Report of Meeting - Sutherland Shire · 2020. 1. 28. · replaced with an obscure glass balustrade to 1m above floor level on those northern balcony sides. This shall be detailed

Report of Meeting

Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

6:00pm

Meeting Rooms 202 & 203

Level 2, Administration Building

4-20 Eton Street, Sutherland

Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel 21 January 2020

Page 2

PANEL: Jason Perica (Chair), Jan Murrell, Charles Hill and Peter Flynn.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Acting Manager, Development Assessment and Certification (Chris Greig)

and Manager, Major Development Assessment (Mark Adamson).

*** DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

File Number: 2015/14239

There were no disclosures of interest.

Apologies

There were no apologies.


Page 3

SSLPP001-20 Proposal: DA19/0243 - Construction of a Dwelling

Property: Lot 2 DP 508402, (27) Juvenis Avenue, Oyster Bay

Applicant: Wincrest Group Pty Ltd

File Number: DA19/0243

Speaking against the proposal were Belinda Middleweek, Denise Craven, Brett Daintry and Tony

Pavey.

Speaking for the proposal were Maria McDougall and Sulej Brkic.

PANEL DECISION:

Consideration of Development Application No. 19/0243 for construction of a dwelling at Lot 2 DP

508402 27 Juvenis Avenue, Oyster Bay be deferred, and Council staff liaise with the applicant to

explore options to reduce the height of the proposal by 500mm, which may include reviewing:

a) The first floor ceiling, which may include a raked ceiling for additional internal height;

b) Reducing the roof pitch;

c) Refinement of excavation; and/or

d) Deleting or lowering the eastern front parapet;

And that upon submission of amended plans the matter be reported back to the Panel for

determination by electronic means as soon as practicable, including draft conditions of consent, even

if Council staff are minded not to support the revised plans.

REASON FOR THE DECISION:

That although Council staff recommend refusal of the application, the Panel was inclined to support the

proposal. This was aided by visiting the site, including neighbouring properties claiming a view loss,

and visiting the surrounding area.

The proposal is reasonably constrained and modest given the planning controls. A western view

corridor is afforded to neighbours by the driveway and generous first floor western setback. The

proposal complies with (and is well within) the FSR, and complies with the height limit, while

landscaping is reasonably maximised noting some constraints by a RoW. The ceiling heights and roof

pitch proposed consider view impacts and reflect a desire to consider and respond to principles of view

sharing. Some excavation is proposed and there are some limits to further excavation by driveway

gradients and DCP controls. While view impacts exist, their severity is overstated by neighbours, in the

Panel’s view. Not all water views will be lost and some views to the opposite shoreline and landforms

will remain. Privacy impacts are considered minor.

The applicant and their representatives expressed a willingness to reconsider and revise aspects of the

proposal to further reduce the building height and impacts on neighbours. This is entirely reasonably

given the proposal, the planning controls and the impacts. The resolution is framed accordingly. Given

the circumstances, the Panel is of the view the matter can be determined electronically without a further

public meeting.


Page 4

VOTES:

The decision was unanimous.

SSLPP002-20 Proposal: DA19/0171 - Demolition of existing structures and

construction of a residential flat building with 18 units

Property: Lot 13 DP 233175, Lot 14 DP 233175, (No's 31-33)

Fauna Place, Kirrawee

Applicant: Terra Ferma Pty Ltd


No-one spoke against the proposal.

Speaking for the proposal were Lyndall Wynne and Pavlo Daroch.

PANEL DECISION:

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. DA19/0171 for demolition of existing structures

and construction of a residential flat building with 18 units at Lot 13 DP 233175, Lot 14 DP 233175,

(No's 31-33) Fauna Place, Kirrawee be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report to

the Panel meeting of 21 January 2020, subject to Condition 2A(iv) being amended to clarify the glazing

referred to only relates to the balustrades to those balconies (so the condition is not misread to refer to

windows and glazed doors to balconies).


The Panel generally agreed with the assessment of environmental impacts as outlined in the Council

staff assessment report.

The Panel had regard to the applicant’s Clause 4.6 request regarding the maximum Building Height

development standard within Clause 6.3 of Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 and formed the view the

applicant’s written request satisfactorily addressed required matters within Clause 4.6(3) of the LEP.

The Panel was satisfied the proposal was consistent with the zone objectives and the objectives of the

development standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance, and granting consent was in the public

interest. The height non-compliance was relatively minor, limited to a lift overrun and located so as not

to cause any adverse impacts upon surrounding land.

