optimum sustainable capacity of height. In relation to objective (c), the proposal will deliver a medium density development option for the site that is consistent with the zone provisions. The proposal complies with the combined FSR standard under the LEP and ARH SEPP. Therefore, it is of a built form that would be reasonably contemplated for the site. Therefore, the proposal achieves compliance with objective (c) of the standard. Wehbe Criterion (b)

b. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

The underlying objective and purpose remain relevant to the proposal and the proposal complies with the underlying objective of the standard. Wehbe Criterion (c)

c. Establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

Strict compliance with the standard would thwart compliance with the objective in this instance, as any resultant development would not be able to achieve the anticipated optimum sustainable capacity of density, as strict compliance with the height standard would prevent a development from achieving the combined FSR that is available to it. Importantly, this would reduce or delete the component of floor area that is provided for affordable housing. This would result in a development that is not reflective of the orderly and economic development of land, as required by the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is relevant to the height standard, as objective (b) refers to optimum sustainable capacity height, and to achieve a capacity height, an FSR or density is required. Therefore, the underlying objective (b) would be thwarted if compliance was required.


Wehbe Criterion (d)

d. Establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

The Council has not abandoned or destroyed the standard, however, variations to the development standard have been approved by Council. Wehbe Criterion (e)

e. Establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary...

The objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone are:

• To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible

locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

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

• To provide local and regional employment and live and work opportunities. The proposed ‘mixed use development’ is permissible with consent in the zone and provides housing for people to live within proximity to local services. The proposal provides employment opportunities by providing a ground floor commercial tenancy. The proposal maximises public transport use, given it is in proximity to bus services along Liverpool Road. Additionally, the application will provide affordable rental housing opportunities to meet the needs of low income earners. The proposal encourages public transport use, including walking and cycling, by providing reduced car parking and given its proximity to public transport, it will encourage a mode-shift toward public transport use. In conclusion, the proposal complies with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone. This Clause 4.6 Exception has addressed the five criteria under Wehbe and the conclusion is that the proposal satisfies two of the criteria of Wehbe, being criterion (a) and (c). Therefore, two of the criterion apply and this demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(a). Additionally, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify contravening the standard, as outlined below. Assessment under Clause 4.6(3)(b) The following outlines the environmental planning grounds that justify the contravention of the standard:


i. The subject application is submitted under the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing

SEPP 2009. By applying the FSR incentive under the ARH SEPP 2009, the application seeks to provide 40% of the total floor area as affordable rental housing dwellings, representing 9 apartments out of a total of 20 apartments. This provides a contribution to the provision of affordable dwellings for people on a low income, promoting a positive social outcome that is above and beyond what an ordinary application that contains non-affordable dwelling could provide. This demonstrates that the application has unique characteristics and that this environmental planning ground is particular to the application. The consequence of the FSR incentive available by the ARH SEPP 2009, is that there be some form of expanded permissible building envelope in some way, subject to retaining compliance with Clause 16A of the ARH SEPP 2009, meaning that any height increase would need to be compatible with the character of the local area. The principle of an expanded building envelope in recognition of the contribution of affordable rental housing was accepted by Commissioner O’Neill in the case of Abdul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122. If there is a reduction in height, then there would be an inevitable reduction in floor space, which would automatically reduce the component of affordable rental dwellings that the development seeks to provide. This is undesirable, given the development is facilitating a proportion of affordable dwellings, whilst aiming to respect the purpose and objective of the standard and demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the height variation. A strict reduction in height would be contrary to the principle of allowing an expanded building envelope in recognition of the contribution of affordable housing as found in Abdul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122.

ii. In accordance with the findings of Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 and Abdul-Rahman v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1122, both Justice Pain and Commissioner O’Neill accept that a “reasonable approach to determine the number of storeys that could be permitted is to consider the number that could fit within the maximum allowable height limit”. In this instance, the number of storeys that can fit within 13 metres is 4.3 storeys. The top floor is limited to two apartments that are setback and recessed, when compared with the fourth storey and do not represent a full storey as they accommodate a reduced floor area. Therefore, it can be established that given the 13 metre height control, it would be reasonable to expect a building of up to 4.3 storeys or up to 5 storeys on the site.

iii. The height variation results in the rationalisation of the combined FSR standard under the LEP and ARH SEPP 2009, whereby the development is capable of providing additional density for the purposes of affordable housing, however, requires some flexibility in the height standard to achieve this outcome.