The use is permissible in the zone and of a scale, form and height to be reasonably expected given the

planning controls. The area is in a state of some transition due to the planning controls and the

proposal would be consistent with the evolving and likely future character of the area. While privacy

impacts to neighbours will occur from the proposal, design measures have been incorporated to

reasonably address and mitigate such impacts.


Page 5

In terms of consideration of community views, the Panel noted the written submissions and agreed with

the assessment of those submissions, and issues therein, within the Council staff report.

VOTES


SSLPP003-20 Proposal: DA19/0387 - Alterations and additions to existing

dwelling

Property: LOT 41 DP215533 (NO. 8) Molong Road, Gymea Bay

Applicant: Demis Roussos Bhargava


Speaking against the proposal was Franzie Cummings.

Speaking for the proposal were Lee Konnetter, Richard and Kaye Stewart and Demis Bhargava.

PANEL DECISION:


Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. DA19/0387 for alterations and additions to existing

dwelling at LOT 41 DP215533 (NO. 8) Molong Road, Gymea Bay be approved, subject to the

conditions contained in the report to the Panel meeting of 21 January 2020, with the following

amendments:

Condition 2A(i) be amended to state:

“To reduce view impacts and given the existing situation, the proposed privacy screens on the

northern side of the balconies on the Ground Floor and the Rumpus Level shall be deleted, and

replaced with an obscure glass balustrade to 1m above floor level on those northern balcony

sides. This shall be detailed in the application for a Construction Certificate.”

A new condition 10A be imposed to state:

10A – Enclosure and Treatment of Air Conditioning Unit(s)

The proposal Air Conditioning Unit(s) at the first floor shall be housed in an acoustically treated

enclosure, while also providing visual screening to the neighbour to the north, while still facilitating

air movement and functionality of the unit(s). This enclosing structure shall extend northwards no

more than 1.5m from the adjoining bedroom wall and shall be no higher than 2m in height above

the roof level. This shall be detailed in the application for a Construction Certificate.”





Page 6

However, given the upper balcony was above the height limit and extended beyond the existing

predominant rear alignment, it is reasonable to consider and balance impacts upon neighbours. In this

regard, while a desire for a privacy screen to the north of the existing Rumpus Level balcony and the

proposed enlarged Ground Floor balcony was understood, no such screens currently exist, some

mutual overlooking exists and is common in the area, and a neighbour’s request that they be deleted in

favour of retaining views and outlook was reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly, a design

amendment was imposed by the Panel. This was only agreed by majority of the Panel (with the casting

vote of the Chair), as Charles Hill and Peter Flynn disagreed. Mr Hill and Mr Flynn were of the view

that erection of suitably designed privacy screens higher than balustrade height located on the northern

elevation at the upper and lower level balconies would provide increased privacy between the proposed

development and that of the adjoining neighbour. Whilst the two Panel members acknowledged the

potential impact on the view from the neighbouring property in the south east direction, filtered views in

that direction would still be maintained.

A further condition to minimise aural and visual impacts of an air conditioning unit was also reasonable.






interest. It was noted the additions are below the existing height of the building on the site and the

additions were acceptable, although the Panel was of the view that some amendments to the balconies

in terms of side structures which added visual bulk and scale to neighbours was warranted.

The Panel had regard to the applicant’s Clause 4.6 request regarding the minimum Landscaped Area





interest. It was noted the landscaped area at the site is actually increasing and the non-compliance

arises from a pre-existing situation.

In terms of consideration of community views, the Panel noted the written and verbal submissions and

generally agreed with the assessment of those submissions within the Council staff report, except

regarding privacy screens, while a further condition addressing air conditioning was warranted.

VOTES:

The decision for approval was unanimous (although noting Charles Hill and Peter Flynn did not agree

with the form of the design change to the northern side of the balconies, which was otherwise carried by

majority vote, as outlined above).


Page 7

SSLPP004-20 Proposal: DA18/1503 - Demolition of existing structures,

construction of a 6 storey mixed development with 3

levels of basement car parking

Property: Lots 1 & 2 DP15573, Lot 33 DP 15573 (Nos. 426-428

Kingsway Caringbah, (No. 1) Hinkler Avenue,

Caringbah

Applicant: Sydney Wide Electrical Pty Ltd



Speaking for the proposal were Michael Brewer, Joseph El-Khawaja and George Jreije.