Holistically, for the reasons above, permitting flexibility in the height of building standard will result in the development achieving a suitable urban outcome for the site that is consistent with the desired future character of the area. This clause 4.6 submission establishes that while the proposal departs from the height of building standard, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, with the grounds being particular to the circumstances of the proposed development, and demonstrates that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case. In this case there is planning merit in permitting the numerical departure. Accordingly, the application satisfies Clause 4.6(3)(b). Therefore, on balance, the variation to the height is reasonable given the resultant development is compliant with the objective of the standard and zone under the SLEP 2012.


(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that: (i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. Comment: This request has addressed the matters required under sub-clause (3) and satisfies the relevant test to establish that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Additionally, the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives for development within the B4 Mixed Use zone, as detailed within this Clause 4.6. Further, the proposed numerical departure retains compliance with the relevant objectives of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, being the objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii):

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

The proposal facilitates the orderly and economic use and development of the site and the numerical non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of State or Regional planning significance. Concurrence from the Director-General has been given to Council to permit a departure to a development standard where there is sufficient planning merit. (5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider: (a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and (b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and (c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. Comment: The proposed variation to the development standards does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional planning. The variation is also not contrary to any state policy of ministerial directive. There is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance as the site represents an opportunity to redevelop a dated dwelling with an infill development that addresses


the orientation of the site and improves the streetscape whilst delivering additional housing opportunities including affordable housing. It is therefore considered acceptable that an exception to the maximum Height of Building development standard is granted in this instance for the following reasons:

The purpose of the standard is achieved and the development complies with the objectives of Height of Building controls under the Strathfield LEP 2012.

Compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary given the reasons listed within this Clause 4.6 submission.

The development maintains compliance with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

The underlying objective and purpose of the standard would be thwarted if compliance

was required.

The non-compliance meets the objects and purpose of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The non-compliance is not contrary to any matter of state or regional planning

significance.

Enhances the streetscape presentation and public domain along Homebush Road. The aims of the LEP are to establish controls that encourage good quality urban design,

high residential amenity and environmental sustainability. The subject application represents a high quality orderly and economic use and development of the site, achieving an appropriate building form consistent with the changing nature of the precinct.

The variation to the development standard is in the public interest as it responds to the site

constraints, provides an exceptional design response and maintains a compliant level of residential amenity for the occupants and adjoining properties.

The Clause 4.6 submission has addressed the matters under Clause 4.6(3)(a) and

demonstrates that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary and has addressed the matters under Clause 4.6(3)(b) where there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard. To this effect the Clause 4.6 is well founded.

Conclusion The proposed variation to the Height of Building development standard is considered to have sufficient planning merit and justification. The component of additional Height does not generate adverse impacts. The proposed departure shall facilitate the delivery of housing opportunities that complies with the objectives of the development standards in addition to the objectives of the Strathfield LEP 2012 and State Planning Instruments. On this basis, it is considered appropriate and acceptable to vary the numerical Height of Building standard.


APPENDIX B – Apartment Design Guide The proposal has been assessed against the guidelines of the recently adopted Apartment Design Guide (the Guide):

Objective Design Criteria/Guidance Consideration Compliance

Part 3A: Site Analysis

Objective 3A-1

Site analysis illustrates that design decisions have been based on opportunities and constraints of the site conditions and their relationship to the surrounding context.

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be addressed.

A site analysis has been provided by architect.

Yes

Part 3B: Orientation

Objective 3B-1

Building types and layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development

. Buildings along the street frontage define the street, by facing it and incorporating direct access from the street.

. Where the street frontage is to the east or west, rear buildings should be orientated to the north.