PANEL DECISION:


Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. DA18/1503 for demolition of existing structures,

construction of a 6 storey mixed development with 3 levels of basement car parking at Lots 1 & 2

DP15573, Lot 33 DP 15573 (Nos. 426-428 Kingsway Caringbah, (No. 1) Hinkler Avenue, Caringbah be

approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report to the Panel meeting of 21 January 2020,

subject to deletion of Condition 2A(v) and deletion of the word “fixed” in Condition 2A(vi).









interest. It was noted the height non-compliance was relatively minor, limited to a lift overrun and

located central to the building to minimise any impacts.

In terms of consideration of community views, the Panel noted the written submission and agreed with

the assessment of the issues raised in that submission within the Council staff report.

VOTES:



Page 8

SSLPP005-20 Proposal: DA19/0432 - Alterations and additions to existing

dwelling and construction of a swimming pool

Property: Lot 50 DP 17074, (30) Dominic Street, Burraneer

Applicant: Jamisa Architects Pty Ltd



Speaking for the proposal was Michael Vine and Brent Turnbull.

PANEL DECISION:


Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. DA19/0432 for alterations and additions to existing

dwelling and construction of a swimming pool at Lot 50 DP 17074, (30) Dominic Street, Burraneer be


subject to imposing a new Condition 1A to state:

1A Additional Canopy Tree

The plans for a Construction Certificate shall include one native canopy tree, to reach a mature height

of at least 10m, selected from Council’s “native plant selector”, to be located a minimum of 3m from the

rear of the dwelling (and neighbouring dwelling) and no closer than 1.5m from the western side

boundary, with the tree planted and in good health prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.









interest. It was noted the additions are below the existing height of the building on the site and the

additions were an acceptable adaption of existing space for climatic reasons.

An additional native canopy tree is warranted to contribute to the site in the context of the locality and

the visual relationship to the built form of the proposal. The applicant was agreeable to this requirement

at the meeting.

In terms of consideration of community views, the Panel noted there were no submissions received

regarding the proposal.

VOTES:



Page 9

SSLPP006-20 Proposal: DA18/1507 - Alterations and additions to an existing

dwelling and construction of a spa

Property: Lot A DP 163137, (195) Woolooware Road, Burraneer

Applicant: Innovate Architects Pty Ltd



Speaking for the proposal were Cameron Jones and Lyndall Wynne.

PANEL DECISION:


Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. DA18/1507 for alterations and additions to an

existing dwelling and construction of a spa at Lot A DP 163137, (195) Woolooware Road, Burraneer be


subject to the following amendments.

Condition 2A(ii) be amended to include the following sentence at the beginning of the condition:

“The proposed boatshed is not approved and shall be deleted from the plans (Reason: there is

no right to achieve a boatshed on every property, the boatshed locations are constrained by

natural features and the proposal would be contrary to objectives of Clause 6.9 of SLEP 2015,

particularly 6.9(1)(b),(d), (g) and (h)).”

Condition 2A (iii) be amended to state:

“The first floor of the proposed rumpus room shall be either deleted or redesigned so that the

eastern wall aligns with the eastern wall between the garage and gym below (being

approximately 4395mm from the eastern boundary). The roof area of this reduced area (i.e. the

roof of the gym) shall not be accessible and shall be either planted as a green roof or with

pebbles to match or complement the roof of the dwelling. No kitchen shall be installed in the

first floor (Reason: The proposed structure does not comply with the setback and is large and

prominent on the site and close to neighbours. The proposal is not lodged as a secondary

dwelling and does not comply with standards relating to that use, so no kitchen facilities should

be included).”


Subject to the above changes, the Panel considers the application to be satisfactory and generally

agreed with the assessment of other matters as outlined in the Council staff assessment report.

The Panel had regard to the applicant’s Clause 4.6 request regarding limited development in the

Foreshore Area development standard within Clause 6.9 of Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 and formed the

view the applicant’s written request satisfactorily addressed required matters within Clause 4.6(3) of the

LEP in relation to the additions to the principal dwelling only (not the boatshed). In regard to those


Page 10

aspects of the proposal, the Panel was satisfied that those proposed works were consistent with the

zone objectives and the objectives of the development standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance,

and granting consent was in the public interest. It was noted the works within the Foreshore Area

represented a relatively minor incursion and were behind the existing building line to the foreshore of

the dwelling, allowed reasonable climate regulation for the awning aspect (and replacement of

umbrellas), and was generally consistent with surrounding development.

However, the Panel was not supportive of the boatshed. There is no legal or other right to have a

boatshed on every site. This site is constrained by a prominent and significant rock face close to the

mean high water mark. Many of the objectives and provisions of Clause 6.9 of SLEP 2015 seek to

protect and enhance natural features and landform. That aspect of the proposal would be contrary to

objectives of Clause 6.9 of SLEP 2015, particularly 6.9(1)(b),(d),(g) and (h). The boatshed would not

accommodate the boat at the property and is for ancillary storage of watercraft and equipment. While a

benefit to the occupants of the dwelling, the impacts and adverse precedent outweighed such benefit.

The Panel also had regard to the applicant’s Clause 4.6 request regarding the minimum Landscaped

Area development standard within Clause 6.14 of Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 and formed the view the




interest. The landscaped area at the site is increasing, which will be further improved by the deletion of

the boatshed.

In terms of the proposed additions to the garage, the proposed ground level extension is reasonable

given the landform. However, the first floor addition and adjoining balcony is large and will be visually

prominent for adjoining neighbours to the north and west. The setback control is 4m from the west and

given the circumstances a greater setback complying with the setback control is reasonable. This will

still allow a very large rumpus room (around 40sqm) and ample balcony space which is oriented to the

site and would be reasonably setback from neighbours, with a design change.

In terms of consideration of community views, the Panel noted the written and verbal submissions and

generally agreed with the assessment of those submissions within the Council staff report.

VOTES


In accordance with the published Special Note from the Chair of the 17 December 2019 meeting,

Jason Perica vacated the Chair and a new Panel deliberated upon the matter, Chaired by Charles Hill.

Jason Perica then left the meeting and did not return.

Charles Hill assumed the Chair.


Page 11

SSLPP007-20 2019/351690 - Planning Proposal: 138-142 Cronulla Street, Cronulla

File Number: 2019/351690

Speaking against the proposal were Brett Daintry, Helen and Christof Mavropoulos, and Ted Manning.

Speaking for the proposal were Julie Grant, Steve Kennedy, Cameron Jones, and Allen Zammut.

BACKGROUND

The Panel has read the documentation provided by Council staff, visited the site, and been briefed by

Council staff on matters of particular interest.

The Panel was also addressed by representatives of the public, and were provided with a submission

prepared by Daintry Associates dated 16 January 2020, which was previously provided to the original

Panel. This submission raises a number of issues including, but not necessarily limited to parking, the

Voluntary Planning Agreement, overshadowing, heritage, and general amenity issues.

In that regard, the Panel in reviewing the Planning Proposal has had regard for the Guidelines for

Planning Proposals set out in Section 3.33 of the Act, including whether the proposal has strategic

merit, and the site specific merits, having regard for the criteria set out in those guidelines.

It should also be noted that any recommendation by the Panel, is by way of advice to the Council, to

assist Council in determining whether to proceed with the Planning Proposal.

Should the Council decide to proceed with the Planning Proposal, it is referred to the Planning Minister

or his delegate, to decide whether the planning proposal can proceed (with or without variation) and

subject to other matters including further studies being undertaken, public consultation, public hearings,

agency consultation and time frames.

It should be noted in particular that if the Planning Proposal is supported, it is publicly exhibited as

required by the Minister. A person making a submission may also request a public hearing be held.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

The majority of the Panel are of the opinion that the Planning Proposal for 138-142 Cronulla Street

Cronulla has strategic merit, as described in Council staff report.

Whilst the majority of the Panel supports conceptually the planning proposal, it has concerns in relation

to the significant increase in height from 25 metres to 50 metres, and an increase in the Floor Space

Ratio from 2:1 to 3.75:1, in the absence of a Council approved strategic plan and master planning for

this southern precinct, and the potential implications that the planning proposal might have on the

redevelopment of the remaining sites in this precinct without such a plan.


Page 12

The Council’s assessment report has also identified a number of negative consequences, which will

require further consideration, before proceeding to the Minister in accordance with Section 3.34 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Panel has noted in particular that growing the tourist potential at Cronulla, has been a long

standing economic goal of Council.

In that regard the majority of the Panel agrees with Council staff report that the planning proposal has

strategic merit, as it is consistent with a Planning Priority of the South District Plan, the draft Local

Strategic Planning Statement, and Council’s supporting Economic Strategy.