. Where the street frontage is to the north or south, overshadowing to the south should be minimised and buildings behind the street frontage should be orientated to the east and west (see figure 3B.2).

The proposed development provides a mixed use development with a primary street frontage to Homebush Road.

The amenity of each apartment is compliant.

Yes

Objective 3B-2

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid winter.

. Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access in accordance with sections 3D Communal and public open space and 4A Solar and daylight access.

. Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open spaces of neighbours should be considered.

. Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%.

. If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar

The development has been oriented to maximise solar access to living areas and private open space areas.

A shadow analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that the shadow impacts are not unreasonable and would be expected given the zone, Height and FSR standards.

Yes



access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy.

. Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or down hill by increased upper level setbacks.

Part 3C: Public Domain Interface

Objective 3C-1

. Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security.

. Terraces, balconies and courtyard apartments should have direct street entry, where appropriate.

. Changes in level between private terraces, front gardens and dwelling entries above the street level provide surveillance and improve visual privacy for ground level dwellings.

. Upper level balconies and windows should overlook the public domain.

. Front fences and walls along street frontages should use visually permeable materials and treatments. The height of solid fences or walls should be limited to 1m.

. Length of solid walls should be limited along street frontages.

. Opportunities should be provided for casual interaction between residents and the public domain. Design solutions may include seating at building entries, near letter boxes and in private courtyards adjacent to streets.

. In developments with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with individual buildings/entries should be differentiated to improve legibility for residents, using a number of the following design solutions:

• architectural detailing

• changes in materials

• plant species

• colours

. Opportunities for people to

The development addresses the street frontage and provides direct entry from Homebush Road.

The proposed development provides adequate safety and security.

The pedestrian entries are clearly labelled and distinguished, providing a safe area for residents.

Proposed balconies and windows allow for casual surveillance.

The application does not generate any discernible safety or risk impacts.

Yes



be concealed should be minimised.

Objective 3C-2

. Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced.

. Planting softens the edges of any raised terraces to the street, for example above sub-basement car parking.

.

The interface with the public domain is considered acceptable. The proposal provides activation of the ground floor at the street level via the residential and commercial lobby/entry and landscaped areas.

Yes

Part 3D: Communal and public open space

Objective 3D-1

. An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping.

. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)

. Developments achieve a

minimum of 50% direct

sunlight to the principal

usable part of the communal

open space for a minimum of

2 hours between 9 am and 3

pm on 21 June (mid winter).

The application proposes 232sqm of common open space.

In addition, each apartment has a balcony.

Yes

Objective 3D-2

. Communal open space is designed to allow for a range of activities, respond to site conditions and be attractive and inviting.

. Facilities are provided within communal open spaces and common spaces for a range of age groups (see also 4F Common circulation and spaces), incorporating some of the following elements:

• seating for individuals or groups •barbecue areas •play equipment or play areas •swimming pools, gyms, tennis courts or common rooms.

. The location of facilities responds to microclimate and site conditions with access to sun in winter, shade in summer and shelter from strong winds and down drafts.

. Visual impacts of services should be minimised, including location of ventilation duct outlets from basement car parks, electrical substations and detention tanks.

As above.

Adequate private open space is provided to each apartment in the form of a private balcony.

Accordingly, the private open space is considered compliant.

Yes

Part 3E: Deep soil zones

Objective 3E-1

. Deep soil zones provide areas on the site that allow

. Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

148sqm or 16.4% is provided as deep soil area.

Yes



for and support healthy plant and tree growth. They improve residential amenity and promote management of water and air quality.

Site area Minimum dimensio

ns

Deep soil zone (% of site area)

less than 650m2

- 7%

650m2 - 1,500m2

3m

greater than 1,500m2

6m

greater than 1,500m2 with significant existing tree cover

6m

Part 3F: Visual Privacy

Objective 3F-1

. Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy.

. Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m(4stys)

6m 3m

Up to 25m(5-8stys)

9m 4.5m

Over 25m(9+ stys)

12m 6m

Note:

Separation distances between

buildings on the same site

should combine required

building separations

depending on the type of room

(see figure 3F.2).

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties

The building is a five storey building. The side elevations windows do not generate privacy impacts, however, can be further conditioned with relevant screens.