The majority of the Panel also agrees that the provision of commercial space and a hotel would most

likely facilitate employment and revitalisation to the southern end of Cronulla mall.

In terms of the site specific merits of the proposal, the Panel notes that a detailed Urban Design

Analysis provided by the applicant concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Council’s

SSDCP2015 strategy for Cronulla, with the bulk of the indicative form of the proposed building being

sited on the northern boundary located close to the station, and providing a transitional podium height.

The Panel also notes in particular that the proposed indicative building is not necessarily inconsistent

with the heights of existing buildings in this locality.

However, the proposed increase in height from 25 metres to 50 metres, and the increase in the Floor

Space Ratio from 2:1 to 3.75:1, will be a significant change to the southern precinct, and whilst the

Panel supports conceptually the planning proposal, it has concerns in relation to the absence of a

Council approved strategic plan and master planning for this southern precinct, and the potential

implications that the planning proposal might have on the redevelopment of the remaining sites in this

precinct, without such a plan.

In that regard the Panel has been advised that whilst Council has prioritised other centres for further

investigation such as Miranda and Sutherland, Cronulla has not been identified for further investigation

at this stage.

Given the constraints of the site, the majority of the Panel considers that there would be greater

strategic planning merit in a planning proposal for the full block, with provisions for amalgamation,

urban design, massing guidelines and controlled flexibility for a hotel(s), whilst balancing impacts upon

the park and urban form.


Page 13

There is also a shortfall in parking and concerns have been raised in relation to this. At the same time

there is a concern about the impact the development will have on traffic flows on roads that are already

highly constrained. The Panel also notes that demand generated by the commercial floor space will

generally occur outside the peak parking demand generated by the hospitality floor space. The site is

also constrained by a major sewer tunnel, making excavation for additional floors of car parking very

difficult to achieve.

However, further consideration should be given as to whether there are alternative options for the

provision of additional parking off site, and if necessary any proposed road works which might benefit

the community through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).

The Panel also notes the lack of detail in relation to the proposed VPA, and recommends that further

consideration be given as to the potential matters that might be included as part of the public interest,

as well as some indication as to how the proposed bonus provisions might be triggered, and the

community benefit arising from those bonuses. Representatives of the applicant were open to

discussions on the provision of matters that might be included in such an agreement.

In terms of potential overshadowing of Monro Park and the Anzac Memorial, it is critical that solar

access to the Park is carefully managed to ensure winter solar access is at an acceptable level, having

regard to other potential developments in this locality.

The Panel on the other hand also agrees that providing some flexibility to support an accommodation

hotel has merit, and maybe considered as part of the VPA.

A number of other issues were raised in the submission by Daintry Associates and other speakers,

related to such matters as roof top uses, the servicing of that use and or uses and potential conflicts

with residential use of the proposed building, future use constraints, potential impact on the heritage of

the Memorial, and views. The Panel is of the opinion that these are matters of local detail, which would

be more appropriately dealt with during the exhibition or at the development application stage, should

the Planning Proposal proceed.

The Community Representative however had a dissenting opinion regarding the proposal.

The Community Representative considers that the strategic merits of the proposal are not such that

they will facilitate the achievement to the maximum extent possible the objects of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act specifically object 1.3(c)-“to promote the orderly and economic use and

development of land”.

The Community representative considers that the proposal identifies a lack of redevelopment in the

Cronulla business centre that reflects the potential permitted under the current development controls


Page 14

introduced in SSLEP 2015. Hence it is argued that the aims of those development controls are not

being achieved at this time and need to be relaxed for the subject site in order to achieve those aims.

The proposal will create a high density anomaly in the Cronulla business centre. This may have the

effect of creating a precedent for other sites to argue for similar treatment. It may also potentially

suppress the redevelopment of the remaining sites in the precinct. This is not considered to be the

promotion of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

The site has a certain uniqueness given its location next to the station, Monro Park, southern entrance

to the mall and a major pedestrian beach access route. This uniqueness demands a high level of

detailed site design. On face value the current floor space and height controls for the site facilitate the

mitigation of potential impacts on matters such as traffic congestion, parking availability, heritage,

overshadowing and urban design.

VOTES:

Two for and one against.

The Meeting closed at 9:00pm.

Documents

Report of Meeting - Sutherland Shire · 2020. 1. 28. · replaced with an obscure glass balustrade to 1m above floor level on those northern balcony sides. This shall be detailed