Minimum side setbacks, range between 4 and 8 metres. The rear setback is 6 metres.

The building allows for adjoining developments to be built to the boundary, which is consistent with the B4 Mixed Use zone.

The proposed setbacks are considered reasonable, given the B4 zone and the ability to allow for adjoining lots to be developed.




Part 3G: Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

. Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.

. Multiple entries (including communal building entries and individual ground floor entries) should be provided to activate the street edge.

. Entry locations relate to the street and subdivision pattern and the existing pedestrian network.

. Building entries should be clearly identifiable and communal entries should be clearly distinguishable from private entries.

. Where street frontage is limited and multiple buildings are located on the site, a primary street address should be provided with clear sight lines and pathways to secondary building entries

Pedestrian access is provided via the primary residential/ commercial lobby entry.

The lobby is highly visible and provides a safe area for residents.

Yes

Ground Objective 3G-2

. Access, entries and pathways are accessible and easy to identify.

. Building access areas including lift lobbies, stairwells and hallways should be clearly visible from the public domain and communal spaces.

. The design of ground floors and underground car parks minimise level changes along pathways and entries.

. Steps and ramps should be integrated into the overall building and landscape design.

. For large developments ‘way finding’ maps should be provided to assist visitors and residents (see figure 4T.3).

. For large developments electronic access and audio/video intercom should be provided to manage access.

The lift and lobby are clearly visible from the public domain area.

Yes

Objective 3G-3

. Large sites provide pedestrian links for access to streets and connection to destinations.

. Pedestrian links through sites facilitate direct connections to open space, main streets, centres and public transport.

. Pedestrian links should be direct, have clear sight lines, be overlooked by habitable rooms or private open spaces of dwellings, be well lit and

N/A to the site. N/A



contain active uses, where appropriate.

Part 3H- Vehicle Access

Objective 3H-1

. Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

. Car park access should be integrated with the building’s overall facade. Design solutions may include:

• the materials and colour palette to minimise visibility from the street; • security doors or gates at entries that minimise voids in the façade; • where doors are not provided, the visible interior reflects the facade design and the building services, pipes and ducts are concealed.

The proposal provides vehicular access from Homebush Road.

The car park access has been suitably integrated into the building’s overall design.

N/A

Part 3J: Bicycle and car parking

Objective 3J-1

. Car parking is provided based on proximity to public transport in metropolitan Sydney and centres in regional areas.

. For development in the following locations:

• on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or • on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.

A suitable basement car park is provided within the development.

Yes

Objective 3J-2

. Parking and

facilities are

provided for

other modes of

transport

. Conveniently located and sufficient numbers of parking spaces should be provided for motorbikes and scooters.

. Secure undercover bicycle parking should be provided that is easily accessible from both the public domain and common areas.

. Conveniently located charging stations are provided for electric vehicles,

8 bicycle spaces are provided in the basement car park.

Yes



where desirable.

Objective 3J-3

. Car park design

and access is

safe and secure.

. Supporting facilities within car parks, including garbage, plant and switch rooms, storage areas and car wash bays can be accessed without crossing car parking spaces.

. Direct, clearly visible and well lit access should be provided into common circulation areas.

. A clearly defined and visible lobby or waiting area should be provided to lifts and stairs.

. For larger car parks, safe pedestrian access should be clearly defined and circulation areas have good lighting, colour, line marking and/or bollards.

The car park provides adequate security and facilities. Additional service areas for the garbage room and storage is provided in the basement, with a garbage truck bay area.

Yes

Objective 3J-4

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of

underground car

parking are

minimised.

. Excavation should be minimised through efficient car park layouts and ramp design.

. Car parking layout should be well organised, using a logical, efficient structural grid and double loaded aisles.

. Protrusion of car parks should not exceed 1m above ground level. Design solutions may include stepping car park levels or using split levels on sloping sites.

. Natural ventilation should be provided to basement and sub basement car parking areas.

. Ventilation grills or screening devices for car parking openings should be integrated into the facade and landscape design.

The proposal incorporates a two level basement that provides car parking in accordance with the Strathfield DCP 2005.

Yes

Objective 3J-5

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of on-

grade car

parking are

minimised.

. On-grade car parking should be avoided.

. Where on-grade car parking is unavoidable, the following design solutions are used:

• parking is located on the side or rear of the lot away from the primary street frontage; • cars are screened from view

No at-grade parking is provided.

Yes



of streets, buildings, communal and private open space areas; • safe and direct access to building entry points is provided; • parking is incorporated into the landscape design of the site, by extending planting and materials into the car park space; • stormwater run-off is managed appropriately from car parking surfaces; • bio-swales, rain gardens or on site detention tanks are provided, where appropriate; • light coloured paving materials or permeable paving systems are used and shade trees are planted between every 4-5 parking spaces to reduce increased surface temperatures from large areas of paving.

Objective 3J-6

. Visual and

environmental

impacts of above

ground enclosed

car parking are

minimised.

. Exposed parking should not be located along primary street frontages.

. Screening, landscaping and other design elements including public art should be used to integrate the above ground car parking with the facade. Design solutions may include:

• car parking that is concealed behind the facade, with windows integrated into the overall facade design (approach should be limited to developments where a larger floor plate podium is suitable at lower levels) • car parking that is ‘wrapped’ with other uses, such as retail, commercial or two storey Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) units along the street frontage (see figure 3J.9)

. Positive street address and active frontages should be provided at ground level.

N/A N/A

Part 4A: Solar and Daylight access

Objective 4A-1

. To optimise the

number of

apartments

receiving sunlight

to habitable

. Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter in the

A minimum of 85% or 17/20 of the apartments receive 2 hours of direct sun light in mid-winter.

Living spaces have been

Yes



rooms, primary

windows and

private open

space.

Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

. In all other areas, living

rooms and private open

spaces of at least 70% of

apartments in a building

receive a minimum of 3 hours

direct sunlight between 9 am

and 3 pm at mid winter.

. A maximum of 15% of

apartments in a building

receive no direct sunlight

between 9 am and 3 pm at

mid winter.

orientated to improve solar access.

Notwithstanding, the apartments are generally compliant.

Objective 4A-2

. Daylight access

is maximised

where sunlight is

limited.

. Courtyards, skylights and high level windows (with sills of 1,500mm or greater) are used only as a secondary light source in habitable rooms.

.Where courtyards are used :

• use is restricted to kitchens, bathrooms and service areas; • building services are concealed with appropriate detailing and materials to visible walls; • courtyards are fully open to the sky. • access is provided to the light well from a communal area for cleaning and maintenance; • acoustic privacy, fire safety and minimum privacy separation distances (see section 3F Visual privacy) are achieved.

. Opportunities for reflected light into apartments are optimised through:

• reflective exterior surfaces on buildings opposite south facing windows; • positioning windows to face other buildings or surfaces (on neighbouring sites or within the site) that will reflect light; • integrating light shelves into the design; • light coloured internal finishes.

The proposal includes a 232 m2 or 25.7% of the site area as communal open space.

In addition, each apartment has a balcony.

Yes



Objective 4A-3

. Design

incorporates

shading and

glare control,

particularly for

warmer months.

A number of the following design features are used:

• balconies or sun shading that extend far enough to shade summer sun, but allow winter sun to penetrate living areas; • shading devices such as eaves, awnings, balconies, pergolas, external louvres and planting; • horizontal shading to north facing windows; • vertical shading to east and particularly west facing windows; • operable shading to allow adjustment and choice; • high performance glass that minimises external glare off windows, with consideration given to reduced tint glass or glass with a reflectance level below 20% (reflective films are avoided).

Balconies have been positioned to face east-west, optimizing solar access.

Yes

Part 4B: Natural Ventilation

Objective 4B-1

. All habitable

rooms are

naturally

ventilated.

. The building's orientation maximises capture and use of prevailing breezes for natural ventilation in habitable rooms.

. Depths of habitable rooms support natural ventilation.

. The area of unobstructed window openings should be equal to at least 5% of the floor area served.

. Light wells are not the primary air source for habitable rooms.

. Doors and openable windows maximise natural ventilation opportunities by using the following design solutions:

• adjustable windows with large effective openable areas; • a variety of window types that provide safety and flexibility such as awnings and louvers; • windows which the occupants can reconfigure to funnel breezes into the apartment such as vertical louvres, casement windows and externally opening doors.

65% or 13/20 of the apartment are cross ventilated. Cross ventilation is provided via balcony and window openings and articulated side façades.

All habitable living rooms experience some form of natural ventilation.

Yes



Objective 4B-2

. The layout and

design of single

aspect

apartments

maximises

natural

ventilation.

. Apartment depths are limited to maximise ventilation and airflow (see also figure 4D.3).

. Natural ventilation to single aspect apartments is achieved with the following design solutions:

• primary windows are augmented with plenums and light wells (generally not suitable for cross ventilation); • stack effect ventilation / solar chimneys or similar to naturally ventilate internal building areas or rooms such as bathrooms and laundries; • courtyards or building indentations have a width to depth ratio of 2:1 or 2.2:1 to ensure effective air circulation and avoid trapped smells.

The apartment depths are up to 9 metres measured from glass line to the deepest wall.

The depth retains acceptable amenity via secondary openings to bedrooms and bathroom areas.

Yes

Objective 4B-3

. The number of

apartments with

natural cross

ventilation is

maximised to

create a

comfortable

indoor

environment for

residents.

. At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed.

. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.

65% of the apartment are cross ventilated.

All habitable living rooms experience some form of natural ventilation.

Yes

Part 4C: Ceiling Heights

Objective 4c-1

. Ceiling height

achieves

sufficient natural

ventilation and

daylight access.

. Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are: Minimum ceiling height for apartment and mixed use Habitable rooms

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

For 2 storey apartments

2.7m for main living area floor 2.4m for second floor, where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area

Attic 1.8m at edge of

The ground floor ceiling height is 3.40 metres.

The ceiling height of each residential floor levels is greater 2.8 metres.

The proposed ceiling heights are acceptable.

Yes



These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

spaces room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

If located in mixed used areas

3.3m for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use

Objective 4C-2

. Ceiling height

increases the

sense of space

in apartments

and provides for

well proportioned

rooms.

A number of the following

design solutions can be used:

. the hierarchy of rooms in an apartment is defined using changes in ceiling heights and alternatives such as raked or curved ceilings, or double height spaces. . well proportioned rooms are provided, for example, smaller rooms feel larger and more spacious with higher ceilings. . ceiling heights are maximised in habitable rooms by ensuring that bulkheads do not intrude. The stacking of service rooms from floor to floor and coordination of bulkhead location above non-habitable areas, such as robes or storage, can assist.

As above. Yes

Objective 4C-3

. Ceiling heights

contribute to the

flexibility of

building use over

the life of the

building.

. Ceiling heights of lower level

apartments in centres should

be greater than the minimum

required by the design criteria

allowing flexibility and

conversion to non-residential

uses (see figure 4C.1).

As above. Yes

Part 4D: Apartment size and layout

Objective 4D-1

. The layout of

rooms within an

apartment is

functional, well

organised and

provides a high

standard of

amenity.

. Apartments are required to

have the following minimum

internal areas:

Note:

The minimum internal areas

include only one bathroom.

Additional bathrooms

increase the minimum

internal area by 5m2 each.

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase

All apartments comply with the minimum area as it is also stipulated under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

Every habitable room has a window in an external wall.

Yes



the minimum internal area by 12m2 each. Apartment

type Minimum

internal area Studio 35m2 1 bedroom 50m2 2 bedroom 70m2 3 bedroom 90m2

. Every habitable room must

have a window in an external

wall with a total minimum

glass area of not less than

10% of the floor area of the

room. Daylight and air may

not be borrowed from other

rooms.

Objective 4D-2

. Environmental

performance of

the apartment is

maximised.

. Habitable room depths are

limited to a maximum of 2.5 x

the ceiling height.

. In open plan layouts (where

the living, dining and kitchen

are combined) the maximum

habitable room depth is 8m

from a window.

Habitable rooms are not greater in depth than 2.5 x the ceiling height.

Yes

Objective 4D-3

. Apartment

layouts are

designed to

accommodate a

variety of

household

activities and

needs.

. Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space).

. Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

. Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

. 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments . 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

. The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.

All main bedrooms have an area of 10sqm and 9sqm for the other bedrooms.

All living rooms comply with the minimum width requirement.

Yes

Part 4E: Private open space and balconies

Objective 4E-1

. Apartments

provide

appropriately

sized private

open space and

balconies to

enhance

. All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

Dwelling type

Minimum area

Minimum depth

Each apartment has a balcony.

All balconies comply with the requirements of the ADG.

Yes



residential

amenity.

Studio apartments

4m2 -

1 bedroom apartment

8m2 2m

2 bedroom apartment

10m2 2m

3+ bedroom apartment

12m2 2.4m

The minimum balcony depth

to be counted as contributing

to the balcony area is 1m.

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m.

Objective 4E-2

. Primary private

open space and

balconies are

appropriately

located to

enhance

liveability for

residents.

. Primary open space and balconies should be located adjacent to the living room, dining room or kitchen to extend the living space.

. Private open spaces and balconies predominantly face north, east or west.

. Primary open space and balconies should be orientated with the longer side facing outwards or be open to the sky to optimise daylight access into adjacent rooms.

Balconies have been positioned adjacent to living room areas.

Yes

Objective 4E-3

. Private open

space and

balcony design is

integrated into

and contributes

to the overall

architectural form

and detail of the

building.

. Solid, partially solid or transparent fences and balustrades are selected to respond to the location. They are designed to allow views and passive surveillance of the street while maintaining visual privacy and allowing for a range of uses on the balcony. Solid and partially solid balustrades are preferred.

. Full width full height glass balustrades alone are generally not desirable. . Projecting balconies should be integrated into the building design and the design of soffits considered. . Operable screens, shutters, hoods and pergolas are used

The balconies have a frosted glass balustrade.

Yes



to control sunlight and wind. . Balustrades are set back from the building or balcony edge where overlooking or safety is an issue. . Downpipes and balcony drainage are integrated with the overall facade and building design. . Air-conditioning units should be located on roofs, in basements, or fully integrated into the building design. . Where clothes drying, storage or air conditioning units are located on balconies, they should be screened and integrated in the building design. . Ceilings of apartments below terraces should be insulated to avoid heat loss. . Water and gas outlets should be provided for primary balconies and private open space.

Objective 4E-4

. Private open

space and

balcony design

maximises

safety.

. Changes in ground levels or landscaping are minimised.

. Design and detailing of balconies avoids opportunities for climbing and falls.

The design of the balcony is acceptable.

Yes

Part 4F: Common circulation spaces

Objective 4F-1

. Common

circulation

spaces achieve

good amenity

and properly

service the

number of

apartments.

. The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight.

. For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.

There are up to 5 apartments off the main corridor, with 3 apartments on the ground and fourth level and 2 apartments on level 4.

Each apartment has access to the elevator and fire stair.

Yes

Objective 4F-2

. Common

circulation

spaces promote

safety and

provide for social

interaction

between

residents.

. Direct and legible access should be provided between vertical circulation points and apartment entries by minimising corridor or gallery length to give short, straight, clear sight lines

. Tight corners and spaces are avoided

. Circulation spaces should be well lit at night

Direct and legible access is provided between circulation points and apartment entries.

Yes



. Legible signage should be provided for apartment numbers, common areas and general wayfinding

. Incidental spaces, for example space for seating in a corridor, at a stair landing, or near a window are provided

. In larger developments, community rooms for activities such as owners corporation meetings or resident use should be provided and are ideally co-located with communal open space

. Where external galleries are provided, they are more open than closed above the balustrade along their length


APPENDIX C – Legal Advice


APPENDIX D – Council Pre-DA Advice

Documents

Development Application STATEMENT OF … · Proposal: Demolition of ... SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement and ... The site is not located within a heritage conservation area and